yeah sure if you say so. did you actually read their report? usually helps to criticize based on evidence in the thing itself instead of speculation. it's quite interesting. their evaluations make sense and appear consistent, tho any of us might focus on some other details they did not.
Yes -- I did read the report (among other reports) which contained numerous red flags this report may have been funded by Apple which led to some investigation on my part.
Pfeiffer Reports appears to actually be a marketing firm. Feel free to read the following page in detail along with their list of clients -- including Apple:
You just know it: your product is better. It has that special something that can really make the difference.
But how do you show it? Good marketing will help. But good marketing is helpless if you cannot really quantify the characteristics that set your product apart from the bunch.
Including stock Android UI would have been interesting, but I doubt it would have changed the results much. For having used both, I'm expecting that it would score pretty near Samsung's version on all metrics. I'm more interested about the impartiality of the study; it would not be good to find out that it was indirectly financed by Apple funds.
I think you are confusing Apple with Samsung, who pays celebrities to dish Apple (caught comically making their anti-apple posts from their iPhones and iPads), and has been hiring students to post negative iPhone comments all over the net.
Yes -- I did read the report (among other reports) which contained numerous red flags this report may have been funded by Apple which led to some investigation on my part.
Pfeiffer Reports appears to actually be a marketing firm. Feel free to read the following page in detail along with their list of clients -- including Apple:
I could never use any Android device. It doesn't matter if an eight core model came out tomorrow. It'll be just as laggy, slow and unresponsive as all the rest. And I can definitely notice the difference between 50 and 100 milliseconds, and so can most Apple users. Hell, I can even notice the difference between 1 millisecond and 2 milliseconds, when it comes to audio.
All the specs in the world don't mean anything at all, when the user experience is crap and substandard. This is also why I'd never, ever hire a Fandroid who thinks that their device is smooth and fast, just like Apple's. They're either on drugs or their senses are so dulled, that they would be worthless to me.
I'll have to get back with you and let you know if I can notice the difference between 50 and 100 milliseconds and 1 and 2 milliseconds. My 5s will be here Thursday. My first iPhone. I'm switching from an S3 not because Android is bad but because I recently bought an Air laptop and now I want the phone for compatibility.
I am perfectly fine with Android and love the big screen on the S3... but I'll sacrifice it for compatibility and resale value. I know at this time next year selling my 64GB 5s will get me the next iPhone upgrade basically for free.
I can't wait to get my hands on my iPhone and iOS7 so I can find out if it's really the OMGWTFWOWZERSANDROIDSUXXORS experience that all the Apple fanbois make it out to be...
This seems like a ridiculously hard concept to design a test for and it not be biased toward whatever you learned first. How do they compensate for that?
Actually, the stock android UI is pretty good, in terms if speed, but everybody hates it or just want to make something to stand out. If there is a S4 with stock android, I think it will be par with iOS (I mean compare with almost 2x on-the-book spec of iOS).
Even the most superlative insult I can imagine doesn’t come close to expressing just how monumentally stupid you are. I am ashamed to share genetic material with you.
you still actually discussed none of their report's contents.
maybe they stacked the deck as you assume.
or maybe iOS is just better.
the answer lies in the contents themselves, not your innuendos.
I am merely pointing out it is appears to be a faux report funded by Apple based upon the evidence in my previous posts. I am not arguing whether Android or iOS is superior.
For the report, the benchmarks are laughably made-up and subjective by the so-called researchers.
"Cognitive Load" is based upon the number of applications, widgets and icons with a lower number being better. Therefore, a mobile operating system that merely boots into a blank screen will have the highest score. I think we just found our first problem with these benchmarks.
"Efficiency and Integration" has no indication how these numbers were derived. Where did these numbers come from?
"Customization" again has no indication how these numbers were derived. Android scored 7/10 which was only slightly higher than iOS 7. This should be completely baffling to even the most devote Apple fanatic given that users can completely reskin the UI, use widgets, third-party web browser renderers, etc. with Android. iOS 7 should not even come close to Android in Customization for a score.
"User Experience Friction" is incorrect when it states that Samsung's flavor of Android does not provide direct access to the camera on the lock screen. This can be toggled in Settings. Also, the overall number feels like the so-called researchers merely picked their own random complaints and assigned them weighted numbers. Were any people actually polled about mobile operating systems?
