3 ms·
> why should I have to buy a new one to get security updates? Who is writing those security updates? How do they get paid?
by core-questions 6y ago
> why should I have to buy a new one to get security updates?
Who is writing those security updates? How do they get paid?
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI wouldn't object to Apple (or anyone else) charging a reasonable fee for security updates past a certain date. (Where "reasonable" ≠ what Microsoft is charging businesses for Windows 7 support, for instance.) Making people buy new hardware they don't need just to stay secure isn't merely wasting their money, it's actively harmful to the planet.
- jasonv 6y agoUsed to be normal to pay for things like that, and so people didn't update for security, and the world of devices/machines was less secure.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoAnd not providing updates at all unless users buy new hardware is better?
- derefr 6y agoIn terms of herd immunity, yes.
- jasonv 6y agoI'm simply stating the charging for the updates probably won't generate the $ that was suggested as an incentive to produce the updates.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI wouldn't expect it to become a cash cow, no, but then neither does continuing to support the iPhone 6S. I do think they could more than break even, and that ought to be enough. Moreover, companies ought to continue offering security updates because it's the right thing thing to do—for their customers, for their brand, and for the planet.
- sudosysgen 6y agoGoogle is writing the security updates, and random people online will port them to your device but somehow your OEM won't.
- untog 6y agoI actually wouldn’t be at all opposed to Apple charging, say, $30 for an iOS14 upgrade on an iPhone 6S. Seems like a fair trade off to me.
- chorsestudios 6y agoI’m opposed to Apple charging to update phones, especially if they continue to try to push users to update automatically when you plug in the device at night. It also might be in Apple’s best interest to have the majority of users on the same current OS version, which a paywall might interfere with
- PascLeRasc 6y agoPossibly, but I believe this would be interpreted as a regressive tax - charging users with less money more than those with more money for the same software. Maybe it's fair if you consider QA and additional developers, but this is what the public reception would be.