At this point, saying Android has a serious problem when it comes to phones receiving reliable Android upgrades is getting old. We’ve written about it a lot — even I, specifically, have written about it a lot. You’ve told us your thoughts. We all get it. Even with all that, though, the latest announcement of iOS 14 really sends the message home.
This week, Apple officially confirmed that the 2020 iteration of iOS will land on every iPhone since the iPhone 6S. That’s a phone that came out in September 2015, which is nearly five years ago. […]
Meanwhile, the flagship Android device from 2015 was the Samsung Galaxy S6. The most recent official version of Android that phone received was Android 7 Nougat, which dropped in 2016. Of course, it was well into 2017 before the Galaxy S6 actually got it. Since then: nothing.
Apple deserves praise for being pretty much the only smartphone manufacturer supporting its devices for this long. Despite years of attempts and failed promises, Android devices still barely get two years of updates, and even if, they arrive with major delays.
Indeed. Credit where it’s due. I despise Apple as a company and do not agree with most of their values and policies. But the contrast with Android is so stark in terms of actually respecting the fact that not all users are rich and not assuming that they are willing and able to upgrade their hardware according to the whims of the manufacturer.
The Android support situation is a total joke. It’s actually embarrassing. Last September I bought a Nokia 7.1 because it had all the things I really wanted, pure Android, a headphone jack, SD card slot and decent performance for a not ridiculous price because my Galaxy S5 with LineageOS was just getting too slow. I did this knowing that I would get two years of support and then the possibility of putting LineageOS or another ROM on it down the line. Even at $300 dollars this was not ideal. I run Linux on my machines so I’m used to using a device until it really is too slow or limited to be productive or until the hardware dies.
Having a perfectly viable device no longer get software is awful from a consumer investment and environmental standpoint since people discard excellent tech when the software ages out.
I have the same problem with Apple and how long they support $1000+ computers, but they do a pretty solid job in mobile.
>I have the same problem with Apple and how long they support $1000+ computers, but they do a pretty solid job in mobile.
I wonder if that will get better now that they control the silicon.
joekiser,
Why would it? IMHO it’d be hard to build a strong case against intel or AMD for a lack of backwards compatibility. x86 is one of the most backwards compatible processors in existence to a fault. Most x86 software can still run on hardware 10+ years ago (so long as you don’t expect it to run fast of course). It’s common for everyday software to use new CPU features (like AES) behind conditional code for compatibility’s sake. If it doesn’t run, it’s more probable that the developers lost interest in supporting it rather than because of anything intel or amd have done. So I don’t see why switching architectures would have an impact on long term support one way or the other.
>IMHO it’d be hard to build a strong case against intel or AMD for a lack of backwards compatibility. x86 is one of the most backwards compatible processors in existence to a fault.
Right. It’s just speculation on my part. We just don’t know why Apple doesn’t want to support 7 year old computers anymore. Especially when they are still supporting 6 year old phones. End-lifing a computer just 7 years after it was released (and just 4 years after it was still available, as is the case of the non-Retina MacBook Pro) just isn’t in line with what Apple projects as their philosophy of maximum longevity and minimal environmental impact.
So maybe it’s not the architecture that was limiting, but rather Apple’s lack of control of the architecture coupled with their long term plans for macOS. Outside of the 2013 Mac Pro, it seems the cutoff for macOS 11 is Haswell. Haswell introduced AVX2 and visible graphics performance improvements. So maybe Apple decided that AVX2 was a necessary feature in this era of hardening the OS, and only grandfathered the 2013 Mac Pro because they were still selling it as a new $5000+ computer just 7 months ago. We also don’t know how the performance impact of Intel security mitigations factored into Apple’s decision.
But now that Apple is controlling the entire stack, they have the opportunity to pivot and start supporting computers for a longer amount of time, like they already do with their phones. That becomes a selling point for people who buy with longevity in mind, and also for those who are environmentally conscious. We assume that Apple has a 5 year and a 10 year plan, and that they can better align their current processor development with future macOS releases years out instead of having to react and counter react to what’s going on with Intel. The marriage famously got off to a rocky start, as 64-bit Intel got delayed around the time of the macOS transition to Intel processors. The result was 15 years of having to support 32-bit binaries, which was only undone last year with Catalina. Owning the processor gives Apple the opportunity to build their processors with future macOS roadmaps in mind, without worrying about oversharing information or failure from the distant end.
