Here's the quandary where I work:
What phones do we globally standardise on:
- Go with Apple (V Expensive and blow the budgets) - but it gets patched for 3/4 years + and can be bought in every country we have staff in
- Go with Samsung "S series" - Medium cost, and gets patched for 2 years if we are lucky and can be bought in every country we have staff in
- Go with "Cheaper" Android - Low cost, patching may or may not happen for 2 years and supply is variable across various countries
- Go with Pixel phones - We can't purchase those with carrier discount, or from some of our preferred carriers, but OTA patching is quick and continues for more than 2 years.
So we want a phone that provides value over 2 years with guaranteed patching and is "cheap" alternatively a more expensive phone over 4 years with guaranteed patching for 4 years. (In line with what we do with laptops). None of the Android vendors meet that requirement, and even with Apple it is dubious (on the pricing front) if they meet that.
Google have been trying to address the "patching challenge" with Android One and the Android Enterprise Recommended programmes, but the large global "enterprise" carriers don't even stock most of those phones...
HMD (Nokia)'s research is basically to highlight that Nokia Android's get patched guaranteed for two years (and likely longer) rapidly and are cheaper than the alternatives. That's great, but we can't buy those globally from our carriers. Until Nokia get the phones carrier stocked globally (including USA) they are not going to get the market penetration in the enterprise that the phones likely deserve.