3 ms·

Then manufacturers should fix that problem. The reason people don't like security updates, is that they are tied to feature updates. Most people don't like the

Then manufacturers should fix that problem. The reason people don't like security updates, is that they are tied to feature updates. Most people don't like the new feature updates, and would happily take just the security updates. If users were given that option, I'm betting that a lot of the push-back to updates would drop fast.

ben_w 9y ago
I bet most people find digital security too abstract to understand why it’s important, and not bother with updates that didn’t include shiny new features. Also, Generic Phones Inc. don’t see any money in pushing out pure security features — only big players get that benefit, because it’s a type of quality thats a tragedy of the commons thing. I’d change the laws by international treaty to require security patches for all devices for whatever the 2σ lifetime is. If the manufacturers don’t want to do it themselves, then an open source requirements and a sales tax to fund hiring developers to fix it.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  I'm arguing the opposite: I think people would update if updates didn't break their shit. I have no statistics on this, and would gladly welcome some, but IME people heavily complain that "the last update broke my $x, so I don't want to update again". If we had 2 different channels of updates: security and feature, then this wouldn't be an issue. I completely agree with you about the laws and open-sourcing.
0xfeba 9y ago
Manufacturers have no incentive now to do so.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  They absolutely do. Android is known to be a security nightmare. That means a bad reputation, which also means less sales. I hate Apple and their products, but if someone said that they got an iPhone because it's more secure than Android, I can't really argue that they are wrong.
d10r 9y ago
Exactly that! It may be true that "normal" users don't understand security or take it seriously enough, but in my opinion just blaming them isn't fair. Imagine your car being painted in new colors and handles in the cockpit being re-arranged in unpredictable ways every time you have it serviced. That's basically what Software updates often do to users. We constantly force users to re-learn how to use a piece of Software, very often without good enough reason. Additionally updates at some point force them to buy newer hardware, even though they probably neither wished for the changes in the Software nor for new hardware. That's why I totally understand casual PC users who're not gonna stop using Windows XP as long as it lets them do what they use their PC for. In my opinion commercial software should be regulated to either provide security updates (distinct from feature updates) or be open sourced.

ben_w 9y ago

I bet most people find digital security too abstract to understand why it’s important, and not bother with updates that didn’t include shiny new features. Also, Generic Phones Inc. don’t see any money in pushing out pure security features — only big players get that benefit, because it’s a type of quality thats a tragedy of the commons thing. I’d change the laws by international treaty to require security patches for all devices for whatever the 2σ lifetime is. If the manufacturers don’t want to do it themselves, then an open source requirements and a sales tax to fund hiring developers to fix it.

CaptSpify 9y ago
I'm arguing the opposite: I think people would update if updates didn't break their shit. I have no statistics on this, and would gladly welcome some, but IME people heavily complain that "the last update broke my $x, so I don't want to update again". If we had 2 different channels of updates: security and feature, then this wouldn't be an issue. I completely agree with you about the laws and open-sourcing.

0xfeba 9y ago

Manufacturers have no incentive now to do so.

CaptSpify 9y ago
They absolutely do. Android is known to be a security nightmare. That means a bad reputation, which also means less sales. I hate Apple and their products, but if someone said that they got an iPhone because it's more secure than Android, I can't really argue that they are wrong.

d10r 9y ago

Exactly that! It may be true that "normal" users don't understand security or take it seriously enough, but in my opinion just blaming them isn't fair. Imagine your car being painted in new colors and handles in the cockpit being re-arranged in unpredictable ways every time you have it serviced. That's basically what Software updates often do to users. We constantly force users to re-learn how to use a piece of Software, very often without good enough reason. Additionally updates at some point force them to buy newer hardware, even though they probably neither wished for the changes in the Software nor for new hardware. That's why I totally understand casual PC users who're not gonna stop using Windows XP as long as it lets them do what they use their PC for. In my opinion commercial software should be regulated to either provide security updates (distinct from feature updates) or be open sourced.