Again, just speculation, and it makes a lot of assumptions about why Apple does what it does.
The problem is the feature level of iGPUs, and the fact that Apple can’t stand maintaining their constantly moving GPU driver stack on those officially anymore.
Note that unofficially, they _should_ work though.
Dunno. Looking at Big Sur it looks like the cut-off point seems to be determined by the WiFi card more than anything else. Given that even initial attempts to get it running on deprecated Apple hardware seem to be going well so far, it’s not immediately apparent that CPUs are the big problem.
If it had all the things you really wanted, why do you still want to update it?
I don’t get this obsession with updates. If it works, why fix it? If it doesn’t, why buy it in the first place?
hdjhfds,
lakerssuperman2 mentioned all the things he wanted from the hardware, but that doesn’t imply he’ll want to continue using the same OS as it becomes obsolete.
Personally I’ve been checking for updates to fix broken functionality. Google intentionally broke realtime wifi scanning in android 9, which worked fine in android 8 and earlier. Tools like wifi analyzer become totally handicapped on my phone. Google reversed coursed after enough complaints, but they neglected to fix it android 9 and instead only fixed it in android 10. I’d like to just update and that’d be the end of it, but I might have to buy a new phone to get the update, which is stupid because there’s nothing wrong with the phone physically. I know this is awfully specific, but everyone has their own reason to update or not.
It’s just one of those things where OS bundling with limited updates leads to perfectly good hardware having to get tossed. I understand that it may not matter to you, but you should understand that it does matter to some of us.
So you’re basically saying, you had a working phone with android 8, and the update to 9 broke it.
I rest my case.
hdjhfds,
Actually not, my old phone had 8 before breaking. My new phone came with 9 and I had no specific reason to suspect wifi analyzing wouldn’t work on it. Nobody buys a phone thinking “I gotta check if it supports wifi analyzer like my other android devices do”. It’s just one of those things that you learn about the moment you need it. I’ve actually thought about downgrading to 8, but man that’s lousy and I don’t know what other things would break, to say nothing of the exploits I’d be exposing my phone to. I shouldn’t have to explain to you why updating to 10 would be the best solution.
Exactly. I wanted a hardware feature set that would meet all of my needs, not break the bank and provide longevity.
Continued software support is important for keeping up security and for the continued ability to run the latest apps.
New features are also welcome if there’s no technical limitations that would prevent it from working as intended.
Further, if the Android ecosystem could even get sorted and Google could ever really fix how Android is deployed maybe this would get better. When I spoke about the length of software support for my device it’s crazy to me that it’s supported for such a short time despite having the Android One update system in place. I’m sure this has to do with the absolutely awful situation of hardware vendors not providing drivers or specs to make drivers keep working.
One word: security.
You got pretty much all of your life on mobile devices. Take those EU banking regulations which force users to have an application to access your online banking services. Now, think that your average Android phone is not up to date and that it got a boatload of available exploits, and a massive heap of software complexity which will enable later exploits.
So that is a real treat for hackers, and that is why mobile OSes are a good target for fishing and spear fishing, that is where the money is.
All the Covid apps seem to be relying on Bluetooth for tracking potentially infected persons. You would definitely want security patches to be to date if you have BT on everytime you are out and about.
you mean the apps that no one is developing?
What are you talking about? My Mac Pro late 2012 non-retina *just* got unsupported. That is 7 years of support. Bear in mind, it will still run Catalina forever, so that probably means it will be of some use for another ~3 years. My previous 2007 Santa Rosa BlackBook was still viable over 7 years later, even after Mac OS stopped supporting it. The only reason I stopped using it was it died after getting water damaged… in 2015. Given that other OS support this machine, I can just go use one of those if it really is a big deal not to have the latest MacOS… and there is every chance there will be ways to install Big Sur on unsupported hardware too.