I had my first Windows experience with iOS today. I changed the font to bold in Accessibility and immediately iOS said that it needs to restart the phone to apply this!
Odd report that doesn't seem to be based on any users.
I think it also highlights how it is impossible to make an unbiased report. For example WP8 has scored lower because you cant put apps in folders. Why? Why would you want to? One of its features are apps are in a jump list si they don't need folders. In itunes have you ever wanted to sort your music into folders?
I increased the text size and also applied the Bold setting. Weird that my phone had to reboot for bold to take effect. That does help a little but I still can't help but miss the old green and blue bubbles with black text. Grey/Black and Green/white with a white background is really just ugly and also harder to read. I suppose I will get used to it since I don't have much of a choice until a jailbreak is released and I can change it. I don't see this color scheme for text messages lasting with iOS 8. It really wouldn't be that hard to just let us choose the colors we want which would be far better. I would also like a day and a night mode similar to Maps since I find all the white far more jarring at night.
Settings:General:Accessibility:Accessibility Shortcut, and choose Invert Colors. Gives you your night mode with a triple-click of the home button. Do again to restore to daytime.
I agree with the OP that said there should be a middle ground between flat and skeumorphic.
I'm speculating that Apple just might have put into place the ability in future updates to allow access to do just that with new shadow, darken/lighten, contrast sliders, as well as additional font preferences.
I got drawn here after this report came to me through different channels and i'm willing to toss the bone;
It's horribly biased.
But, i'm not just saying that. Before we all go down in rage with users looking up my username elsewhere on the net and dubbing me an android fanboy, but "we've" been unjustly been compared on multiple accounts and i'm willing to take up the bat in desperate hope we may finally have a real test for devices/mobile os-es which the users can read and mobile-development enthusiasts can talk about, without having to know the source for validity.
First of all, allow me to quote the following statement;
Quote:
According to Pfeiffer, the test methodology attempts to eliminate as many subjective variables ? like brand loyalty or perception ? as possible, looking only at objective "aspects that have a direct impact on the day-to-day user experience of an average, non-technical user."
The comparison throws in stock iOS'es against Samsung's implementation of Android.
If we do not take into account brand loyalty then why;
- Do we also include a previous iOS
- Do we include a Samsung-customised OS? (if someone is not brand-loyal by definition, we could assume this would be the Google implementation that's running on the device)
- Do we include a previous version OS if we first claim to compare current OS-es, but don't include different vendor implementations of another OS. (i.e. Sony's android customisation or the Google Edition)
in my opinion it would've only been fair to;
Either compare to the Google/AOSP version, or both. (even just to prevent the possibility that something could be biased)
The next problem with the test is;
All pages tell you to read the PDF for full details, but i only see resulting graphs. no methodicals of testing or true criteria are told of.
The problem with this is; results can't be verified/reproduced by a third party.
The next problem I have with this test is;
Why do we include a subcategory customisation, and after that have Windows Phone's UXF affected by this previous result, but not the other phones, even though all phones will in any aspect differ in level of customisation. UXF should only address issues where a user can expect different behaviour too, and the "in-customisability" of windows phone is even better known then the "in-customisability" of the way-older iOS versions. so the user should already not expect this behaviour of customisability.
Also, taking into account accessibility options as a plus for Customisation is a bias, it's supposed to be part of the efficiency and integration rating (Efficiency, specifically). and the fact that there's not even a mention of which functions are noted as apparent or absent doesn't help things the least. Also, i thought we were comparing an average user, thus rendering accessibility options a no-no to compare non-seperately.
Also, not listing which functions are accounted for as apparent or absent and how they are taken into account, biases the result.
Another problem i have with the test is;
When we talk about Efficiency and integration the following is written in a way that says it's a negative aspect:
"Samsung's Android implementation offers mature but slightly overwhelming efficiency and integration options."
however having more efficiency and integration options can't be a downside when that's what we're looking for.
Especially the direct acces to the camera part further down that section is a sting in the eye, for the Google-Edition and AOSP versions -do- have this functionality and i feel like these versions have deliberately not been chosen even more strongly because of that single argument, along with the cognitive load.
Example; if android would not have voice commands, but iOS would lack text-to-speech, which is more important? (exactly; that depends on the user.)
