8 ms·

> So, as an order of magnitude, the price asked by Qualcomm for extended support is 1M$. I'll second the request for a source for this, $1M seems ridiculously

> So, as an order of magnitude, the price asked by Qualcomm for extended support is 1M$. I'll second the request for a source for this, $1M seems ridiculously low.

akjfhasfuhef 5y ago
> $1M seems ridiculously low. If you see the entire picture, it's the most expensive cost any department can ever present. it is a "revenue-less $1M"! pure Career suicide. Specially because marketing can't even use it. today only false-equality sells. Eco-thinking is so 90s.
- spion 5y ago
  Which is why the solution is to write these blog posts to warn people off of buying any Google phones as they become dangerous after 3 years.
- nwiswell 5y ago
  By this logic Google should do away with their QA department and product support staff. You spend the $1M because it improves customer value by far more than $1M and that works out for everyone in the long run. This thread is a testament to what happens when you pinch pennies.
  - akjfhasfuhef 5y ago
    customer value only exist [in current US corporate culture] when you can use it to extract actual monetary value. QA exists to keep the sales/avoid returns/refunds. Not for pure customer value.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  I know PLENTY of people who bought a Samsung, Pixel, or iPhone because of the software support lifespan being a market leading 3/4-3/5 years, 3/5 years, or 7/7 years respectively compared to the standard 2/3 year support of Android OEMs. The average person now is going north of 4 years with their phone and rising. It's not about wanting to be "eco friendly" it's security, software support, and OS features being supported by some corpo instead of some teenager making a ROM. This is a huge part of the reason why Androids depreciate so much faster on the used market, if you compare the Galaxy S20 to the even older iPhone 11, the iPhone 11 will likely receive 5 years of OS updates compared to 1 year for Samsung. Other OEMs like OnePlus or Sony will have already had support end. Maybe your average customer doesn't really understand why this stuff matters but they do understand that an old iPhone seems to work better than an old Android that cost the same at release. Of course this is a great decision because people will be forced to buy a new phone more often right? No! People using your phone are a captive audience for selling high-margin services and accessories. If you don't support the phone they'll still use their old phone anyways but will be annoyed and likely to switch to the competition next purchase cutting off all your profit streams.
  - catach 5y ago
    > but they do understand that an old iPhone seems to work better than an old Android that cost the same at release. I suspect that the majority of Android-using techies that notice this are either on a faster new phone cycle than 3 years, or have already priced that difference into their total value calculation. I also strongly suspect that the average customer does not indeed understand.
  - rxhernandez 5y ago
    > if you compare the Galaxy S20 to the even older iPhone 11, the iPhone 11 will likely receive 5 years of OS updates compared to 1 year for Samsung My galaxy note 10 (purchased 2 years ago) is still receiving updates. In fact Samsung is saying they'll support most phones for 4 years while others are supported for 5: https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295639/samsung-galaxy-device-2019-four-years-security-updates https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295639/samsung-galaxy-d...
    - faeriechangling 5y ago
      I'm referring to FTA >Samsung did guarantee support for at least three “generations” of Android OS updates in 2020 The 4/5 year support is for security updates. I will correct that some samsungs are now receiving 5 years of security updates, I didn't realize that.
  - chasil 5y ago
    There is an easy solution to this problem. Pass a new "right to repair" law, such that any OEM that halts software patches on any network-connected device for more than 6 months will be required to unlock bootloaders and publish technical specs. Apple and Android will see enormous and wonderful community involvement if that were to happen, and congress could force it, should we motivate them.
    - buu700 5y ago
      I've had some similar ideas: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28247651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28247651 > We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics. I wonder how this should apply to planned obsolescence of devices like smartphones. On one hand, it's obscene that manufacturers expect us to routinely spend ~$1k on a device that will in the best case scenario last for three years. There's no inherent reason that a flagship Samsung from 2017 shouldn't be perfectly serviceable today, and likewise for a Pixel 6 or iPhone 13 in 2030. However, the discontinuation of security updates makes it so that for all practical purposes they are not. On the other hand, we can't exactly compel speech or labor. It would be one thing if there were a kill switch triggered after N years, but in this case the obsolescence isn't caused by an active update, rather a lack thereof. Here's a possible middle ground: 1. Block device manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. We can't compel the release of new software, but we can block the release of new software. Require manufacturers to submit a filing with request for approval before the release of any new mobile OS update, which must include an exhaustive list of all supported devices. In the event that a device is dropped from the list in a subsequent filing, it must be explained to the satisfaction of regulators that a specific hardware limitation makes continued support for the device problematic or impractical. Given approval to drop support for a device from an OS release, there would be no obligation on the manufacturer to backport security updates to prior releases. 2. Block component manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. Any hardware included in a publicly available consumer electronic device must have its manufacturer commit to providing up-to-date driver software with support for the latest OS for the lifetime of the device. Failure to provide this within a certain time frame (say, three months) following the request of a device manufacturer would open them up to a lawsuit, wherein they could be compelled to publish the most recent release of the driver as open source / public domain. #1 would provide the incentive for each device manufacturer to proactively enforce this, as their entire product roadmap would be effectively frozen if they allowed component manufacturers to drag their feet. 3. Ban irreversible bootloader locking in new devices. Maybe an initial bootloader lock would be acceptable, but power users should have some way to override the lock and install a custom ROM without relying on vulnerabilities in the software.