I don’t expect people to know things like Samsung is probably the only one that issues security updates for 4 years, but not necessarily major version upgrades, or LG just doesn’t supply updates at all(maybe they’ve actually made a handful recently), but buying a phone brand from a very publically failing company is sort of a buyer beware issue. You’re issue seems a bit exaggerated to say you can’t get software at all. There’s nothing game changing anymore in major android updates, and if you can live with only security updates it’s only a problem of getting over the issue in your head and buying from a company that issues those security updates (which seems to be only Samsung, which is another reason why the Android market is totally dominated by them)
I am running an early 2015 MacBook Pro and have it updated to Catalina and it will be getting Big Sur. 5 years for a laptop is a long time.
modmans2ndcoming,
I’d argue that it isn’t. For those of us in the secondhand market it’s actually very short! It’s not unusual for linux and windows PCs to get OS updates well past that. The manufacturer may no longer support it, but that’s the huge benefit of not being dependent on the manufacturer for updates.
Thom Holwerda,
Yea, it sucks. IMHO the solution to fix this on android is to decouple or unbundle the hardware and software. Android manufactures have a strong incentive to let older devices rot away. It’s not even newsworthy anymore, we just take it for granted that these can’t be updated or upgraded even if the hardware’s still fine.
Window (and linux, etc) on PC hardware can last decades! Unlike android vendors, microsoft actually wants users to be able to install/update to the latest version of windows. If anything they’ve been too forceful, haha. It’s the complete opposite of what we deal with on android.
Theoretically google’s fuchsia OS could help fix this given stable interfaces to decouple hardware from OS, but it’s too early to say. Also I don’t know how open fuchsia will be.
This seems a vendor issue, not an Android issue: https://www.xda-developers.com/fairphone-2-android-9-pie-beta/
The real issue is that all these devices are reliant on non-free software, thus making them obsolete whenever any vendor feels like not providing updates anymore.
Z_God,
You’re not wrong, but the thing is it’s kind of systematic issue for most android phone owners.
I totally agree. Non-free software is a culprit. But the other thing is that even if the drivers were 100% open source it’s kind of impractical to support them unless they’re mainlined. Also, the boot environment is not as well standardized as on PCs.
In the ideal world, you could just install a generic ARM distro on a generic ARM phone, like we do on x86 (ie debian/ubuntu/fedora/gentoo/etc). For better or worse though ARM devices tend to be tightly bundled with the OS such that every ARM device has it’s own kernel. This fragmentation on ARM means that even with open source you still wouldn’t get the ease of booting generic images to your phone. All of this is technically solvable of course, but it’s hard to actually change the industry’s momentum.
Exactly. I agree that ARM fragmentation is the real issue. Of course the locked bootloaders and arcane hacks that are necessary to install a 3rd party ROM on an Android device is also not cool. But the open source community is ingenuous enough to figure out a better solution. The real issue that dampens enthusiasm is the plethora of ARM architectures. It’s so bad they even if you own a totally unlocked and open device (not likely to be a phone, but rather some sort of appliance) you can still end up with few or no upgrade options because it requires some enthusiast to tweak and compile packages and a kernel specifically for that device, instead of being able to rely on the greater open source ecosystem and mainstream distros.
The single biggest hurdle is plain and simply Qualcomm. The vast majority of Android handsets are dependent on them for chipsets, and they generally refuse to provide updated drivers for more than a limited period of time.
anevilyak,
I can’t disagree with that.
So apparently this iPhone 6S also has Qualcomm parts. So it really means that Apple is strong enough to obtain either the right drivers or right information from Qualcomm because their fist is bigger.
Is that something to praise?
Generally the problem on android is closed kernel drivers, the userland can easily be replaced with the stock AOSP and it tends to work a lot better than whatever butchered mess the hardware manufacturer or telco preloaded on the handset.
Open drivers that are incorporated into the kernel source tend to last a long time, linux has drivers for all kinds of ancient hardware that hasn’t been sold for years and probably has very few users.
The open nature enables quite a few things, for instance things like sun ethernet cards that were only ever used in sparc servers – you can use them on amd64 linux because the drivers are open. When linux first became available for amd64, virtually any pci or usb device supported on x86 linux would continue working – whereas 64bit windows was barely usable for a few years due to a lack of drivers. The same thing happened with ARM, Alpha, IA64 etc too.
bert64,
I agree. I just don’t know if it’s possible to change the momentum for mobiles to follow the path of PCs. There’s even a risk of the opposite happening.
