Android 13 Upgrade Report Card: Surprise!

It’s funny how much a popular narrative can differ from reality once you start bringing cold, hard data into the equation.

Over the past couple years, Samsung has worked hard to improve its reputation as a reliable provider of software updates in the Android arena. And to be sure, it’s made some meaningful strides along the way.

But when you go beyond the broad impressions and objectively measure the company’s commitment to timely Android operating system rollouts — well, the story gets a teensy bit more complicated.

That’s precisely why I started doing these Android Upgrade Report Cards way back in the platform’s prehistoric ages. From the get-go, we’ve seen some wild variance in how well different device-makers support their products after you’ve finished paying for ’em — and as an average phone-owner, there’s no great way to know what’s gonna happens six months or a year after you shell out your dollars for a top-of-the-line phone.

It’s in part just par for the course with the nature of Android as a platform. The operating system is open source, and that means each device-maker can modify it how they want (for better or sometimes for worse). And consequently, that means the responsibility falls on each company’s shoulders to process every new incoming Android version and get it out to its customers.

[Get level-headed knowledge in your inbox with my free Android Intelligence newsletter. Three things to know and three things to try every Friday — straight from me to you.]

While we can’t control the level of care and commitment each company puts into that process, we can control our own knowledge about how much different device-makers prioritize post-sales support. That way, you can at least have the context you need to make an educated decision about which phone is right for you — not just for the first few weeks that you own it but for the entire two-, three-, or maybe even four-year period that you’re likely to carry it around.

Now that we’re six months past the launch of Android 13, it’s time to step back and look at who’s making upgrades a priority and who’s treating ’em as an afterthought. Only you can decide how much this info matters to you (hint: It oughta matter — a lot), but whether you find post-sales software support to be a top priority or an irrelevant asterisk, you deserve to be armed with all the data that empowers you to make fully informed future buying decisions.

Want the full nitty-gritty on how these grades were calculated? You can find a detailed breakdown of the formula and every element taken into account at the very end of this article.

Google

JR

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: 0 days (50/50 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: 0 days (25/25 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: 0 days (15/15 points)
• Communication: Excellent (10/10 points)

Perhaps the least surprising part of this year’s analysis is the part that’s almost always consistent: Google’s at the tippity-top of the pack with its unmatched commitment to providing timely and reliable Android updates on its own self-made Pixel phones — and for actually following through on that promise.

Following an unusual slight delay with the start of its rollout last year, Google was back to its typical habit of sending out the latest Android update to Pixels on the very same day the software was released.

(For the purposes of this analysis, by the way, it’s the start of a rollout — to a flagship phone model in the US — that counts, as you can read about in more detail here.)

What’s most impressive, though, is the fact that Google treats all of its phones as equals — meaning even if you own a previous-gen device or a lower-priced Pixel “a” model, you still get major updates like Android 13 at the same time as the current-gen flagship phone owners. That’s a sharp contrast to the way every other device-maker handles its lineup, and it’s the way things very much ought to be.

And while Google’s usual “rolling out in waves” asterisk always applies to a certain degree, with some Pixel owners not receiving the software on that very first day, Android 13 made its way to all supported Pixel devices within a reasonable amount of time and without the need for any extra communication beyond the company’s initial announcement.

For the standard caveat here: Sure, we could argue that Google has a unique advantage in that it’s both the manufacturer of the devices and the maker of the software — but guess what? That’s part of the Pixel package. And as a person purchasing a phone, the only thing that really matters is the experience you receive.

And as usual, the results tell you all there is to know: Google’s phones are without a doubt the most reliable way to receive ongoing updates in a timely manner on Android. The company could (and most certainly should) start supporting its phones for longer, especially as other players in the ecosystem extend to four full years of operating system updates in comparison to Google’s three — but in terms of timeliness, Google’s the only company that makes an explicit guarantee about upgrade deliveries as a part of its devices’ purchasing package, and it’s absolutely the only one that consistently delivers on that front, every single year.

OnePlus

JR

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: 38 days (46/50 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: 120 days (19/25 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: 88 days (12/15 points)
• Communication: Poor (0/10 points)

Expecting to see someone else in this second place spot? Or maybe expecting to see a slightly stronger score in our silver-medal position? Well, surprise — times two!

If there’s one constant with OnePlus, it’s a complete lack of consistency when it comes to its Android upgrade performance. The company did admirably well for a while, then it had an embarrassingly bad flop of a year with Android 11 in 2020.

Last year, it recovered and started to move back in the right direction with its Android 12 efforts — though it still came into only solid “C” territory and didn’t come close to matching its earlier success.

Now, with Android 13, the company’s flipping and flopping a little but ending up in the same general range of mediocrity as what we saw in the last upgrade cycle. OnePlus actually did decently well with its current-gen flagship, the OnePlus 10 Pro (which, confusingly, does not have a non-Pro equivalent). Owners of that device got Android 13 in their hands just over a month after the software’s release, which isn’t bad at all and is a significant step forward from what happened with OnePlus’s current-gen model last time.

