[quotemsg=11222625,0,571175]@house70 - While I get your point, that's like saying that that if you wanted the latest Windows updates, you should buy a Surface...but too bad, you bought an Asus..or a homebuilt so you don't get it. Yes, technically those other devices are Android based instead of running a vanilla build, but they are close enough to run nearly every app, so they should be built in such a way as to allow the kernal upgrade (that's OOP fundamentals...)[/quotemsg]
Not quite. The difference is, Windows (or any other closed OS) is provided by MS and the OEM can not modify it's code in any way, the customer gets support directly from MS for the OS and he/she paid a pretty penny for it when bought the system. Android's base code is widely available online for free as AOSP for every OEM to use and modify/abuse any way they feel without any obligation towards Google (even the Google certification only means the device is compatible with G Play services, not that Google is responsible for the device); Google does not see a dime from the OEMs, and the OEMs have the AOSP framework and codebase at their disposal to modify as they wish. As a result, OEMs implement all kind of skinned solutions, proprietary code that often doesn't even see the light of day under open source rules (because it's not open) and Google can not know what it contains, let alone be responsible for it.
All Google can do (and it already does) is release latest AOSP sources for everyone (including manufacturers) to use. By adding closed-sourced code to this, OEMs effectively turn into an Apple-like entity, controlling every aspect of the updating/servicing, etc. for their devices. Some are more successful than others.
To use an analogy, Google provides the dough, but the OEM is responsible for the final pizza that they make. Windows provides the dough and the toppings, along with the instructions of how to make the pizza. Apple just makes the whole pizza without allowing anyone to use/license same ingredients and recipe.