Yes, it’s mostly the vendor issue. Most vendors didn’t support phones older than 2 years. So far, Google’s Pixel still receiving updates to Android 10.
So, yes, Apple really does take care of their products more seriously (in smartphone category) compared to other vendors. Electronic waste also can be reduced if these vendors have long term supports.
Kudos to Apple
Jaason Benedict,
Apple actually have a bad reputation in terms of e-waste because they prohibit recyclers reselling used phones or salvaging components for repairs.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/recycled-iphones-apple-products/story?id=37872881
https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/248113-apple-wants-build-products-100-recycled-materials-refuses-allow-iphone-mac-recycling
You’d be better off selling it for parts on ebay or even donating the phone to a repair shop than sending it to an official recycler where apple contracts dictate it be destroyed and smelted. It’s been notoriously hard for repair shops to get a hold of repair parts for iphones. Apple does everything it can to stop 3rd party technitions from repairing phones, even interdicting package deliveries to repair shops containing legitimately used parts.
So yes, give apple kudos for long term updates, but also criticize them over policies that make it more difficult for consumers to get their phones serviced and are detrimental to the e-waste problem.
I feel duty bound to mention (because I work for Jolla) that Sailfish OS Rokua, released in April, went to all our official phones going back to the Jolla 1 from 2012.
Supporting both old and new handsets with very different hardware and capabilities certainly brings its own challenges. As one example, Bluetooth has changed a lot in that time, so we have to support multiple Bluez versions. So I agree that Apple deserves credit here. Their business model seems to involve generating sales by getting existing customers excited about new hardware, rather than by retiring old hardware.
How many different models did Jolla conceive since 2012 ?
I guess that depends how you count it. We officially support at least the following (I may have forgotten some): Jolla1, JollaC, Xperia 10 (four models), Xperia 10 Plus, Sony Xperia XA2 (6 models), Xperia XA2 Plus, Xperia XA2 Ultra, Xperia X (2 models), Gemini PDA (2 models).
@Flypig
Do you unofficially support, or does the community support, any physical keyboard phones? Blackberry’s or Nokias, that sort of one handed thing I mean, rather than the Gemini.
Thanks
Interesting question. There’s the F(x)tec Pro1, but it sounds like that’s not what you’re after. There are quite a few community-supported phones, but I’m not aware of any Blackberry-style devices off the top of my head. You could check this list which seems to be kept up-to-date (but may not be complete): https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Adaptations/libhybris
Thanks.
You are correct, the ‘F(x)tec Pro1’ isn’t quite it.
How do they come up with a name like that anyway? It reads like the first line of $ cat *.zip
If you assume its in SEB braille-ascii that would transcribe as something like ‘from of it with tec pro[comma]’
… Which is actually easier to pronounce.
Apple can do that because they are vertically integrated. All this talk about “choice” in hardware and even individual software modules making up an OS sounds good in theory but leads to issues like the ones mentioned in the article once commercial interests like OEMs and carriers come into play. It’s the same reason why some Windows laptops occasionally ship with crappy Realtek WiFi adapters that drop the connection once in a while. Yay choice! At least Microsoft doesn’t let OEMs meddle with the innards of Windows or change the shell, so the software side is covered as long as the drivers last.
kurkosdr,
I understand what you’re saying, but in a way I think if android manufacturers were LESS vertically integrated (like PCs and windows or PCs and linux distros where the hardware and software vendors are separate entities) that could be better for consumers. The main problem for android owners is that they’re stuck with the manufactures indefinitely as the sole source of software updates.
To their credit, longer support is just an area where apple stands out. However I think if they were less vertically integrated such that the OS and hardware were from different companies, the support window would be even longer still since the software side would have less incentive to push new hardware. Much in the same way that windows 10 runs on PCs from 10+ years ago.
I’ve faced this too. At least windows benefits from a stable driver ABI which is really useful when you want to get the latest drivers strait from the manufactures.The all-or-nothing situation with android tends to be problematic since I may be waiting a long time for the next monolithic build.
Android phones are not vertically integrated, they are customized. Big difference. No OEM controls any layer of the software beyond the skin and extra apps they put on top.
