There are no incentives in place for doing otherwise.
Already in the old days, Nokia was one of the very few manufacturers that bothered to provide firmware updates, and even then usually only once.
Are there any work done on a system similar to the one on PC, where software can enumerate available hardware? We have advanced computers in our pockets, but they can't be updated to a new OS version as easy as a 15 year old PC. It's ridiculous.
But i have to agree, for low end devices, even from famous companies i dont think they will update their phone even with this.
The other issue is that there's zero (0, no) incentive to update the devices. No matter how easy it is - the OEMs see that as a pure cost that won't be recuperated. For each of the (literaly!) 100 devices they churn out per year they need to get new drivers from the SoC manufaturer (and Qualcomm pretty much does not give a crap about SoCs of the previous year, especially lower end ones - which makes this process stop there), update the kernel and move all their specific hacks to it.
I don't see how these changes Google did will change incentives. The only way we might see a change in this field is by a few class action suites from users being left without updates or regulators putting down the punitive damages hammer. Everything else is just Google kindly hoping OEMs will stop being dicks from the goodness of their heart.
In car industry we have strong regulation which demands that your car is serviceable at least 5 years since last unit was sold (and that their security issues are fixed by recalls). We need that for arguably the most important electronic devices in our lives as well.
Treble removes much of the cause for forking, and removes the cost for OEMs that follow it's design.
To some extent doesn't this make a case for (say) HTML# and browser based apps? That is the browser is a known sandbox of sorts. It's interface with the device (e.g., Phone app) is a known, and fixed. It has no care about what's on the other side of that wall. And the device OS more or less exists to run and support the browser.
But when the applications interface directly with the device, and there are countless device and OS, etc. combos there will always be a mess. Too many variables. Too many chefs in the kitchen if you will.
I realize I probably oversimplified. (Sorry.) I'm also outside my knowledge sweet spot, but am curious enough to want to learn. Please don't hurt me. Thank you.
I don't think users want dozens of apps installed on their phone, each with the possibility to be using up bandwidth, hogging resources, stalling programs and draining battery life, not to mention abusing permissions. If most apps can be done with webasm (and I don't see why the majority of apps can't be) then the only things that need to run in a more native context would be apps that use special features.
Unless the browsers offer APIs at the same feature level as native OS APIs, web applications will always be a second class experience.
But in any case, to your point, native apps should be limited to special cases (that can't be done via the browser). That's not the case ATM.
When you put it that way, it seems like it's gotten a lot better.
On the Porters five forces scheme of things, the SoC vendors have much better bargaing power than device makers.
Long time ago, people also though ARM was going to close doors.
If Qualcomm refuses, other would gladly do and eventually become good enough for Qualcomm to either change their mind or become irrelevant.
The majority of my devices don't have Qualcomm.
And i think Nokia got into it because they had a very popular model that was found to have a nasty flaw. I still recall news reports about people queuing to get theirs flashed (this was back when GSM was the hot new system, and carriers were giving away phones if you signed up with them).