7 ms·

5 years of security updates, 3 years of feature updates. On the page it says on the 12th footnote, "Feature drops for at least 3 years from when the device fir

5 years of security updates, 3 years of feature updates. On the page it says on the 12th footnote, "Feature drops for at least 3 years from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the US. Your Pixel will receive feature drops during the applicable Android update and support periods for the phone. See g.co/pixel/updates for details." On https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705 https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705 it says, "Guaranteed Android version updates until at least: October 2024" and "Guaranteed security updates until at least: October 2026" for Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro So they hypothetically could extend it to more than 3 years of feature updates and 5 years of security updates with the nebulous "at least" wording.

ehsankia 5y ago
Historically, they have. Older pixels all had 2 year feature 3 year security, but ended up getting 3 year feature+security. Although, after 1-2 year, the features get a bit thinner because a lot of the newer features rely on new hardware that the older phones don't fully have. Sometimes they try to make it work, like how Astrophotography was available on older pixels but didn't work quite as well as on Pixel 4. But in general, they probably put the "at least" because it's hard to guarantee that a feature in 5 years will be backportable to Pixel 6.
howinteresting 5y ago
Unlike iOS where basic features like the web browser require system updates, Android is modular and updates get pushed through other channels independently of the OS itself.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Which is ok, and if you don’t use Safari then you don’t have to worry about this.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here--all iOS browsers are custom skins on top of Safari. Yes I'm aware of WKWebView and how it's not the same as Safari. I'm using the classic meaning of browser skins, dating back to browsers like Maxthon which were wrappers over Trident in exactly the same way.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      No I'm not being sarcastic - I think calling the apps a skin on top of Safari is a bit of an over-simplification. Most features that users notice happen at this skin layer, not the rendering layer. It's peak HN to really be caring about this especially as Apple offers (as far as I know) no performance difference across browsers using Webkit or w/e. You could actually just say that Safari itself is a skin too, just the default one that comes with iOS. It's similar to complaining about other basic features of iOS IMO (like complaining there's a default settings app or that iOS just works a certain way).
      - howinteresting 5y ago
        What about security updates or new HTML features? Chrome or Firefox on Android get security updates for many years after official system updates end. The same is not true for Apple.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Don't think most users know or care about security or HTML features so while certainly it's a difference it's unlikely to be important for most users. Think of Safari as a skin that's unbundled from the engine. While Chrome or Firefox are reliant on Apple to update the engine, so is Safari, but neither are reliant on Apple for other functionality that they want to implement that users can take advantage of. IMO it's modular enough.
        Phrodo_00 5y ago
        User might not care about web engine updates, but it's definitely important, especially because of security.
  - Sargos 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by not worrying about iOS needing OS updates for browser upgrades as the Safari engine is the only web browser engine allowed on iOS and third party browsers like Chrome are just skins on top of Safari and not real counterparts to their desktop cousins. Upgrading the OS is the only way to get new web functionality and bug fixes.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Web browsers have to use the Safari engine but that doesn't mean they don't also separately update the browsers and add functionality. I.e. you mostly get modularity by not using Safari even if you have to rely on the underlying Safari engine being updated. Most of the features users notice are updated by the app provider anyway.
    - fulafel 5y ago
      Does the browsee limitation come from loading non reviewed code and interpreting it? Are other browsers allowed if they don't implement JavaScript?
      - Sargos 5y ago
        I think that would be allowed, yes. It would be a rather useless web browser though so that's probably why nobody has tried before.
nextos 5y ago
If you use a third-party ROM such as the excellent GrapheneOS, in practice you get fully featured updates for really really long. With that said, open source ROMs don't take advantage of some features such as the Tensor SoC, and therefore the camera stops performing so good.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Graphene has a specific sandbox for google play services, so you can continue to run the google pixel camera app (which can presumably run the same way as under the official OS) But also, it has a good hardware ISP that will also improve image quality by itself.
  - akc3n 5y ago
    GrapheneOS is working on its new Camera app, which will soon replace the bundled AOSP camera app. For more info: https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1450746282176303107 https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1450746282176303107
- phh 5y ago
  GrapheneOS is pretty clear about not supporting devices longer than the OEM. From their FAQ: Why are older devices no longer supported? GrapheneOS aims to provide reasonably private and secure devices. It cannot do that once device support code like firmware, kernel and vendor code is no longer actively maintained. Even if the community was prepared to take over maintenance of the open source code and to replace the rest, firmware would present a major issue
  - nextos 5y ago
    There was extended support planned for Pixel 2, which was dropped recently from mainline, but it has not happened yet. One can always switch to a different ROM I guess.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
It's funny that when discussing the topic of "updates" and obsolescence, users focus on the vendor as if they have exclusive control over the situation. Authors of applications may also play a role. For example, when they "update" their applications to only work with newer versions of Android. Depending on the user's application needs, that can shorten the life of a an Android device. Some applications will continue to work with both older and newer Android versions, some will not. For example, F-Droid has numerous programs that will work on older, "obsolete" Android versions. This allows older hardware to be re-purposed and to continue to be useful for some uses. Not sure that Apple has anything like this; consider how many programs in the Apple App Store work with older iOS versions. Both Android vendor and Apple hardware continue to work long after the software has become "outdated". That hardware does not die when the software becomes "obsolete". The vendor may choose to ignore this fact in the interest of sales but it does not mean that authors of applications must ignore it as well. The third factor besides the vendor and the authors of applications are the operating system authors. With older PC-like hardware, I can run the latest versions of NetBSD. Forever. I update when and if I decide it is time. x86 has its benefits. It is sad that these pocket-sized computers called "smartphones" are so inflexible. A non-HN reader recently told me that the "tech" industry has turned us all into "beta testers". The entire "updates" concept needs a serious examination. Updates are not a substitute for quality control.
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  This is whats wrong with my iPad. I don't care that it doesn't get updates from Apple, but the web has moved on and it will fail to open a lot of web pages. Failed to load the deno.land standard library docs just last night while I was watching TV. Still not going to buy a new iPad though.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  I'm not sure how app authors shorten the life. If the app author only targets a new version of the os, then if the phone gets the new OS then all I good. So it is up too the vendor providing the new os, but the app provider. Now, the app provider can do supporting old OSes but that won't shorten the time past what the vendor sets
- 5y ago
EastOfTruth 5y ago
> 5 years of security updates, 3 years of feature updates. It would be nice to have 8 years of security updates and 0 years of feature updates, instead. I always dreamed of having the option to only have security updates on my OSes...
- lmns 5y ago
  They could easily do it if they wanted to, now that they have more control over the SoC. With Chrome OS they already do it. Most devices that are released now will get 8 years of security updates, which are supplied by Google.