And the last problem i have with the test is;
The test is designed to deliver a certain outcome and not to research a difference. To more clearly illustrate this, ill abstract it;
This test can be read along the lines of "We are going to research how much more calories are in sugar, compared to other additives" (except they're doing this with the amount of calories and a few specific other values).
An unbiased test would be read along the lines of "We are going to research the different impacts on one's health between sugar and other additives."
in the first test, sugar will turn out to be the worst. for it has many calories compared to pretty much any other (artificial) sweetening.
In the other, sugar would turn out to be "not so bad", for it has more calories, which would potentially make you fat more quickly, however some of the sweeteners have more severe side-effects.
Like the first test; the fans of iOS 7 have "proof" their choice is better, while remaining uninformed.
however if we would've had the second test, we'd actually have something to measure our different platforms against and even understand why the result is so.
Now, i hope there are more users willing to stick this up to big and noticeable places so we might get finally get reports that are worth something other then the funding companies' marketing money. Post it on facebook or whatnot, quote me even challenging wether what i stated here is true (go ahead, if i'm wrong i'd rather find out.), but let's set things in motion.
As a comparison i also looked into their 3dsMax pdf's, as i've been a hobbyist 3d-illustrator for quite a while(and while i own a copy of Max, i'm more "fan" of Cinema4D) and thus can more easily can attempt to verify authenticity. Those articles seem a lot less biased, for they at least show a way in which they can be compared/verified by a third party...
Also, i'm wondering if i'm the only person that's so sick and tired of biased "researches" everywhere, that there should a way to correctly list them as fraudulent so in due time the sources would no longer be visited thanks to ruining their name.
Much so like the touch-screen test which was basically a measure between the iPhone's hardware-based reaction time versus another touchscreen sensor's hardware (admittedly) but blatantly compared to an android device running the java implementation, thus including the UI (which is still software) within the benched time...
They had correctly stated this difference in the article (after mention of a few early birds), but reactions of users who stated that they did not understand why for the android test native C hadn't been used have been left unanswered or removed as far as i can find...
Since things are headed that direction; how can we, the commoner, fight the bias for our own sake?
So, in good hopes, let's start the constructive criticism!
Not to mention the highest issue with the report is that usability cant be measured, it can only be experienced.
Trying to examine individual components of a phone is meaningless as its how the complete package is put together that makes it usable.
Direct iPhone ports to Windows Phone do badly, there bot user friendly. But that doesn't meant there not user friendly on an iphone.
One problem is what in the world was even measured. Android got a score of 7 for Customization while iOS 6 got a 6. Where did these numbers come from? What was the criteria? These scores imply to me that iOS 7 is nearly as customizable as Android which is straight up untrue.
"Cognitive Load" merely measures the number of apps, widgets and icons. Less equals a higher score. However, it does not factor in the usefulness of these apps, widgets and icons. So, technically, a bricked phone will yield the best score possible. Fail.
iOS 6 and iOS 7 look vastly different, Barely anyone knows stock Android, Sammy's Android is more well known
Saying "Sammy's android is more well known" in defence is downright fallacy and childish, for choosing it still biases the comparison due to the criteria we're after.
Now do this same survey with someone who bought an Android phone 2 years ago and can't get it updated to Jelly Bean. Android is such a joke since all those Samdung S4 that were sold recently will be running on an outdated OS when KitKat releases in a few months.
Is that remark just because iPhone4 users still can upgrade to iOS7 (even though iPhone3 users can't?) You're creating a difference that doesn't excist...
First of all; talking about hardware capabilities the iPhones barely differ when comparing directly following versions to each-other (i.e. comparing a iPhone3s with iPhone4) , so you'd better still be able to update the software since the hardware barely changed.
in android that's a whole, whole, WHOLE difference.
But, nevertheless, your argument is still busted.
Remember the Samsung Galaxy SII? There's an OTA update to android 4.1 (which is JellyBean) and it has been on-sale for over 2 years. Even LG has been rumoured to have started updated their devices, and they have one of the worst reputations if it comes to that.
Comments
yeah sure if you say so. did you actually read their report? usually helps to criticize based on evidence in the thing itself instead of speculation. it's quite interesting. their evaluations make sense and appear consistent, tho any of us might focus on some other details they did not.
Yes -- I did read the report (among other reports) which contained numerous red flags this report may have been funded by Apple which led to some investigation on my part.