LG cannot go into Qualcomm and mandate new drivers for whatever chip their LG G4 uses, like Tim Cook can mandate new drivers for the iPhone 6S chip. Neither can Google for the Google Nexus 5X. Even Samsung which has their own chip line (or used to have, I dunno) can’t because their Mali drivers for their chips come straight from ARM.
The reason updates have to go through the OEM in Androidland is not because of vertical integration but because of customization. And yes, customization actually makes the upgrade process worse/slower.
kurkosdr,
I don’t really care about the semantics of “vertical integration” so much as I care about what it means for us in practice. The fact that google technically licenses a turnkey OS to manufacturers doesn’t change the fact that we’re dependent on the manufacturer for both hardware and software. Until users are reasonably able to update the software independently from the manufacturer, from a user’s point of view it is effectively the same cons as vertical integration.
I understand that and I agree it’s a valid point. However if there were less vertical integration (find a different word for it if you want to) the user wouldn’t be dependent on LG in the first place. The software would come from google instead of LG, and google would work with qualcomm to make sure android had appropriate drivers. This isn’t wishful thinking, I can go buy a motherboard and some peripherals from almost anywhere, put it together, buy a windows license and tada…it works! Not only that, but it will likely work for many years and the motherboard manufacturer isn’t holding me hostage to a specific software release.
I’m not suggesting this is perfect or is the only way to fix android, but I am suggesting that full vertical integration ala-apple isn’t the only way and it has it’s own cons.
“Until users are reasonably able to update the software independently from the manufacturer, from a user’s point of view it is effectively the same cons as vertical integration”
From a user’s point of view, customization allows a manufacturer to withhold upgrades but gives the manufacturer no power to make them happen (like vertical integration does).
Basically the worst of the worst.
kurkosdr,
I don’t think there’s anything technically stopping them, they have root access and some android devices even preinstall the manufacturer’s own app store with the ability to modify local software.
For instance:
https://www.samsung.com/us/explore/samsung-galaxy-apps/
I’m not privy to the license agreement with google though, so I don’t really know what they’re prohibited from doing.
Well, that’s why I like lineage with migroG, but this isn’t something most users can do.
“I don’t think there’s anything technically stopping them”
No, manufacturers can’t make upgrades happen because they don’t control the drivers. It’s why the Nexus and Pixel phones pale in comparison to iPhone when it comes to upgrades.
Try to understand the following:
No integration: Device manufacturer has no power to withhold upgrades and no responsibility to make them happen either, so they are not involved at all.
Vertically integrated: Device manufacturer has the power to withhold upgrades and also has the responsibility to make them happen, so when a device stops receiving upgrades, they are to blame.
Customized: Device manufacturer has the power to withhold upgrades but no responsibility to make them happen, which means that you have to wait for upgrades to go through them, but at the same time can conveniently blame someone else when upgrades stop. Basically all the power and no responsibility. Which lives to tragicomic situations such as Pixel phones receiving paltry upgrades despite being owned by the same company that makes the OS. The worst of the worst.
kurkosdr,
Well obviously we do in fact get upgrades through the phone manufacturer. The problem is they don’t offer them long enough.
Yes, this is how I’d like it to be with the phone manufacturer out of the loop. I buy the hardware from them but then I’m free to go wherever I want for the software. Unfortunately the mobile market evolved such that we’re dependent on the mobile manufacturer for software updates.
I agree with this too, android manufacturers have the power to withhold upgrades and also have the responsibility to make them happen.
I don’t think it’s so clear cut that 3rd party chips are THE causal reason to drop support. Is there any strong evidence that android manufacturers are blaming chipmakers for the lack of software upgrades?
Nexus 5 didn’t get Nougat because Qualcomm wouldn’t make Vulkan drivers, per Google’s admission, the Pixel C had delays in getting upgrades because Nvidia wouldn’t provide new drivers in a timely manner, per Google’s admission.
Google eventually had to structure their upgrade promise around Qualcomm’s driver support timeline.
You can pretend manufacturers are the evil guys solely responsible for the fact your phone won’t get an upgrade despite its CPU and RAM specs allowing for it, but it goes deeper than that. Android manufacturers can withhold upgrades at will, but when it comes to making them happen, there are other forces in control, unlike Apple which can make upgrades happen by themselves.
