5 ms·

It's ironic that Apple, which provides regular software updates, is being scrutinized while it appears Google and other Android vendors -- whose track record on

It's ironic that Apple, which provides regular software updates, is being scrutinized while it appears Google and other Android vendors -- whose track record on updates is very spotty -- get a free pass. To avoid a case of 'no good deed goes unpunished', I do hope Samsung, Google and co get some attention over lack of updates for older phones/OSes too. Their approach of not updating perfectly good phones just leads to greater e-waste, not to mention wasting consumer dollars.

MBCook 9y ago
Well, Apple is the company that had to settle a case with the DOJ because they dared to be a party to people breaking Amazon’s ebook monopoly. A downright scummy company. /s
pc86 9y ago
What is "e-waste" and how is it different than regular waste? Has Samsung, Google et al provided any clarification on why particular phones do not receive updates?
- Retric 9y ago
  Unlike most things, electronics are fairly toxic and should not be disposed of by throwing them in the regular trash.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > Has Samsung, Google et al provided any clarification on why particular phones do not receive updates? Probably because they don't want to spend time supporting these devices?
scintill76 9y ago
No updates might actually be better than forced (practically? I don't use iOS) updates that make your device less desirable to you, and can't be undone. It's more fair and conceivable that Apple should be forced to meet certain standards for updates they choose to release, than for any manufacturer to be forced to make updates for some arbitrary/indefinite period of time.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  This is effectively an anti vaxxer argument. Security patches provide herd immunity and today it’s more important that everyone around you is patched than you or just you. You share a metric ton of personal information with people and if their devices are compromised so is your data. Now you might be on top of every vulnerability and wake up in be middle of the night to check up the NVD RSS feed but I would bet my life on the fact that the majority of your social circle doesn’t. You wouldn’t accept Facebook or Google not patching their servers why would you accept your friends and family not patching their devices when they are in a much better position to compromise you if they are compromised?
  - scintill76 9y ago
    OK, my comment wasn't clear in the security context, because the post I was responding to didn't talk about security specifically. Sure, I'd like security updates and I'll apply them. Too often, as someone else noted here, my only choice of getting them also includes the latest design and heavy framework fads. In the ideal world, I'd be able to secure my device, without changing unrelated things I liked about how it used to work. Against my will, 99.5% of my email and social connections are saved by Google, Facebook, and the servers of whatever random apps slurped my friends' contacts. (Example: Venmo has a large and accurate friend suggestion list for me, somehow. I assume all those people have my number in their phone and their Venmo app matched it with my number.) So that ship has kind of sailed anyway. Their devices are compromised by design.
- sol_remmy 9y ago
  > No updates might actually be better than forced (practically? I don't use iOS) updates that make your device less desirable to you, and can't be undone No real people hold this opinion. You don't hold this opinion. You're saying that phone OS updates in general (whether from Google or Apple) are so low quality that its better NOT to get them on older phones?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Lots of real people hold that position. Just go to any Android-related forum, lots of owners of older tablets/phones recommend not upgrading past version X (usually for performance reasons.)
thirdsun 9y ago
Not to mention that battery degradation, the root of these throttling measures, isn't exclusive to Apple devices. Doesn't anyone care how other hardware manufacturers handle this? I assume they tolerate the occassional shutdown, which isn't a preferable solution in my opinion.

MBCook 9y ago

Well, Apple is the company that had to settle a case with the DOJ because they dared to be a party to people breaking Amazon’s ebook monopoly. A downright scummy company. /s

pc86 9y ago

What is "e-waste" and how is it different than regular waste? Has Samsung, Google et al provided any clarification on why particular phones do not receive updates?

Retric 9y ago
Unlike most things, electronics are fairly toxic and should not be disposed of by throwing them in the regular trash.
saagarjha 9y ago
> Has Samsung, Google et al provided any clarification on why particular phones do not receive updates? Probably because they don't want to spend time supporting these devices?

scintill76 9y ago

No updates might actually be better than forced (practically? I don't use iOS) updates that make your device less desirable to you, and can't be undone. It's more fair and conceivable that Apple should be forced to meet certain standards for updates they choose to release, than for any manufacturer to be forced to make updates for some arbitrary/indefinite period of time.

dogma1138 9y ago
This is effectively an anti vaxxer argument. Security patches provide herd immunity and today it’s more important that everyone around you is patched than you or just you. You share a metric ton of personal information with people and if their devices are compromised so is your data. Now you might be on top of every vulnerability and wake up in be middle of the night to check up the NVD RSS feed but I would bet my life on the fact that the majority of your social circle doesn’t. You wouldn’t accept Facebook or Google not patching their servers why would you accept your friends and family not patching their devices when they are in a much better position to compromise you if they are compromised?
- scintill76 9y ago
  OK, my comment wasn't clear in the security context, because the post I was responding to didn't talk about security specifically. Sure, I'd like security updates and I'll apply them. Too often, as someone else noted here, my only choice of getting them also includes the latest design and heavy framework fads. In the ideal world, I'd be able to secure my device, without changing unrelated things I liked about how it used to work. Against my will, 99.5% of my email and social connections are saved by Google, Facebook, and the servers of whatever random apps slurped my friends' contacts. (Example: Venmo has a large and accurate friend suggestion list for me, somehow. I assume all those people have my number in their phone and their Venmo app matched it with my number.) So that ship has kind of sailed anyway. Their devices are compromised by design.
sol_remmy 9y ago
> No updates might actually be better than forced (practically? I don't use iOS) updates that make your device less desirable to you, and can't be undone No real people hold this opinion. You don't hold this opinion. You're saying that phone OS updates in general (whether from Google or Apple) are so low quality that its better NOT to get them on older phones?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Lots of real people hold that position. Just go to any Android-related forum, lots of owners of older tablets/phones recommend not upgrading past version X (usually for performance reasons.)

thirdsun 9y ago

Not to mention that battery degradation, the root of these throttling measures, isn't exclusive to Apple devices. Doesn't anyone care how other hardware manufacturers handle this? I assume they tolerate the occassional shutdown, which isn't a preferable solution in my opinion.