Android smartphones often come with a trade-off between price and software support. While devices with extended software support typically command a higher price, it is essential for users to consider the overall value offered by phones with shorter support windows. Below, we explore several brands that, despite their limited software support, present compelling advantages to consumers.
Motorola
Motorola’s offerings are often marred by their limited software support. In contrast to competitors like Samsung, which provides up to seven years of updates, Motorola typically offers just two major Android updates and three years of security patches for flagship models. Mid-range devices fare even worse, generally receiving only one Android update and two years of security patches, with some exceptions. Additionally, Motorola has been known to delay updates, meaning that even promised upgrades can take time to reach older devices.
However, Motorola compensates for this drawback with exceptional value. The Moto G line frequently retails for under 0, with other models available in the 0 range. Buyers can expect solid battery life and competent camera performance, making these devices appealing options for budget-conscious consumers.
Xiaomi
While Xiaomi does not officially sell its smartphones in the U.S., many imported unlocked models can be found through major online retailers. This includes devices from the Poco and Redmi lines, which, despite being marketed as separate brands, fall under the Xiaomi umbrella. Xiaomi’s software support varies significantly across its product lines. Starting in 2026, models like the Xiaomi 14 and 15 will receive up to five years of patches, while the Poco F6 will enjoy four years of support, rivaling OnePlus devices. However, entry-level models continue to follow the brand’s historical trend of offering only two to three years of support without formal commitments.
For users, this shorter software longevity can be a hidden advantage. Devices like the Redmi Note or Poco X offer features such as AMOLED screens, rapid charging capabilities above 67W, and impressive cameras—all for under 0. Such specifications would typically demand a higher price from competing brands.
TCL
TCL has carved a niche in the mid-range market, generally providing at least two years of security updates following a model’s launch. However, this does not guarantee that every device will receive two Android version upgrades; some may only get one, while others might not receive any at all. Despite this limitation, TCL devices are known for their unique Nxtpaper technology, which delivers a display experience akin to an e-reader, making it an attractive option for avid readers. Models like the TCL 60 XE Nxtpaper boast impressive specifications, including 8GB of RAM, a 120Hz screen, and 256GB of storage, offering a compelling reading experience that few competitors can match.
RedMagic
RedMagic has made strides in enhancing its update policy, yet it still lags behind its rivals. Currently, starting with the RedMagic 11 Pro, the brand promises two major Android updates and three years of security patches. However, previous models had their software support determined on a case-by-case basis, leaving users uncertain about the longevity of updates. Two major updates may seem insufficient for a device equipped with a flagship processor; for instance, a phone launched with Android 15 would only be updated to Android 17, even if its hardware remains competitive for longer.
Despite these limitations, RedMagic offers some of the best hardware in its price range. The RedMagic 11 Pro, priced around 9, features the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, up to 24GB of RAM, a 144Hz AMOLED screen, and a robust 7,500mAh battery. This positions it as a flagship device, albeit with the caveat of limited software support.
How we defined bad software support
To identify brands with subpar software support, we focused on the number of promised major Android updates and the duration of security patches. Brands that commit to only one or two new system versions, offer limited security patches, or maintain unclear policies were deemed less favorable, particularly when their devices possess hardware capable of remaining relevant for longer periods. We also assessed the consistency of these policies across various price ranges. A brand was not solely judged on the support of its budget models; rather, we considered the overall catalog and the frequency of delays or case-by-case guarantees. Comparisons were made against industry standards set by manufacturers like Google and Samsung, which are recognized for their robust support. Device pricing and features were only referenced to illustrate potential advantages, highlighting that users might find a fair trade-off in their choices.
