If the manufactures made upgrades and released then to all the phones that were unlocked at carriers that would allow a upgrade.

There is an upgrade. Go to Kit Kat.

Then the carriers that would not allow upgrades would get angry customers. And a chance to loss them if they had a choice to pick someone that would allow upgrades/updates.

I don't think you really understand the mobile market in the USA. One of the carriers fucks the customer in a new and interesting way, the others follow. Switching mobile carriers is 1) a huge inconvenience and 2) not going to improve your situation, because they're pretty much all equally awful. The carriers don't want to support more than one version of Android on a given handset, because then they might have to spend money to support them. Obviously they can't do that, since it eats into the profits. And as long as nobody goes off the reservation, the situation will not improve. Yes, collusion is illegal. Their lawyers can beat up your lawyers.

Obvious troll is obvious. Grind your axe somewhere else.

Because the carriers signed a deal saying they wouldn't prevent Apple from controlling OS upgrades. The Android folks didn't require that. So, since a big for-profit corporation will do anything that it CAN do unless you tell them specifically not to, especially when it fucks its paying customers over, we get what we have here.

Perhaps, but it DOES fix the problem. Don't like it? Go buy a different phone. Yes, it sucks if you can't upgrade. But the chances are that even if there WERE a patch that didn't require a whole new version, your carrier wouldn't let you install it anyway.

Does the carrier allow you to upgrade to the fixed version? If the answer isn't "yes", then it's not Google's responsibility, as they have done their part by fixing the problem.

You could shorten that to "Buy unlocked". I am not aware of any major carrier in the USA that does not lock down their Android phones. There is no incentive to fix bad behavior when everyone else is doing it as well. See: car sales.

You ARE a crackpot. By that definition, no, I am not a statist. I'm not in favor of government ownership of industry. I AM in favor of useful regulation on those industries.

Never, anywhere, did I say that I agreed with anything you just attributed to me. I do not believe that the central state should have unlimited authority, nor do I think the state should control 100% of your time. I have no idea where you got that from, unless you're building a straw man.

The USA is not North Korea. I have no idea why you think I'd be in favor of that sort of totalitarian regime. I think that there is a role for the state, not that the state should fill all roles. I am not a totalitarian. If thinking I am makes you feel better, then have at it. But I am not.

If there's a problem with an old (10+ years) version of something, and the solution the vendor makes available is to upgrade to the newer version (as you've had 10 years to do so), I fail to see how that's unfair. Blaming Microsoft for that situation IS unfair. They made a perfectly viable solution available; if you don't like it, go to the competition. Oh, wait... you bought Microsoft, so you're completely locked-in. Ha ha.

Organizations that refuse to upgrade from XP can pay a great deal of money for support. Money that would be better spent upgrading their systems and patching their business apps to work with a version from this decade.

The difference is, unlocked/no-contract phones can have their OS upgraded. Under-contract phones in the USA can only be upgraded if the carrier allows it.

So in Europe it's possible, and in the USA it is not.

So because Google didn't specifically forbid something, and the carriers went ahead and did it not because it was a good idea, but because fuck the customer, that's Google's fault? If I don't specifically tell someone to look both ways before crossing the street, is it my fault when they don't and get hit by a bus?

The carriers are the bad actors here. Google had a bug in their product, and they have fixed it. The carriers are the ones not allowing their customers to install the fixed version.

They're not "responsible" for updating the OS on their customers' phones. The customer can update the OS... IF the carrier will let them. OS changes are locked out on most under-contract Android phones.

google is the one who made up the "carriers won't upgrade" system.

How do you figure?

Clearly Google has decided that the solution for this problem is to update Android. This is not an unreasonable solution. The problem is fixed, and how you get the fix is well documented.

The problem is when your carrier prevents you from upgrading. Blame for this issue lies soley at the feet of Verizon, At&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.

I said nothing about banning home schooling or private schools. Don't put words in my mouth. You want to send your kid to private school or homeschool them, go for it. Currently SOME form of education is required, and public schools aren't the only option.

I also do not reject the notion of individual rights. If anything, I'm defending them by saying they should be protected by the state.

I'm willing to compromise if it makes sense. I think you individualists are the ones that don't want compromise, because in your arrogance you think your vision of the world is the only correct one and anyone that disagrees with you is evil.

Am I supposed to be offended that you call me a "statist"? I think you need to define the term, because what I'm seeing there is "someone who thinks there's a role for the state in protecting an individual's rights". In which case, you are right.

No, it's a question of degrees. If you think people are stupid now, do away with education and see how bad it gets. I guarantee you that eventually the population will make Honey Boo Boo look like a PhD.