Pfeiffer Reports appears to actually be a marketing firm. Feel free to read the following page in detail along with their list of clients -- including Apple:
http://pfeifferreport.com/research-services.html
But how do you show it? Good marketing will help. But good marketing is helpless if you cannot really quantify the characteristics that set your product apart from the bunch.
Or, how about their About Us page:
http://pfeifferreport.com/about-us.html
If you glanced at Pfeiffer Report's home page, it lists their clients as well.
Clients (listed at bottom, Apple second on the list):
http://www.pfeifferreport.com/
Reports (all reports appear to be in favor of the clients):
http://www.pfeifferreport.com/v2/downloads/
I think you are confusing Apple with Samsung, who pays celebrities to dish Apple (caught comically making their anti-apple posts from their iPhones and iPads), and has been hiring students to post negative iPhone comments all over the net.
Yes -- I did read the report (among other reports) which contained numerous red flags this report may have been funded by Apple which led to some investigation on my part.
Pfeiffer Reports appears to actually be a marketing firm. Feel free to read the following page in detail along with their list of clients -- including Apple:
http://pfeifferreport.com/research-services.html
Or, how about their About Us page:
http://pfeifferreport.com/about-us.html
If you glanced at Pfeiffer Report's home page, it lists their clients as well.
Clients (listed at bottom, Apple second on the list):
http://www.pfeifferreport.com/
Reports (all reports appear to be in favor of the clients):
http://www.pfeifferreport.com/v2/downloads/
you still actually discussed none of their report's contents.
I could never use any Android device. It doesn't matter if an eight core model came out tomorrow. It'll be just as laggy, slow and unresponsive as all the rest. And I can definitely notice the difference between 50 and 100 milliseconds, and so can most Apple users. Hell, I can even notice the difference between 1 millisecond and 2 milliseconds, when it comes to audio.
All the specs in the world don't mean anything at all, when the user experience is crap and substandard. This is also why I'd never, ever hire a Fandroid who thinks that their device is smooth and fast, just like Apple's. They're either on drugs or their senses are so dulled, that they would be worthless to me.
I'll have to get back with you and let you know if I can notice the difference between 50 and 100 milliseconds and 1 and 2 milliseconds. My 5s will be here Thursday. My first iPhone. I'm switching from an S3 not because Android is bad but because I recently bought an Air laptop and now I want the phone for compatibility.
I am perfectly fine with Android and love the big screen on the S3... but I'll sacrifice it for compatibility and resale value. I know at this time next year selling my 64GB 5s will get me the next iPhone upgrade basically for free.
I can't wait to get my hands on my iPhone and iOS7 so I can find out if it's really the OMGWTFWOWZERSANDROIDSUXXORS experience that all the Apple fanbois make it out to be...
Stay tuned for an update.
This seems like a ridiculously hard concept to design a test for and it not be biased toward whatever you learned first. How do they compensate for that?
Actually, the stock android UI is pretty good, in terms if speed, but everybody hates it or just want to make something to stand out. If there is a S4 with stock android, I think it will be par with iOS (I mean compare with almost 2x on-the-book spec of iOS).
There's the google edition of the S4 (https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Samsung_Galaxy_S_4?id=samsung_galaxy_s4&hl=en).
Knock yourself out buddy. I don't think anybody cares.
Knock yourself out buddy. I don't think anybody cares.
... but I was hoping the fanboi who can detect a WHOLE millisecond would!
He should quit his Apple job and go work for NASA.
Even the most superlative insult I can imagine doesn’t come close to expressing just how monumentally stupid you are. I am ashamed to share genetic material with you.
you still actually discussed none of their report's contents.
I am merely pointing out it is appears to be a faux report funded by Apple based upon the evidence in my previous posts. I am not arguing whether Android or iOS is superior.
For the report, the benchmarks are laughably made-up and subjective by the so-called researchers.
"Cognitive Load" is based upon the number of applications, widgets and icons with a lower number being better. Therefore, a mobile operating system that merely boots into a blank screen will have the highest score. I think we just found our first problem with these benchmarks.
"Efficiency and Integration" has no indication how these numbers were derived. Where did these numbers come from?
"Customization" again has no indication how these numbers were derived. Android scored 7/10 which was only slightly higher than iOS 7. This should be completely baffling to even the most devote Apple fanatic given that users can completely reskin the UI, use widgets, third-party web browser renderers, etc. with Android. iOS 7 should not even come close to Android in Customization for a score.