> So, as an order of magnitude, the price asked by Qualcomm for extended support is 1M$. I'll second the request for a source for this, $1M seems ridiculously low.

akjfhasfuhef 5y ago

> $1M seems ridiculously low. If you see the entire picture, it's the most expensive cost any department can ever present. it is a "revenue-less $1M"! pure Career suicide. Specially because marketing can't even use it. today only false-equality sells. Eco-thinking is so 90s.

spion 5y ago
Which is why the solution is to write these blog posts to warn people off of buying any Google phones as they become dangerous after 3 years.
nwiswell 5y ago
By this logic Google should do away with their QA department and product support staff. You spend the $1M because it improves customer value by far more than $1M and that works out for everyone in the long run. This thread is a testament to what happens when you pinch pennies.
- akjfhasfuhef 5y ago
  customer value only exist [in current US corporate culture] when you can use it to extract actual monetary value. QA exists to keep the sales/avoid returns/refunds. Not for pure customer value.
faeriechangling 5y ago
I know PLENTY of people who bought a Samsung, Pixel, or iPhone because of the software support lifespan being a market leading 3/4-3/5 years, 3/5 years, or 7/7 years respectively compared to the standard 2/3 year support of Android OEMs. The average person now is going north of 4 years with their phone and rising. It's not about wanting to be "eco friendly" it's security, software support, and OS features being supported by some corpo instead of some teenager making a ROM. This is a huge part of the reason why Androids depreciate so much faster on the used market, if you compare the Galaxy S20 to the even older iPhone 11, the iPhone 11 will likely receive 5 years of OS updates compared to 1 year for Samsung. Other OEMs like OnePlus or Sony will have already had support end. Maybe your average customer doesn't really understand why this stuff matters but they do understand that an old iPhone seems to work better than an old Android that cost the same at release. Of course this is a great decision because people will be forced to buy a new phone more often right? No! People using your phone are a captive audience for selling high-margin services and accessories. If you don't support the phone they'll still use their old phone anyways but will be annoyed and likely to switch to the competition next purchase cutting off all your profit streams.
- catach 5y ago
  > but they do understand that an old iPhone seems to work better than an old Android that cost the same at release. I suspect that the majority of Android-using techies that notice this are either on a faster new phone cycle than 3 years, or have already priced that difference into their total value calculation. I also strongly suspect that the average customer does not indeed understand.
- rxhernandez 5y ago
  > if you compare the Galaxy S20 to the even older iPhone 11, the iPhone 11 will likely receive 5 years of OS updates compared to 1 year for Samsung My galaxy note 10 (purchased 2 years ago) is still receiving updates. In fact Samsung is saying they'll support most phones for 4 years while others are supported for 5: https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295639/samsung-galaxy-device-2019-four-years-security-updates https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/22/22295639/samsung-galaxy-d...
  - faeriechangling 5y ago
    I'm referring to FTA >Samsung did guarantee support for at least three “generations” of Android OS updates in 2020 The 4/5 year support is for security updates. I will correct that some samsungs are now receiving 5 years of security updates, I didn't realize that.
- chasil 5y ago
  There is an easy solution to this problem. Pass a new "right to repair" law, such that any OEM that halts software patches on any network-connected device for more than 6 months will be required to unlock bootloaders and publish technical specs. Apple and Android will see enormous and wonderful community involvement if that were to happen, and congress could force it, should we motivate them.
  - buu700 5y ago
    I've had some similar ideas: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28247651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28247651 > We need a lemon-like law for consumer electronics. I wonder how this should apply to planned obsolescence of devices like smartphones. On one hand, it's obscene that manufacturers expect us to routinely spend ~$1k on a device that will in the best case scenario last for three years. There's no inherent reason that a flagship Samsung from 2017 shouldn't be perfectly serviceable today, and likewise for a Pixel 6 or iPhone 13 in 2030. However, the discontinuation of security updates makes it so that for all practical purposes they are not. On the other hand, we can't exactly compel speech or labor. It would be one thing if there were a kill switch triggered after N years, but in this case the obsolescence isn't caused by an active update, rather a lack thereof. Here's a possible middle ground: 1. Block device manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. We can't compel the release of new software, but we can block the release of new software. Require manufacturers to submit a filing with request for approval before the release of any new mobile OS update, which must include an exhaustive list of all supported devices. In the event that a device is dropped from the list in a subsequent filing, it must be explained to the satisfaction of regulators that a specific hardware limitation makes continued support for the device problematic or impractical. Given approval to drop support for a device from an OS release, there would be no obligation on the manufacturer to backport security updates to prior releases. 2. Block component manufacturers from arbitrarily deprecating hardware. Any hardware included in a publicly available consumer electronic device must have its manufacturer commit to providing up-to-date driver software with support for the latest OS for the lifetime of the device. Failure to provide this within a certain time frame (say, three months) following the request of a device manufacturer would open them up to a lawsuit, wherein they could be compelled to publish the most recent release of the driver as open source / public domain. #1 would provide the incentive for each device manufacturer to proactively enforce this, as their entire product roadmap would be effectively frozen if they allowed component manufacturers to drag their feet. 3. Ban irreversible bootloader locking in new devices. Maybe an initial bootloader lock would be acceptable, but power users should have some way to override the lock and install a custom ROM without relying on vulnerabilities in the software.