ehsankia 5y ago

Historically, they have. Older pixels all had 2 year feature 3 year security, but ended up getting 3 year feature+security. Although, after 1-2 year, the features get a bit thinner because a lot of the newer features rely on new hardware that the older phones don't fully have. Sometimes they try to make it work, like how Astrophotography was available on older pixels but didn't work quite as well as on Pixel 4. But in general, they probably put the "at least" because it's hard to guarantee that a feature in 5 years will be backportable to Pixel 6.

howinteresting 5y ago

Unlike iOS where basic features like the web browser require system updates, Android is modular and updates get pushed through other channels independently of the OS itself.

ericmay 5y ago
Which is ok, and if you don’t use Safari then you don’t have to worry about this.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here--all iOS browsers are custom skins on top of Safari. Yes I'm aware of WKWebView and how it's not the same as Safari. I'm using the classic meaning of browser skins, dating back to browsers like Maxthon which were wrappers over Trident in exactly the same way.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    No I'm not being sarcastic - I think calling the apps a skin on top of Safari is a bit of an over-simplification. Most features that users notice happen at this skin layer, not the rendering layer. It's peak HN to really be caring about this especially as Apple offers (as far as I know) no performance difference across browsers using Webkit or w/e. You could actually just say that Safari itself is a skin too, just the default one that comes with iOS. It's similar to complaining about other basic features of iOS IMO (like complaining there's a default settings app or that iOS just works a certain way).
    - howinteresting 5y ago
      What about security updates or new HTML features? Chrome or Firefox on Android get security updates for many years after official system updates end. The same is not true for Apple.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Don't think most users know or care about security or HTML features so while certainly it's a difference it's unlikely to be important for most users. Think of Safari as a skin that's unbundled from the engine. While Chrome or Firefox are reliant on Apple to update the engine, so is Safari, but neither are reliant on Apple for other functionality that they want to implement that users can take advantage of. IMO it's modular enough.
        Phrodo_00 5y ago
        User might not care about web engine updates, but it's definitely important, especially because of security.
- Sargos 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by not worrying about iOS needing OS updates for browser upgrades as the Safari engine is the only web browser engine allowed on iOS and third party browsers like Chrome are just skins on top of Safari and not real counterparts to their desktop cousins. Upgrading the OS is the only way to get new web functionality and bug fixes.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Web browsers have to use the Safari engine but that doesn't mean they don't also separately update the browsers and add functionality. I.e. you mostly get modularity by not using Safari even if you have to rely on the underlying Safari engine being updated. Most of the features users notice are updated by the app provider anyway.
  - fulafel 5y ago
    Does the browsee limitation come from loading non reviewed code and interpreting it? Are other browsers allowed if they don't implement JavaScript?
    - Sargos 5y ago
      I think that would be allowed, yes. It would be a rather useless web browser though so that's probably why nobody has tried before.