"User Experience Friction" is incorrect when it states that Samsung's flavor of Android does not provide direct access to the camera on the lock screen. This can be toggled in Settings. Also, the overall number feels like the so-called researchers merely picked their own random complaints and assigned them weighted numbers. Were any people actually polled about mobile operating systems?
Of course, the restart took less than 5 seconds.
I think it also highlights how it is impossible to make an unbiased report. For example WP8 has scored lower because you cant put apps in folders. Why? Why would you want to? One of its features are apps are in a jump list si they don't need folders. In itunes have you ever wanted to sort your music into folders?
I increased the text size and also applied the Bold setting. Weird that my phone had to reboot for bold to take effect. That does help a little but I still can't help but miss the old green and blue bubbles with black text. Grey/Black and Green/white with a white background is really just ugly and also harder to read. I suppose I will get used to it since I don't have much of a choice until a jailbreak is released and I can change it. I don't see this color scheme for text messages lasting with iOS 8. It really wouldn't be that hard to just let us choose the colors we want which would be far better. I would also like a day and a night mode similar to Maps since I find all the white far more jarring at night.
Settings:General:Accessibility:Accessibility Shortcut, and choose Invert Colors. Gives you your night mode with a triple-click of the home button. Do again to restore to daytime.
A nice side-by-side comparison of ~100 apps = https://tapfame.com/ios7/
I agree with the OP that said there should be a middle ground between flat and skeumorphic.
I'm speculating that Apple just might have put into place the ability in future updates to allow access to do just that with new shadow, darken/lighten, contrast sliders, as well as additional font preferences.
I got drawn here after this report came to me through different channels and i'm willing to toss the bone;
It's horribly biased.
But, i'm not just saying that. Before we all go down in rage with users looking up my username elsewhere on the net and dubbing me an android fanboy, but "we've" been unjustly been compared on multiple accounts and i'm willing to take up the bat in desperate hope we may finally have a real test for devices/mobile os-es which the users can read and mobile-development enthusiasts can talk about, without having to know the source for validity.
First of all, allow me to quote the following statement;
The comparison throws in stock iOS'es against Samsung's implementation of Android.
If we do not take into account brand loyalty then why;
- Do we also include a previous iOS
- Do we include a Samsung-customised OS? (if someone is not brand-loyal by definition, we could assume this would be the Google implementation that's running on the device)
- Do we include a previous version OS if we first claim to compare current OS-es, but don't include different vendor implementations of another OS. (i.e. Sony's android customisation or the Google Edition)
in my opinion it would've only been fair to;
Either compare to the Google/AOSP version, or both. (even just to prevent the possibility that something could be biased)
The next problem with the test is;
All pages tell you to read the PDF for full details, but i only see resulting graphs. no methodicals of testing or true criteria are told of.
The problem with this is; results can't be verified/reproduced by a third party.
The next problem I have with this test is;
Why do we include a subcategory customisation, and after that have Windows Phone's UXF affected by this previous result, but not the other phones, even though all phones will in any aspect differ in level of customisation. UXF should only address issues where a user can expect different behaviour too, and the "in-customisability" of windows phone is even better known then the "in-customisability" of the way-older iOS versions. so the user should already not expect this behaviour of customisability.
Also, taking into account accessibility options as a plus for Customisation is a bias, it's supposed to be part of the efficiency and integration rating (Efficiency, specifically). and the fact that there's not even a mention of which functions are noted as apparent or absent doesn't help things the least. Also, i thought we were comparing an average user, thus rendering accessibility options a no-no to compare non-seperately.
Also, not listing which functions are accounted for as apparent or absent and how they are taken into account, biases the result.
Another problem i have with the test is;
When we talk about Efficiency and integration the following is written in a way that says it's a negative aspect:
"Samsung's Android implementation offers mature but slightly overwhelming efficiency and integration options."
however having more efficiency and integration options can't be a downside when that's what we're looking for.
Especially the direct acces to the camera part further down that section is a sting in the eye, for the Google-Edition and AOSP versions -do- have this functionality and i feel like these versions have deliberately not been chosen even more strongly because of that single argument, along with the cognitive load.