But where the company fell flat was in its handling of previous-gen flagship phones — a frustratingly common challenge for OnePlus as of late. Its most recent previous-gen phone, the OnePlus 10T, waited a whopping 120 days to get its Android 13 update, while the two-cycles-back flagships in the OnePlus 9 series waited for a weirdly less bad but still not spectacular 88 days to see the software.

All in all, it’s just not a great result — and adding insult to injury is the fact that OnePlus provided virtually no communication along the way and no manner of guidance to its top-paying customers about what was going on and when they could expect Android 13 to arrive.

Most surprising of all, though, is the fact that this middling effort came in ahead of the next phone-maker on our list.

Samsung

JR

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: 86 days (41/50 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: 105 days (20/25 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: 104 days (12/15 points)
• Communication: Poor (0/10 points)

So here it is: If you read much tech news, you’re probably under the impression that Samsung is absolutely killing it when it comes to Android upgrade deliveries. And to be fair, that’s not entirely wrong.

The company is doing an admirable job of supporting its sprawling lineup of Android devices for longer than ever, with most flagships now receiving a full four years of operating system updates — a year more than even Google is guaranteeing with its Pixel products.

But when it comes to timeliness, Samsung isn’t such a shining star.

The company actually slipped a bit from last year in its delivery time for its current-gen flagships (which, for the purpose of this analysis, are considered to be the Galaxy S22 and Galaxy Z Fold 4, since Samsung has made it clear that it’s been viewing those two device lines as equal-footing flagship products since 2021). It did worse with its most previous-gen devices, too, falling to 105 days with its 2021 phone pair and coming in at 104 days for its top two 2020 phones (the Galaxy S20 and Galaxy Note 20, in that final year before Samsung switched its primary emphasis from the Note line to the Fold line as a co-flagship product).

Between that substantial drop in performance — particularly on the current flagship front — and the company’s unfortunate return to its typical approach of keeping customers completely in the dark about its progress along the way, Samsung slipped back from its brief flirtation with a “B” grade last year into firm “C” territory and a firmly middling result for its Android 13 efforts.

It’s easy to score a positive headline with one token rollout, but once you start looking at a company’s complete performance, across the board, the story isn’t always so simple.

And — exasperated sigh — things only get worse from here.

NEXT PAGE: How the mighty have fallen

Motorola

JR

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagships: Still waiting (0/50 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagships: Still waiting (0/25 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back flagships: Still waiting (0/15 points)
• Communication: Poor (1/10 points)

I’m running out of creative ways to say this: Motorola simply does not care about updates. It makes little to no effort to support its customers with reasonably up-to-date software after a purchase has been made, and we see the same exact story year after year. After year.

As of this moment (and as per usual), Motorola has yet to roll out a single Android 13 upgrade to any flagship phone in the US — or anywhere, for that matter. Motorola’s message here has been painfully consistent over the past several years: If you buy a Moto phone, you’re gonna be waiting a good long while to get current software, if you ever get it — and you’re gonna be waiting in the dark, too, with no meaningful communication from the company about what’s going on or when you can expect to see any progress.

On the latter front, back in December, the company provided a super-vague list of which devices should be getting the software sometime “in early 2023,” as part of a scattered series of responses to questions in its user forum — not much of a widespread update, really, and not much in the way of meaningful information. It’s something, in terms of communication. But just barely.

It’s enough to get Motorola a single barely-there-effort point, though, leading to that appropriately pitiful-looking 1% F score.

Such a disappointing devolution for a once-mighty Android contender.

Wait — what about everyone else?

Notice any names missing from this list? For the second year now, long-time Android regular LG is absent from the roster, as the company bowed out of the phone-making game entirely in 2021 and is no longer relevant. Hey, that’s one less reliably failing score to track and report, at least! (And for the record, yes: If we were still including it in this analysis, by way of its lingering and still-technically-supported flagship models, it would be doing predictably poorly.)

HTC has been off the grid since 2021’s Report Card, given the fact that it’s barely even putting out new phones anymore — certainly not flagship-level devices. If the company ever comes back around and attempts to get in the game again at any point, I’ll eagerly add it back into the list for inclusion.

And then there’s Sony — a company a random reader will ask me about on occasion but that just doesn’t make sense to include in this list right now. Sony has never had much of a meaningful presence in the US smartphone market (which is a shame, really — but that’s another story for another time), and in recent years, its role in the US mobile market has dropped from “barely anything” to “virtually nothing.”

I can’t even begin to make head or tails of Sony’s convoluted, confusingly named phone lineup anymore, but the company sent out the bulk of its Android 13 upgrades out in mid-December —  some120 days after the software’s launch. It certainly wouldn’t be topping the list if it were included in this analysis, but it’d be another addition to the middle-of-the-pack, C-range section if it had any meaningful US presence.

What about Nokia? That company has a fairly limited presence in the US, but it had generally done a solid job of keeping its phones updated with both major and minor OS releases and with monthly security patches up until 2021, when Google’s Android One program started quietly falling apart. These days, Nokia’s taking its good sweet time to get current software onto its devices, and even if it were included in this analysis, it wouldn’t be a great result.