nextos 5y ago

If you use a third-party ROM such as the excellent GrapheneOS, in practice you get fully featured updates for really really long. With that said, open source ROMs don't take advantage of some features such as the Tensor SoC, and therefore the camera stops performing so good.

kaba0 5y ago
Graphene has a specific sandbox for google play services, so you can continue to run the google pixel camera app (which can presumably run the same way as under the official OS) But also, it has a good hardware ISP that will also improve image quality by itself.
- akc3n 5y ago
  GrapheneOS is working on its new Camera app, which will soon replace the bundled AOSP camera app. For more info: https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1450746282176303107 https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1450746282176303107
phh 5y ago
GrapheneOS is pretty clear about not supporting devices longer than the OEM. From their FAQ: Why are older devices no longer supported? GrapheneOS aims to provide reasonably private and secure devices. It cannot do that once device support code like firmware, kernel and vendor code is no longer actively maintained. Even if the community was prepared to take over maintenance of the open source code and to replace the rest, firmware would present a major issue
- nextos 5y ago
  There was extended support planned for Pixel 2, which was dropped recently from mainline, but it has not happened yet. One can always switch to a different ROM I guess.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

It's funny that when discussing the topic of "updates" and obsolescence, users focus on the vendor as if they have exclusive control over the situation. Authors of applications may also play a role. For example, when they "update" their applications to only work with newer versions of Android. Depending on the user's application needs, that can shorten the life of a an Android device. Some applications will continue to work with both older and newer Android versions, some will not. For example, F-Droid has numerous programs that will work on older, "obsolete" Android versions. This allows older hardware to be re-purposed and to continue to be useful for some uses. Not sure that Apple has anything like this; consider how many programs in the Apple App Store work with older iOS versions. Both Android vendor and Apple hardware continue to work long after the software has become "outdated". That hardware does not die when the software becomes "obsolete". The vendor may choose to ignore this fact in the interest of sales but it does not mean that authors of applications must ignore it as well. The third factor besides the vendor and the authors of applications are the operating system authors. With older PC-like hardware, I can run the latest versions of NetBSD. Forever. I update when and if I decide it is time. x86 has its benefits. It is sad that these pocket-sized computers called "smartphones" are so inflexible. A non-HN reader recently told me that the "tech" industry has turned us all into "beta testers". The entire "updates" concept needs a serious examination. Updates are not a substitute for quality control.

jay_kyburz 5y ago
This is whats wrong with my iPad. I don't care that it doesn't get updates from Apple, but the web has moved on and it will fail to open a lot of web pages. Failed to load the deno.land standard library docs just last night while I was watching TV. Still not going to buy a new iPad though.
chrismcb 5y ago
I'm not sure how app authors shorten the life. If the app author only targets a new version of the os, then if the phone gets the new OS then all I good. So it is up too the vendor providing the new os, but the app provider. Now, the app provider can do supporting old OSes but that won't shorten the time past what the vendor sets
5y ago

EastOfTruth 5y ago

> 5 years of security updates, 3 years of feature updates. It would be nice to have 8 years of security updates and 0 years of feature updates, instead. I always dreamed of having the option to only have security updates on my OSes...

lmns 5y ago
They could easily do it if they wanted to, now that they have more control over the SoC. With Chrome OS they already do it. Most devices that are released now will get 8 years of security updates, which are supplied by Google.