3 ms·

OP's point is that most consumers are much more sensitive to price than they are to X years of updates as a deciding factor when buying a new phone. If a manufa

by bdhess 10y ago

OP's point is that most consumers are much more sensitive to price than they are to X years of updates as a deciding factor when buying a new phone. If a manufacturer planned for a longer update timeline and hence charged more, they'd lose business to a competitor who didn't. Consumer understanding and/or regulation needs to change in order to provoke a different response from the manufacturers.

jacquesm 10y ago
Consumers have no clue how the cell phone ecosystem works in the first place let alone that they would be able to put a value on the security of their devices. They are going on the assumption that the manufacturers/carriers would not sell a product that is defective. Manufacturers make enough profit as it is to update their devices for the expected service life of the devices. They're just not willing to go the distance. Industries that do not self regulate tend to find that they will then be regulated by the authorities. The phone companies used to be so anal about this that they would ban 'unlicensed' hardware from their networks to the point that you could only use their overpriced hardware. Now that has changed to the point where they will push whatever junk gives them the biggest margins at the moment of sign-up and never mind the long view. Yet another example of a place where strict software liability would be a great thing to have.
- tbrownaw 10y ago
  Industries that do not self regulate tend to find that they will then be regulated by the authorities. The phone companies used to be so anal about this that they would ban 'unlicensed' hardware from their networks to the point that you could only use their overpriced hardware. I thought that was more because it was overpriced than out of any attempt to avoid regulation. And that they were blatant enough about being anti-competitive that they got regulated for it.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Yes, so now we have this split where you can buy equipment from a whole range of manufacturers and suddenly the phone company doesn't care at all what crap gets on their networks. This to me clearly indicates that the carriers at least have the option to ensure that the equipment connected to their network is up to certain standards. But since they don't car e (they never did) they'll be happy to sell you a phone from some manufacturer that is most likely not going to outlive the contract because of the extra margin they make on that phone. So either they should take it back for some residual value (which they can then try to recover from the manufacturer) or they should ensure it keeps working properly.
    - tbrownaw 10y ago
      This to me clearly indicates that the carriers at least have the option to ensure that the equipment connected to their network is up to certain standards. I thought some of the fallout from that mess was that they can't impose rules beyond "doesn't break our shit".

by bdhess 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

Consumers have no clue how the cell phone ecosystem works in the first place let alone that they would be able to put a value on the security of their devices. They are going on the assumption that the manufacturers/carriers would not sell a product that is defective. Manufacturers make enough profit as it is to update their devices for the expected service life of the devices. They're just not willing to go the distance. Industries that do not self regulate tend to find that they will then be regulated by the authorities. The phone companies used to be so anal about this that they would ban 'unlicensed' hardware from their networks to the point that you could only use their overpriced hardware. Now that has changed to the point where they will push whatever junk gives them the biggest margins at the moment of sign-up and never mind the long view. Yet another example of a place where strict software liability would be a great thing to have.

tbrownaw 10y ago
Industries that do not self regulate tend to find that they will then be regulated by the authorities. The phone companies used to be so anal about this that they would ban 'unlicensed' hardware from their networks to the point that you could only use their overpriced hardware. I thought that was more because it was overpriced than out of any attempt to avoid regulation. And that they were blatant enough about being anti-competitive that they got regulated for it.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Yes, so now we have this split where you can buy equipment from a whole range of manufacturers and suddenly the phone company doesn't care at all what crap gets on their networks. This to me clearly indicates that the carriers at least have the option to ensure that the equipment connected to their network is up to certain standards. But since they don't car e (they never did) they'll be happy to sell you a phone from some manufacturer that is most likely not going to outlive the contract because of the extra margin they make on that phone. So either they should take it back for some residual value (which they can then try to recover from the manufacturer) or they should ensure it keeps working properly.
  - tbrownaw 10y ago
    This to me clearly indicates that the carriers at least have the option to ensure that the equipment connected to their network is up to certain standards. I thought some of the fallout from that mess was that they can't impose rules beyond "doesn't break our shit".