The topic Android phones have been forced into forgetting what ‘upgrade’ means, so just buy… is currently the subject of lively discussion — readers and analysts are keeping a close eye on developments.
This is taking place in a dynamic environment: companies’ decisions and competitors’ reactions can quickly change the picture.
The consequences of RAMageddon have moved beyond the impossibility of building a gaming PC. Price hikes are hitting practically every gadget you could reasonably expect to find in your local Best Buy. Laptops, tablets, gaming consoles — if it’s got memory and a storage drive, it’s probably going up in price, and unfortunately, that’s true for smartphones too.
Smartphone makers, however, are finding themselves in a unique position. Rather than raising costs on existing hardware like Sony’s PS5 or Samsung’s lineup of Galaxy Books, the constant churn of the mobile industry has allowed new, nearly unchanged hardware to launch at higher prices that pretend to deliver upgrades. Those higher prices are coming into conflict with one of the most frustrating trends of this decade: the mobile industry’s complete stagnation on hardware innovation. It’s a problem that feels particularly constricting if you live in North America, where competition is already limited to just a handful of brands.
Over the past few months, product launches that would’ve otherwise seemed like any other boring iterative update have instead become dominated by price discussions. The Galaxy S26 series is perhaps the most insulated from controversy; while I certainly don’t think the base or Plus models are different enough from their predecessors to justify $100 price hikes, keeping the Ultra — you know, the model everyone actually buys — unchanged allowed those who would’ve otherwise complained the loudest to breathe a sigh of relief.
The same can’t be said for Motorola, perhaps the guiltiest of all North American brands. The company’s recent Razr trio arrived with price hikes up to $200, while changing practically nothing but their respective battery capacities. The base model even gets a storage downgrade to just 128GB, while the $1,500 Razr Ultra loses out on its 1TB offering from last year — you know, the one currently on sale for nearly half off. Motorola also recently issued price hikes on existing hardware timed with the arrival of this year’s Moto G Stylus, seemingly to provide cover for those more expensive prices in head-to-head comparisons. That Moto G Stylus, by the way, is borderline identical, with effectively just UFS 3.1 and a 200mAh battery bump to show for its increased costs.
Samsung, for its part, didn’t just raise prices on its Galaxy S26 trio. Its latest Galaxy A37 and A57 arrived with $50 price hikes over the models they’re replacing, pushing the more premium of the pair above the Pixel 10a and its identical-price-for-identical-specs launch. To be fair, both did receive improvements over their predecessors — something that can’t be said for Google’s device — but that hasn’t stopped Samsung’s entire budget series from slowly ballooning in price. The A37 now exists in the space once occupied by the A57’s predecessors.
But Samsung has really followed every price hike strategy available, like when it obscured rising prices on the higher storage tiers of its flagship foldables while keeping the base model’s cost unchanged. It also discontinued the Galaxy Z TriFold weeks after launch, presumably to avoid raising the price on hardware that already pushed beyond $3,000 at checkout. Despite seemingly high demand (or, at the very least, enough demand for whatever units existed), the first-gen TriFold now resides in a world of scalpers, scammers, and collectors.
So, in a region like North America where the only thing new about most of these phones are their more expensive price tags, it’s worth reevaluating your priorities when shopping for a new device. It’s no longer just about the “latest and greatest,” mostly because this year’s latest tends to be practically unchanged from last year’s greatest. A boring year for hardware crossed with increased pricing might sound awful for consumers on paper, if not for one saving grace: extended software support policies.
Let’s take Samsung’s Galaxy S26 as an example. In a comparison with the S25, this year’s model is undoubtedly the winner. You’ll pay $100 more than last-gen, sure, but you score a faster processor, a larger battery, and a bigger screen. Except, the Galaxy S25 is no longer offered at its original $800 MSRP — it’s available unlocked from storefronts like Walmart for as low as $570. Suddenly, whatever minute changes made to the standard S26 look like table stakes; why wouldn’t you buy the cheaper, near-identical device?
This has always been true to some extent, of course. The S24 was still available in a post-S25 world, featuring discounts that made it a relatively compelling choice. But in 2026, the gap between the marked down last-gen model and the shiny new release has grown deeper, with just those few differences I outlined above to help salve any frustrations. Put another way, the upgrade price between the year-old Galaxy S24 and its successor model was about $200. This year, it’s $300 or more.
It wasn’t too long ago that update policies would be the ultimate X factor in this decision, with enthusiasts choosing newer models in order to ensure extended software support. However, Google and Samsung have offered seven-year update policies on their respective flagships for several generations now, losing out on the closing sales pitch that would push Android enthusiasts to spend more upfront for a longer lifespan. Sure, that Galaxy S25 will stop seeing upgrades a full calendar year prior to the Galaxy S26, but when we’re comparing 2032 to 2033, it doesn’t exactly leave the same impact that shorter upgrade cycles did in the past.
Whatever changes Samsung made to the Galaxy S26 look like table stakes; why wouldn’t you buy the cheaper, near-identical device?
These conversations are more difficult with a brand like Motorola, which is effectively being dragged into an era of longer software support policies by its closest competition. Even with prices starting as high as $1,500, the latest Razr trio still only offers three OS upgrades paired with five years of monthly patches. Somehow, this still manages to qualify as an improvement over last year’s 3-and-3 promise.
Unfortunately for Motorola, paying more for those phones feels like adding insult to injury. There’s only so much control a brand like Motorola has over unstable component pricing, but if Motorola is going to leave its budget-friendly status behind and opt for devices pushing towards $2,000, it needs to back these prices up with a serious commitment to frequent, timely, and extended software updates.
The company clearly understands this on some level. Its $1,900 Razr Fold promises seven OS upgrades and seven years of (bi-monthly) security patches, effectively matching Samsung and Google on all but the cadence of its regular releases. But to reiterate, none of its clamshells come close to that longevity. And if you’re already looking at delayed release cycles — something Motorola is infamous for — then why not save as much as 50% on your next phone? If aftersales support feels practically non-existent, you might as well save some cash on your final purchase.
This gap between generational pricing isn’t going to exist forever, though. Today’s prices are not yesterday’s prices, and the same will hold true when 2027 hardware rolls around. These product launches are setting a new floor for future discounts to be built off of, meaning next year’s sales will likely look more like what was considered “full price” just two years ago. But for as long as year-old hardware remains reflective of year-old memory pricing, you’d be doing yourself a disservice not to consider anything launched in 2025 right alongside their successors.