Last but not least, there’s Nothing — the hype-loving small-scale phone-maker from OnePlus founder Carl Pei. Nothing hasn’t released a phone in the US yet, but even if it had, the company has done (ahem) precisely nothing in terms of Android 13 rollouts as of this moment, so it’d be sitting with a big fat donut-shaped oval at the bottom of the list.

Don’t let yourself miss a thing: Sign up for my free weekly newsletter to get next-level tips and Googley insight delivered directly to your inbox.

In detail: How these grades were calculated

This Android Upgrade Report Card follows an evolved version of the same grading system used with previous years’ analyses — which features precise and clearly defined standards designed to weigh performance for both current and previous-generation flagship phones along with a company’s communication efforts, all in a consistent and completely objective manner.

Each manufacturer’s overall grade is based on the following formula, with final scores being rounded up or down to the nearest full integer:

• 50% of grade: Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship phone(s)
• 25% of grade: Length of time for upgrade to reach most immediate previous-gen flagship phone(s)
• 15% of grade: Length of time for upgrade to reach two-cycles-back previous-gen flagship phone(s)
• 10% of grade: Overall communication with customers throughout the upgrade process

Notably, this analysis marks the first time the formula has been expanded to account for flagship phones that are two generations back in addition to the most recent previous-gen models. With the de facto standard support window now reaching a minimum of three years, it makes sense to see how different device-makers are actually doing when it comes to supporting those even older models — as a promise of support alone only means so much. How long it actually takes for those phones to receive updates is equally important. And the scores here now reflect that, extending further into a phone’s lifespan.

Upgrade timing often varies wildly from one country or carrier to the next, so in order to create a consistent standard for scoring, I’ve focused this analysis on when Android 13 first reached a flagship model that’s readily available in the US — either a carrier-connected model or an unlocked version of the phone, if such a product is sold by the manufacturer and readily available to US customers — in a public, official, and not opt-in-beta-oriented over-the-air rollout.

(To be clear, I’m not counting being able to import an international version of a phone from eBay or from some random seller on Amazon as being “readily available to US customers.” For the purposes of creating a reasonable and consistent standard for this analysis, a phone has to be sold in the US in some official capacity in order to be considered a “US model” of a device.)

By looking at the time to Android 13’s first appearance (via an over-the-air rollout) on a device in the US, we’re measuring how quickly a typical US device-owner could realistically get the software in a normal situation. And since we’re looking at the first appearance, in any unlocked or carrier-connected phone, we’re eliminating any carrier-specific delays from the equation and focusing purely on the soonest possible window you could receive an update from any given manufacturer in this country. We’re also eliminating the PR-focused silliness of a manufacturer rushing to roll out a small-scale upgrade in somewhere like Lithuania just so they can put out a press release touting that they were “FIRST,” when the practical implication of such a rollout is basically just a rounding error.

I chose to focus on the US specifically because that’s where this publication (and this person writing this right now — hi!) is based, but this same analysis could be done using any country as its basis, of course, and the results would vary accordingly.

All measurements start from the day Android 13 was released into the Android Open Source Project: August 15, 2021, which is when the final raw OS code finished uploading and became available to manufacturers.

The following scale determined each manufacturer’s subscores for upgrade timeliness:

• 1-14 days to first US rollout = A+ (100)
• 15-30 days to first US rollout = A (96)
• 31-45 days to first US rollout = A- (92)
• 46-60 days to first US rollout = B+ (89)
• 61-75 days to first US rollout = B (86)
• 76-90 days to first US rollout = B- (82)
• 91-105 days to first US rollout = C+ (79)
• 106-120 days to first US rollout = C (76)
• 121-135 days to first US rollout = C- (72)
• 136-150 days to first US rollout = D+ (69)
• 151-165 days to first US rollout = D (66)
• 166-180 days to first US rollout = D- (62)
• More than 180 days to first US rollout (and thus no upgrade activity within the six-month window) = F (0)

There’s just one asterisk: If a manufacturer outright abandons any US-relevant models of a device, its score defaults to zero for that specific category. Within that category (be it current or previous-gen flagship), such behavior is an indication that the manufacturer in question could not be trusted to honor its commitment and provide an upgrade. This adjustment allows the score to better reflect that reality. No such adjustments were made this year, though there have been instances where it’s happened in the past (hello, Moto!).

Last but not least, this analysis focuses on manufacturers selling flagship phones that are relevant and in some way significant to the US market and/or the Android enthusiast community. That, as I alluded to above, is why a company like Sony is no longer part of the primary analysis — and why companies like Xiaomi and Huawei are not presently part of this picture, despite their relevance in other parts of the world. Considering the performance of players in a market such as China would certainly be interesting, but it’d be a completely different and totally separate analysis, and it’s beyond the scope of what we’re considering in this one report.

Aside from the companies included here, most players are either still relatively insignificant in the US market or have focused their efforts more on the budget realm in the States so far — and thus don’t make sense, at least as of now, to include in this specific-sample-oriented and flagship-focused breakdown.