[brazzledazzle]

>Google doesn't want to force OEMs and providers to provide updates

I think you're assuming a lot about the relationship's power dynamics and what contracts are at play that may have been written quite a while ago. Also forgetting that more often than not it's the telco that's blocking or bottlenecking updates. The reason Apple was able to do what it did is because they provided the software and hardware and were able to leverage the demand for it against the likes of Verizon (probably the most notorious blocker of updates no matter how critical they might be).

[pjmlp]

I used to work for a famous Finn company with seat in Espoo.

[brazzledazzle]

Wink, wink. I suppose that's about my first point though. What about the second?

[pjmlp]

They just needed to change the license how licensees are allowed to use Android.

If OEMs or Telcos would loose the legal right to ship phones with Android if the updates weren't provided within a specific SLA, then they surely would comply.

As an example how to put telcos in line, in the early days that mobiles started shipping with wlan support, Vodafone tried to sell N95 with wlan and VoIP support disabled on their firmware. Eventually they had to provide a full working N95, if I remember correctly.

I doubt that nowadays they would go back to develop their own OSes.