6 ms·

Who supplies security updates for the "lifetime" of their product in your fantasy world? Three years is a good amount of time for security updates but could be

Who supplies security updates for the "lifetime" of their product in your fantasy world? Three years is a good amount of time for security updates but could be extended to four years since people are keeping their phones longer these days. You are comparing software security updates to products recalled for safety issues? Well phones are already subject to recalls for hardware/battery problems. Let me know when a phone kills or hurts someone due to lack of security updates.

danudey 10y ago
The iPhone 5, introduced in 2012, is getting iOS 10, which means security updates into 2015. That's a five-year span, which is much longer than the average person uses their iPhone 5. iOS 9 supports the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2, which again is a five-year span (2011 to 2016). I have devices that are that old; the iPad 3 I have just prompted me to update to the latest 9.3 update, and it's so slow running newer apps that I gave it to my toddler to play games on instead. So I agree, three years is good, four years is better, but Apple is already at five years and has been for a while now.
mjevans 10y ago
With replacement of consumable parts (mostly batteries), I would not be surprised to see current phones in use for 10+ years. Just like desktop computers they will reach a point where, for most people, they're 'good enough', even if they're really slow. For some people, particularly the elderly, the young, and the poor, they'll use it until it literally stops working at all because they literally cannot afford otherwise. Cell phones are a literal lifeline device, to the point that emergency calls (at least in the US, and probably in any civilized part of the planet) //WILL// always work; without unlocking the phone, without the phone being on a payment plan, as long as the device has the power to transmit that distress need. It is not difficult to imagine how issues with the security portion of the layer could allow anything from a computer virus to DDoS local infrastructure (jamming), to targeting specific individuals (lock out their ability to call for help, bug and track movement), to picking out individuals that are alone and in vulnerable moments. Those are attacks I thought of just typing this comment and are not an exhaustive list. This is why the security updates either must be performed by the companies in question through the actual use lifetime of the device: not just by it's first owner, but all the way through to it's last. Or failing that, they should be required to both release the sources and provide everything necessary in a legal sense for other entities in the community to perform the security updates they are unwilling to do. Carriers should also be liable for failing to (offer to) distribute said security updates to devices on their network (it is in the interest of everyone that they do this and do not charge for it).
- 01Michael10 10y ago
  >With replacement of consumable parts (mostly batteries... What? Most phones sold today do NOT have replaceable batteries. >For some people, particularly the elderly, the young, and the poor, they'll use it until it literally stops working at all because they literally cannot afford otherwise. One can get a new Android phone from Amazon for $50 no contract. Landlines still exist and are almost available anywhere unlike cell coverage. >Cell phones are a literal lifeline device... I could live with a dumb phone as my PC is way more important. When are we going to make Microsoft start to provide security updates to XP again? You must be like 20 years old... I hate to break it to you but no one needs a cell phone to survive. >This is why the security updates either must be performed by the companies in question through the actual use lifetime of the device... Well start writing Congress but personally I don't want my new phone to be another $50 more because the OEM is required to provide security updates for phones 5 or more years old.
  - darklajid 10y ago
    Define 'most phones' (Not being able to replace the battery is a problem in my world). Buying a new (crappy, what do you expect for 50 Dollars?) phone because your perfectly working one isn't supported anymore is NOT satisfying and not a solution. Windows XP is actually a very nice example. According to Wikipedia it came out in 2001 and got constant (you can complain about the quality or bring up other complaints) updates until 2014. It's rather amusing that you bring up Windows XP as a _counter argument_ to decent updates. Most phone manufacturers have a hard time updating their devices for 1.5 to 2 years, let alone 13. I feel that you're a bit lost. You want to save a bit of money ($50 is your example) when you purchase a new device because if it's becoming vulnerable due to a crappy manufacturer/vendor you can always .. get a different one for the same price? Ignoring that this doesn't make sense, you're also hurting the 'herd immunity'. This argument of yours is comparable to anti-vaccines discussions. "I want .." vs. "The general public would benefit if this would be the case". I know what Kirk and Spock would decide, but you're entitled to have a different opinion, of course.
    - 01Michael10 10y ago

