Everyone is missing the why here, this only happens because the whole stack is vertically integrated. Even if say LG wanted to make a box like this and update it for 10 years they couldn’t, they don’t make the chips. Qualcomm straight up refuses to support chips through this many Android releases. Even if device manufacturers want to support devices forever it won’t matter if the actual SoC platform drops support.
While the vertical integration is definitely the best way to get it done, it's not strictly required as long as there is good enough documentation for a platform. Linux originally supported Intel without any Intel engineers even knowing it existed.
Also consider Apple's chips, which have gotten Linux support without Apple ever submitting a single line of code.
While Qualcomm's behaviour is definitely a massive bummer (not to mention Qualcomm's competitors), it doesn't stop manufacturers from supporting their devices. It merely stops maintaining support from being cheap and easy.
Not only that, "vertical integration" is a red herring. If you had a "vertically integrated" device made entirely by Qualcomm and they stopped supporting it after 3 years then the vertical integration buys you nothing. The actual problem is that Qualcomm sucks.
> Linux originally supported Intel without any Intel engineers even knowing it existed.
It should be noted that Intel makes CPUs, while Qualcomm makes SoCs, which include much more than just a CPU. Usually supporting the CPU is the easiest part, the rest is the issue.
That said, when device OEMs release the kernel sources, modders are able to update custom roms for a long time, so I doubt this is just a Qualcomm issue.
> It should be noted that Intel makes CPUs, while Qualcomm makes SoCs, which include much more than just a CPU. Usually supporting the CPU is the easiest part, the rest is the issue.
Here's a random 15 year old Intel PC (you can also do this on many current ones):
Every piece of silicon in it is made by Intel and most of them, including the GPU, are integrated into the CPU. And it's all supported by current Linux kernels. The same is true for many AMD systems except that you'll usually see a third party network or storage controller which is itself still supported.So no, it's a Qualcomm problem.
They update the roms while keeping everything provided by Qualcomm the same
so basically the kernel is frozen even if the android version is updated
The kernel is usually frozen but sometimes projects like PostmarketOS can use the changes to upstream the changes and add general Linux support.
Anyone can make a diff between the upstream kernel and the Qualcomm kernel. Maintaining these changes into later versions of the kernel will be quite challenging, but the base is already there.
That said, phones also come with plenty of binary drivers and those cannot be ported. That's an important reason not to bother with later kernel versions in custom ROMs: after all of your hard work, the end result will be missing important features such as GPU acceleration.
What do you think are the reasons pc's don't need Dell xps 13 9350 Windows and Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 6 Linux and so on but phones need Galaxy S26 Linux, Xiaomi 16 Linux and so on?
Because ARM lacks some of the device auto-discovery features that amd64 provides for free, unless you're lucky and use a device with ACPI+DSDTs on ARM. You need a special build for the hardware, but you don't need to alter the source code.
Custom kernels also exist for amd64 devices, often including workarounds and patches that are not in mainline to improve performance or compatibility.
As a vendor, that requires practically zero extra effort.
https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices has a list of devices that run either mainline or almost-mainline Linux. Only the "downstream" devices require vendor Linux kernels. Of course, hardware support is partial for most of these devices because vendors haven't contributed proper upstreamable drivers and volunteers haven't had the time to write them yet, but it's not like every ARM device needs a special kernel fork, that's just something ARM vendors do out of laziness.
> Even if device manufacturers want to support devices forever it won’t matter if the actual SoC platform drops support.
Yeah, so that's not a why, that's a how (and it's not necessary or sufficient anymore, see the Samsung and Pixel reference).
The why seems very much what the article covers.
Yet Microsoft figured this out decades ago.
I (well my mom) had a supported with security updates version of Windows 7 on my 2007 Mac Mini (not a typo) until 2023.
That was from when Macs ran Intel and could easily dual boot Windows. I still have an old Mac Book Pro with Windows 10 on it. Updates only stopped recently because Win10 is at end of life. I've been meaning to blow everything out and install Linux.
I am giving props to Microsoft because it did wrangle an industry together to standardize where one company makes the operating system and other companies make the hardware yet you can still upgrade your operating system even without the support of the vendor.
Yet Google can’t seem to make that happen.
because google doesnt deliver the full OS, it delivers a bunch of stuff that the vendors then bastardize and use with insane drivers and crap from SoC vendors.
they should NEVER accept any of the binary only crap drivers, they should demand code be upstream or wont buy. But they dont care. Google doesnt care.
> Qualcomm straight up refuses to support chips through this many Android releases.
That's not entirely accurate. They do provide chips with extended support, such as the QCM6490 in the Fairphone 5. These are not popular because most of the market demands high performance, and companies profit from churning out products every year, but solutions exist for consumers who value stability and reliability over chasing trends and specs.
If you read the article the actual "why" is because the CEO personally requested it and gave an effectively unlimited budget.
No need to be rude. The person above is adding a new insight to the conversation.
Vertical integration makes it possible but motivation makes it happen. Where is Samsung's ultra LTS Exynos device?
I think it's more a combination of vertical integration and Nvidia upper management actually wanting to provide support for so long. Apple, Google, and Samsung all make smartphones with their own chips, and yet none of them support running the newest OS on 10+ year old devices.
I have to wonder if the Nintendo Switch picking up the Tegra X1 SOC has something to do with it. There's a good chance a lot of components of the (custom microkernel) operating system are derived from Android, and with the Switch receiving active support for so long, I wouldn't be surprised if the work between the Shield TV and Switch are related.
With the Switch being shipped for nearly 10 years, it pales in comparison to the shelf life of most any processor Apple, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek (?) push out.
Though Apple in particular is interesting, as their Apple TV lineup also has the same long legs, with the Apple TV HD/4th Gen releasing in 2015 and receiving the latest OS.
Qualcomm's industrial ARM SoC are supported for nearly 10 years: Qualcomm QCM6490 in Fairphone 5 gets 8 years security updates.
It is called a legal binding contract, business use it all the time to enforce support.
Contracts can be broken and resolved with money. Happens all the time.
Yes, and lawsuits do exist as well.
Point being, blame lies not only on Qualcomm as Google advocates tend to point out.