Anyway, here is an official admission from a OEM that if the SoC vendor says “no drivers for new Android versions” for a given chip, you aren’t getting any upgrades.
https://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HTC-infographic-Android-OS-updates.jpg
Of course HTC can withhold the upgrade at will even if a new driver is provided.
Try to put this into your head: The fact that the iPhone 6S will get latest iOS means there IS a difference.
kurkosdr,
I’d like to see sources for these claims, but ultimately they should probably demand so many years of driver support up front if they felt strong enough about it.
Apple uses qualcomm chips and many 3rd party chips, and that hasn’t stopped it supporting them. I wouldn’t be surprised if apple’s contract with qualcomm stipulates they have to provide so many years of driver support. It doesn’t sound plausible to me to suggest android manufacturers don’t have similar options.
Well, obviously that’s true, but that’s in the context of a flowchart that says “if this then that”, and there’s no assertion that that chip drivers are the #1 problem.
Obviously that’s true too even though they conveniently omit that possibility on the flowchart. “If HTC determines it can support it” may be a bit of a catch-all. HTC doesn’t say it, but internal policies may be that it can’t support updates outside of it’s product warranty, for example. (I don’t know what their policies are, but a lot of companies draw the line there).
I still think the update situation would be far better by taking manufacturers out of the loop and making google directly responsible for OS updates. Obviously they could find a way to screw it up, but this approach has been shown to provide exceptionally long term software support on PCs with windows long past the hardware’s support window (even better than apple). We’re obviously of different opinions here, and I don’t think it’s a matter of either of us being right or wrong, but personally I’d rather see the industry get less bundling rather than more. I see manufacturer dependency as part of the problem, not the solution.
Well of course taking upgrades out of manufacturers would make everything better for Android. Customization sucks. My point is, calling customization “vertical integration” and comparing to iPhone’s true vertical integration is a mistake.
kurkosdr,
Well, to me the difference is largely mute as a consumer. When a manufacturer builds a product on linux without giving owners a reasonable chance to install their own versions of linux independently, it often nullifies the fact they’re customizing linux at all and shares all the cons of proprietary full integration. I don’t think it’s a mistake to view it as a spectrum rather than a full out all or nothing. Consider that even iphones are not “fully vertically integrated” on an absolute scale. Apple doesn’t own all the chips or facilities used to build the iphone, they rely on a lot of outsourcing. So I think it makes sense to talk about degrees of vertical integration rather than treating it as an on/off thing.
Anyways, I do understand your point.
Try to put this into your head: The fact that the iPhone 6S will get latest iOS means there IS a difference.
kurkosdr,
Again, it’s not that I don’t understand your point, but that I disagree that android vendors would do any better if they had more control. IMHO the reason they’re not doing a good job today is not because they lack control, but because they don’t care.
We obviously disagree, which is ok, but there’s no need to keep maintaining it’s only because I misunderstand your argument. I do understand it, I just disagree that giving android manufacturers more control over the full stack necessarily yields better support as you imply it would.
Not for nothing, but google designed project treble to address the very issues you’ve brought up, which makes updates easier for android manufacturers by adding a HAL to isolate the drivers.
https://www.androidauthority.com/project-treble-818225/
The reason such solutions haven’t worked is because android manufacturers themselves continue to drag their feet. That is the reality today, we can make it easy for android manufacturers to release updates, but it doesn’t help when the android manufacturers themselves are the bottleneck. I see no reason to believe giving them more control with full vertical integration would improve the situation. It’s more an issue of corporate DNA.
Can we simply agree to disagree?
I prefer to get only security updates. Full updates is a bother breaking all kinds of stuff on the phone.
Not on the iPhone (before 13) SInce the v13 mess it appears Apple fixed their issues. iOS 14 dev beta 1 is solid.
If this were true, I would have kept using my Galaxy S6 and would be looking forward to getting Android 11, but it is not and I don’t use that phone any more. Though I still use my iPhone 6S (work) and am looking forward to iOS 14. This is really good, excellent support on Apple part. Android vendors can learn a lot from this. Stop making 10 different phones a year, make 3 or 4 (at most) and focus on them. We don’t need A31, A51, A71, S20, S20+, J10, Note, etc. Instead it would be nice to have just A, S, and Note, maybe an A+, S+ and get more just 2 or 3 years of support. Apple is really putting Android vendors to shame, in my humble opinion.