danudey 10y ago

The iPhone 5, introduced in 2012, is getting iOS 10, which means security updates into 2015. That's a five-year span, which is much longer than the average person uses their iPhone 5. iOS 9 supports the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2, which again is a five-year span (2011 to 2016). I have devices that are that old; the iPad 3 I have just prompted me to update to the latest 9.3 update, and it's so slow running newer apps that I gave it to my toddler to play games on instead. So I agree, three years is good, four years is better, but Apple is already at five years and has been for a while now.

mjevans 10y ago

With replacement of consumable parts (mostly batteries), I would not be surprised to see current phones in use for 10+ years. Just like desktop computers they will reach a point where, for most people, they're 'good enough', even if they're really slow. For some people, particularly the elderly, the young, and the poor, they'll use it until it literally stops working at all because they literally cannot afford otherwise. Cell phones are a literal lifeline device, to the point that emergency calls (at least in the US, and probably in any civilized part of the planet) //WILL// always work; without unlocking the phone, without the phone being on a payment plan, as long as the device has the power to transmit that distress need. It is not difficult to imagine how issues with the security portion of the layer could allow anything from a computer virus to DDoS local infrastructure (jamming), to targeting specific individuals (lock out their ability to call for help, bug and track movement), to picking out individuals that are alone and in vulnerable moments. Those are attacks I thought of just typing this comment and are not an exhaustive list. This is why the security updates either must be performed by the companies in question through the actual use lifetime of the device: not just by it's first owner, but all the way through to it's last. Or failing that, they should be required to both release the sources and provide everything necessary in a legal sense for other entities in the community to perform the security updates they are unwilling to do. Carriers should also be liable for failing to (offer to) distribute said security updates to devices on their network (it is in the interest of everyone that they do this and do not charge for it).

01Michael10 10y ago
>With replacement of consumable parts (mostly batteries... What? Most phones sold today do NOT have replaceable batteries. >For some people, particularly the elderly, the young, and the poor, they'll use it until it literally stops working at all because they literally cannot afford otherwise. One can get a new Android phone from Amazon for $50 no contract. Landlines still exist and are almost available anywhere unlike cell coverage. >Cell phones are a literal lifeline device... I could live with a dumb phone as my PC is way more important. When are we going to make Microsoft start to provide security updates to XP again? You must be like 20 years old... I hate to break it to you but no one needs a cell phone to survive. >This is why the security updates either must be performed by the companies in question through the actual use lifetime of the device... Well start writing Congress but personally I don't want my new phone to be another $50 more because the OEM is required to provide security updates for phones 5 or more years old.
- darklajid 10y ago
  Define 'most phones' (Not being able to replace the battery is a problem in my world). Buying a new (crappy, what do you expect for 50 Dollars?) phone because your perfectly working one isn't supported anymore is NOT satisfying and not a solution. Windows XP is actually a very nice example. According to Wikipedia it came out in 2001 and got constant (you can complain about the quality or bring up other complaints) updates until 2014. It's rather amusing that you bring up Windows XP as a _counter argument_ to decent updates. Most phone manufacturers have a hard time updating their devices for 1.5 to 2 years, let alone 13. I feel that you're a bit lost. You want to save a bit of money ($50 is your example) when you purchase a new device because if it's becoming vulnerable due to a crappy manufacturer/vendor you can always .. get a different one for the same price? Ignoring that this doesn't make sense, you're also hurting the 'herd immunity'. This argument of yours is comparable to anti-vaccines discussions. "I want .." vs. "The general public would benefit if this would be the case". I know what Kirk and Spock would decide, but you're entitled to have a different opinion, of course.
  - 01Michael10 10y ago