3 ms·

I think the title is perfectly accurate. That is exactly what's going to happen.

n4bz0r 5y ago
I wouldn't go as far as saying "perfectly". What is "old"? I clicked thinking my Android 4 device (which I use daily) is fucked.
eptcyka 5y ago
I wonder if iOS5 devices can still log into the apple store.
- ainiriand 5y ago
  Good question. Maybe someone here can confirm. Is the app store covering so much ground as not being able to access the Google account? Maps, Gmail, analytics...
  - eptcyka 5y ago
    Actually, even though iOS5 was released in 2011, all devices that supported iOS5 were able to update to iOS6. I wonder, how functional an iOS6 device could be today.
    - Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
      The original iPad is stuck on 5.1.1 I think.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  For kicks I pulled out an iOS 5.1.1 device and I was able to sign-in to the App Store and install an old version of an app using my current Apple ID. I'm genuinely surprised it worked.
- dspillett 5y ago
  Not as direct a question as it may seem: the iPhone 4s (IIRC the first device released with iOS5) could be upgraded as far as iOS9 but many Android devices never saw much by way of upgrades unless you count rooting them to install something manually. Though how well those devices run newer versions of the OS and newer apps is likely a question with many answers (most, but not all, negative).
  - virgilp 5y ago
    That's typically an argument that "iDevices have more value because you can use them longer than Android". You can't have it both ways - "old android devices" in this context are devices older than iPhone 4s, and iPhone 4s themselves are not very much in use today, so it's that much less likely that Android phones would be. Realistically, very few people will be affected, and the business backlash for Google is going to be 0. BUT, on the other hand, if anybody at all is going to be affected - those are probably some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the society (which is also why they're going to not have a strong voice). The social cost, if any, will only be known by Google.
jfoster 5y ago
It could be much more exact by mentioning the version & date that it was released on.
yupper32 5y ago
It's click-baity because it withholds necessary information in order to get you to click on it. Saying the version number or release date would stop most people from clicking on it, because it matters much less.
- tantalor 5y ago
  That's how all headlines work.
  - KoftaBob 5y ago
    Nowadays, yes, but that’s not necessarily how they’re supposed to work. A headline should give a reader actionable information, with the article itself serving to give more detailed context. This headline doesn’t give actionable information, because you have no idea whether your android version is affected.
  - dave5104 5y ago
    Not really, and they don't have to. A simple change would suffice: > Old Android versions [from 2011 and earlier] will no longer be able to log into Google account
  - rhdunn 5y ago
    By that logic you have headlines like "Windows installs will now require a Microsoft account", with the article saying it only applies to Windows 11 Home. I tend to avoid reading articles where the headline deliberately avoid information in an attempt to get clicks.
mdp2021 5y ago
Stochastic language ("Topitanians are strong"), "S is P" = "The median of S is P" = "Android 7 will..." (Very stretched interpretation.) Logical language ("[All/Some] Topitanians are strong"), "S is P" = "All S are P" = "All old Android versions...". Without an explicit quantifier, a statement to be interpreted in logical language easily defaults to using the universal "All": the statement "Coal burns", if not stochastic (envisaging exceptions) but logical, is meant to express that all of the instances do. "Old Android versions" does not default to "Some old Android versions".
- ainiriand 5y ago
  This is very interesting, thank you for teaching me a bit about logic today. Also, it looks like the headline was amended.

I wouldn't go as far as saying "perfectly". What is "old"? I clicked thinking my Android 4 device (which I use daily) is fucked.

eptcyka 5y ago

I wonder if iOS5 devices can still log into the apple store.

ainiriand 5y ago
Good question. Maybe someone here can confirm. Is the app store covering so much ground as not being able to access the Google account? Maps, Gmail, analytics...
- eptcyka 5y ago
  Actually, even though iOS5 was released in 2011, all devices that supported iOS5 were able to update to iOS6. I wonder, how functional an iOS6 device could be today.
  - Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
    The original iPad is stuck on 5.1.1 I think.
EvanAnderson 5y ago
For kicks I pulled out an iOS 5.1.1 device and I was able to sign-in to the App Store and install an old version of an app using my current Apple ID. I'm genuinely surprised it worked.
dspillett 5y ago
Not as direct a question as it may seem: the iPhone 4s (IIRC the first device released with iOS5) could be upgraded as far as iOS9 but many Android devices never saw much by way of upgrades unless you count rooting them to install something manually. Though how well those devices run newer versions of the OS and newer apps is likely a question with many answers (most, but not all, negative).
- virgilp 5y ago
  That's typically an argument that "iDevices have more value because you can use them longer than Android". You can't have it both ways - "old android devices" in this context are devices older than iPhone 4s, and iPhone 4s themselves are not very much in use today, so it's that much less likely that Android phones would be. Realistically, very few people will be affected, and the business backlash for Google is going to be 0. BUT, on the other hand, if anybody at all is going to be affected - those are probably some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the society (which is also why they're going to not have a strong voice). The social cost, if any, will only be known by Google.

jfoster 5y ago

It could be much more exact by mentioning the version & date that it was released on.

yupper32 5y ago

It's click-baity because it withholds necessary information in order to get you to click on it. Saying the version number or release date would stop most people from clicking on it, because it matters much less.

tantalor 5y ago
That's how all headlines work.
- KoftaBob 5y ago
  Nowadays, yes, but that’s not necessarily how they’re supposed to work. A headline should give a reader actionable information, with the article itself serving to give more detailed context. This headline doesn’t give actionable information, because you have no idea whether your android version is affected.
- dave5104 5y ago
  Not really, and they don't have to. A simple change would suffice: > Old Android versions [from 2011 and earlier] will no longer be able to log into Google account
- rhdunn 5y ago
  By that logic you have headlines like "Windows installs will now require a Microsoft account", with the article saying it only applies to Windows 11 Home. I tend to avoid reading articles where the headline deliberately avoid information in an attempt to get clicks.

mdp2021 5y ago

Stochastic language ("Topitanians are strong"), "S is P" = "The median of S is P" = "Android 7 will..." (Very stretched interpretation.) Logical language ("[All/Some] Topitanians are strong"), "S is P" = "All S are P" = "All old Android versions...". Without an explicit quantifier, a statement to be interpreted in logical language easily defaults to using the universal "All": the statement "Coal burns", if not stochastic (envisaging exceptions) but logical, is meant to express that all of the instances do. "Old Android versions" does not default to "Some old Android versions".

ainiriand 5y ago
This is very interesting, thank you for teaching me a bit about logic today. Also, it looks like the headline was amended.