On surface one could agree, but as soon as one starts looking at the bigger picture, this is more or less publicity stunt. A device, like a mobile phone, runs on a battery. After 5 years of usage, battery does wear out. Changing a battery on iPhone is one problem. Another problem is old hardware. Upgrading old hardware with newer version of mobile operating system, it can slow down the device, and iPhone will slow down. Therefore i can agree Apple providing security updates for older iPhones is a good thing, but as for on how useful that is in real life. That is debatable. As for Android side, currently you can get around 2 to 3 years of guarantee, for upgrades, for most flagship models. Realistically that is the expected lifespan of such devices. We are therefore talking about Apple providing 5 years, but in practice the 5 years old device is not all that usable, and flagship Android devices providing 3 years, usable through the whole lifespan. The difference therefore isn’t as huge as the title implies.
Geck,
I object. I don’t throw away other electronics after 3 years, why is a phone any different? Seriously, I use laptops/computers/cameras/roku/appliances/etc way longer than 3 years. There’s absolutely no reason to limit hardware lifespan to 3 years. You may want to replace your devices that frequently, fine, but it’s kind of ridiculous that they shouldn’t be expected to be usable much longer than that.
Ideally batteries should be replaceable, but often times even the original battery is plenty good for several years. My phone is a few years old and the battery still lasts half a week between charges. I use it moderately for calls, notifications, lite web browsing, photos, occasional gps, etc. I’d expect it to last several more years under my usage. In all my years of using mobiles, the battery has never been my reason for replacing a phone. I completely disagree that 3 years is the whole usable lifespan, everyone’s needs are going to be different.
What i was addressing is the fact that Samsung offered 4 years of support for S6, and Apple will make it possible to install iOS 14 on a 5 year old device. In the end we are talking about a year! Such news tend to imply the difference is much bigger. And your Android device will work just fine after that. My oldest working Android device is now 8 years old and works just fine.
Changing a battery on an iPhone is fairly trivial if you can follow a few instructions. Battery sellers on eBay even provide all the tools that you will need. Otherwise, Apple provides that service too. I did mine myself. Some other Android phones are actually even harder to take apart than Apple’s, which Apple admittedly does not go out of its way to make easy.
The bigger issue is that advances in ARM technology is outpacing Intel’s and even though Apple allows you to update, you might find your hardware is starting to struggle to keep up with the demands met by newer, shinier iPhones.
Changing a battery should be a fairly trivial job indeed. I don’t feel Apple fall in that category, though. If it would, then i guess EU wouldn’t be preparing laws, to make that mandatory.
In addition i just did a quick check, Samsung has stop providing security updates for S6 in 2019 and for S7 in March 2020. That comes down to around 4 years of support, keeping the device secure and being able to run most Android apps on it without issues. Installing Android 11 on S6 hence would be nice, but on how much practical value that would have, that is another story.
Yes, on paper it looks impressive that they are still providing updates to iPhone6S however there is a reason behind it – what you may not know is that Apple is still selling iPhone 6s to corporate clients. 6 months ago my company which decided to use iPhones provided me with new shiny iPhone6s. I’m pretty sure that they got assurance from apple that this mobile will be supported for some time otherwise they would either bought SE or something else.
If you look at the wikipedia you will see that they discontinued the phone on: September 12, 2018 . So yes, people expect at least 2 years of support from the mobile phone manufacturer and corporate clients requires it to be even longer. I think that iPhone 6S may have chance to receive iOS15 update as well
And an iOS 14 running on an iPhone 6S will be almost as responsive and fluid as Windows 10 running on a Pentium 4.
Don’t forget that Google still maintaining updates for Galaxy S6 (for Chrome and many other parts of a system) through Google Play. iOS have to be updated as a whole even small security update for the web browser.
you will have ios14 with only a part of the functionnality…
google try to put more and more part of their os to its store. more module will be update via the store with android 11
huh?
Android’s business model is broken. And Google has no interest in fixing it.
This is why I left Android behind and moved to iPhone.