4 ms·
Aside from gaming, which isn't prevalent aside from casual games in NA and EU to my knowledge, I'm not sure what someone may possibly need it's phone for where
by BbzzbB 6y ago
Aside from gaming, which isn't prevalent aside from casual games in NA and EU to my knowledge, I'm not sure what someone may possibly need it's phone for where something like a S7 (a bit more than 4 years old) isn't largely sufficient. Not a diss on Apple, I think the iPhone 5 is vastly better than circa-2012 Android phones, I just disagree with the premise of throwing phones every 2 years as being remotely necessary (perhaps until the next paradigm shift in computing/web/mobile usage where current tech starts to be too sluggish).
- mrtksn 6y agoon Apple’s case, means good app experience for the users and the developers. for example, SwiftUI comes to iOS 13 or later. If most devices were to be left off without updates(which is the case with Android) most developers would be hesitant to pick up the newer shiniest technology. apps on android still tend to be ugly and old fashioned. sure, there’re exceptions but generally apps on iOS are fresh and consistent probably because developers can depend on the users having the latest platform.
- dawg- 6y agoYeah but in the context of security your point is moot. No more updates means no more security patches, right? Throwing phones away every two years is of course not necessary, an Android phone from 2012 is probably perfectly usable - yet horribly insecure.
- recursivecaveat 6y agoI had an S3 from launch for ~7 years before switching, and it was completely unusable by the end. Most websites and big-name apps halve in performance every 18 months or so. Doesn't help that your battery will be on its last legs by then. 2 years is definitely much more often than required, but until ad-tech corps and web developers call off the assault, we're stuck on the phone treadmill to some degree.