Example; if android would not have voice commands, but iOS would lack text-to-speech, which is more important? (exactly; that depends on the user.)
And the last problem i have with the test is;
The test is designed to deliver a certain outcome and not to research a difference. To more clearly illustrate this, ill abstract it;
This test can be read along the lines of "We are going to research how much more calories are in sugar, compared to other additives" (except they're doing this with the amount of calories and a few specific other values).
An unbiased test would be read along the lines of "We are going to research the different impacts on one's health between sugar and other additives."
in the first test, sugar will turn out to be the worst. for it has many calories compared to pretty much any other (artificial) sweetening.
In the other, sugar would turn out to be "not so bad", for it has more calories, which would potentially make you fat more quickly, however some of the sweeteners have more severe side-effects.
Like the first test; the fans of iOS 7 have "proof" their choice is better, while remaining uninformed.
however if we would've had the second test, we'd actually have something to measure our different platforms against and even understand why the result is so.
Now, i hope there are more users willing to stick this up to big and noticeable places so we might get finally get reports that are worth something other then the funding companies' marketing money. Post it on facebook or whatnot, quote me even challenging wether what i stated here is true (go ahead, if i'm wrong i'd rather find out.), but let's set things in motion.
As a comparison i also looked into their 3dsMax pdf's, as i've been a hobbyist 3d-illustrator for quite a while(and while i own a copy of Max, i'm more "fan" of Cinema4D) and thus can more easily can attempt to verify authenticity. Those articles seem a lot less biased, for they at least show a way in which they can be compared/verified by a third party...
Also, i'm wondering if i'm the only person that's so sick and tired of biased "researches" everywhere, that there should a way to correctly list them as fraudulent so in due time the sources would no longer be visited thanks to ruining their name.
Much so like the touch-screen test which was basically a measure between the iPhone's hardware-based reaction time versus another touchscreen sensor's hardware (admittedly) but blatantly compared to an android device running the java implementation, thus including the UI (which is still software) within the benched time...
They had correctly stated this difference in the article (after mention of a few early birds), but reactions of users who stated that they did not understand why for the android test native C hadn't been used have been left unanswered or removed as far as i can find...
Since things are headed that direction; how can we, the commoner, fight the bias for our own sake?
So, in good hopes, let's start the constructive criticism!
Trying to examine individual components of a phone is meaningless as its how the complete package is put together that makes it usable.
Direct iPhone ports to Windows Phone do badly, there bot user friendly. But that doesn't meant there not user friendly on an iphone.
Not to mention the highest issue with the report is that usability cant be measured, it can only be experienced.
Trying to examine individual components of a phone is meaningless as its how the complete package is put together that makes it usable.
Direct iPhone ports to Windows Phone do badly, there bot user friendly. But that doesn't meant there not user friendly on an iphone.
One problem is what in the world was even measured. Android got a score of 7 for Customization while iOS 6 got a 6. Where did these numbers come from? What was the criteria? These scores imply to me that iOS 7 is nearly as customizable as Android which is straight up untrue.
"Cognitive Load" merely measures the number of apps, widgets and icons. Less equals a higher score. However, it does not factor in the usefulness of these apps, widgets and icons. So, technically, a bricked phone will yield the best score possible. Fail.
iOS 6 and iOS 7 look vastly different, Barely anyone knows stock Android, Sammy's Android is more well known
Saying "Sammy's android is more well known" in defence is downright fallacy and childish, for choosing it still biases the comparison due to the criteria we're after.
Now do this same survey with someone who bought an Android phone 2 years ago and can't get it updated to Jelly Bean. Android is such a joke since all those Samdung S4 that were sold recently will be running on an outdated OS when KitKat releases in a few months.
Is that remark just because iPhone4 users still can upgrade to iOS7 (even though iPhone3 users can't?) You're creating a difference that doesn't excist...
First of all; talking about hardware capabilities the iPhones barely differ when comparing directly following versions to each-other (i.e. comparing a iPhone3s with iPhone4) , so you'd better still be able to update the software since the hardware barely changed.
in android that's a whole, whole, WHOLE difference.
But, nevertheless, your argument is still busted.
Remember the Samsung Galaxy SII? There's an OTA update to android 4.1 (which is JellyBean) and it has been on-sale for over 2 years. Even LG has been rumoured to have started updated their devices, and they have one of the worst reputations if it comes to that.