3 ms·

Ironically, this 30% and the pivot to "Service" is why iOS devices get updates after 3 years while Android phones just become paperweights. Android OEM are inc

Ironically, this 30% and the pivot to "Service" is why iOS devices get updates after 3 years while Android phones just become paperweights. Android OEM are incentivized to sell as many phones as they can. They only make money on new hardware. Apple on the other hand still makes money on older hardware as long as the user still buy from the ecosystem. So it makes sense for them to keep the products working longer.

GeekyBear 5y ago
>Ironically, this 30% and the pivot to "Service" is why iOS devices get updates after 3 years while Android phones just become paperweights. Apple's support window advantage long predates their services initiative. Every flagship iPhone since the iPhone 4s in 2011 has gotten at least five years of OS and security updates. If you count years where you only get a security update, but not an OS update the way the Android ecosystem does, they have devices that have gotten eight years of support.
- cmelbye 5y ago
  App Store has been a >$1B business for at least a decade.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    If it's just a question of revenue, Google can certainly afford to update it's Pixel devices for more than three years. Heck, they can afford to offer customer service and technical support hotlines the way Apple does as well. However, the claim made was that Apple only started offering a longer update period after they started calling out service growth. This simply isn't true.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      They can except... They don't control the SoC! Qualcomm decides if a SoC gets to boot a newer Android or not. And it’s in Qualcomm’s interest to sell more chips, since they get no revenues post sales; only maintenance costs.
      - GeekyBear 5y ago
        That claim doesn't hold water. If people doing unpaid community support can produce custom ROMs for older devices that are no longer supported, Google can support older devices too. Not to mention the ability of any company to make demands of their suppliers. If Google can demand device makers not use a fork of Android, they can demand suppliers offer support for their products. Google simply doesn't care, because the customers they care about are the advertisers, not device purchasers.
paulpan 5y ago
Great point. Apple is lauded for their 5-6 year of iOS updates but it's not an altruistic move - the updates enable users to keep using their apps/services. Also there's an upper-bound on price for an iPhone Apple is able to charge and if I can speculate, the "Pro" lineup does not outsell the "base" iPhone significantly. For one, there isn't enough product differentiation for an average consumer to pay the $300/40% price premium. So in the world of 3-4 year iPhone cycles, keeping up the walled garden and monetizing those within is the surest path to revenue growth.
- geodel 5y ago
  > but it's not an altruistic move - the updates enable users to keep using their apps/services. What is altruistic in this world? Government welfare? parental love? I don't know of anything that is truly altruistic.
flerchin 5y ago
Google figured out the game better than that. After a few years there's no ongoing costs for those devices, but they still take their vig if users continue to use them.
rogerbinns 5y ago
Apple's approach is even simpler from a technical point of view. The oldest supported iPhone is the second generation of 64 bit processor. There were almost certainly problems with the first generation (of anything). The oldest supported Watch was the first with (a now mature) 64 bit processor. They made it mandatory for apps in the store to be 64 bit. Android meanwhile supports 32 and 64 bit, multiple instruction sets, multiple (incompatible) SOCs etc. That is a lot more challenging.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  >The oldest supported iPhone is the second generation of 64 bit processor. There were almost certainly problems with the first generation (of anything) The iPhone with the oldest version of a 64 bit processor (the A7 used in the 2013 iPhone 5s) fell out of support after six years because it no longer had enough RAM for the new version of the OS.

GeekyBear 5y ago

>Ironically, this 30% and the pivot to "Service" is why iOS devices get updates after 3 years while Android phones just become paperweights. Apple's support window advantage long predates their services initiative. Every flagship iPhone since the iPhone 4s in 2011 has gotten at least five years of OS and security updates. If you count years where you only get a security update, but not an OS update the way the Android ecosystem does, they have devices that have gotten eight years of support.

cmelbye 5y ago
App Store has been a >$1B business for at least a decade.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  If it's just a question of revenue, Google can certainly afford to update it's Pixel devices for more than three years. Heck, they can afford to offer customer service and technical support hotlines the way Apple does as well. However, the claim made was that Apple only started offering a longer update period after they started calling out service growth. This simply isn't true.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    They can except... They don't control the SoC! Qualcomm decides if a SoC gets to boot a newer Android or not. And it’s in Qualcomm’s interest to sell more chips, since they get no revenues post sales; only maintenance costs.
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      That claim doesn't hold water. If people doing unpaid community support can produce custom ROMs for older devices that are no longer supported, Google can support older devices too. Not to mention the ability of any company to make demands of their suppliers. If Google can demand device makers not use a fork of Android, they can demand suppliers offer support for their products. Google simply doesn't care, because the customers they care about are the advertisers, not device purchasers.

paulpan 5y ago

Great point. Apple is lauded for their 5-6 year of iOS updates but it's not an altruistic move - the updates enable users to keep using their apps/services. Also there's an upper-bound on price for an iPhone Apple is able to charge and if I can speculate, the "Pro" lineup does not outsell the "base" iPhone significantly. For one, there isn't enough product differentiation for an average consumer to pay the $300/40% price premium. So in the world of 3-4 year iPhone cycles, keeping up the walled garden and monetizing those within is the surest path to revenue growth.

geodel 5y ago
> but it's not an altruistic move - the updates enable users to keep using their apps/services. What is altruistic in this world? Government welfare? parental love? I don't know of anything that is truly altruistic.

flerchin 5y ago

Google figured out the game better than that. After a few years there's no ongoing costs for those devices, but they still take their vig if users continue to use them.

rogerbinns 5y ago

Apple's approach is even simpler from a technical point of view. The oldest supported iPhone is the second generation of 64 bit processor. There were almost certainly problems with the first generation (of anything). The oldest supported Watch was the first with (a now mature) 64 bit processor. They made it mandatory for apps in the store to be 64 bit. Android meanwhile supports 32 and 64 bit, multiple instruction sets, multiple (incompatible) SOCs etc. That is a lot more challenging.

GeekyBear 5y ago
>The oldest supported iPhone is the second generation of 64 bit processor. There were almost certainly problems with the first generation (of anything) The iPhone with the oldest version of a 64 bit processor (the A7 used in the 2013 iPhone 5s) fell out of support after six years because it no longer had enough RAM for the new version of the OS.