4 ms·

The cost of supporting a product for it's lifecycle should be baked into the original cost.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
In practice it often is -- even in the case of many bad Android phones. It's just that the lifecycle they work to is the two year phone contract replacement lifecycle, not the longer one you might imagine. It's Darwinian: as long as the phone is not abandonware by the time the user's contract runs out, it doesn't matter. And the only Darwinian pressure to resolve this would be longer plan terms.
- hughrr 5y ago
  I think they should actually forcibly separate buying a phone from the carrier.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    In the UK and the EU at least, there's not much of a tie anymore, and the market probably has enough choice; not sure how much things have improved in the USA or elsewhere. I suspect the increasing discussion of longer support periods does suggest my Darwinian scenario is changing. A bit.
    - jpindar 5y ago
      In the US it is a choice, at least for anyone willing and able to pay the full price of the phone up front.
brap 5y ago
So would you be happy to pay this “baked in” cost (which will cost you the same as paying for a subscription)? And should all buyers be forced to pay this cost as well, even those who can’t afford it? Should we not allow any alternatives?
- wolrah 5y ago
  > So would you be happy to pay this “baked in” cost (which will cost you the same as paying for a subscription)? And should all buyers be forced to pay this cost as well, even those who can’t afford it? Should we not allow any alternatives? An alternative would be to require that all products with an "expiration date" list it prominently on the packaging and marketing materials. Make it very clear that the device will no longer be receiving security fixes and will be increasingly likely to be dangerous to use after that date. Then you still have the option to produce and purchase devices that won't be supported a reasonable time, but the consumer is aware of exactly what those limits are before purchasing so they can compare prices accurately. What you seem to be suggesting is that it should be OK to sell people products that NEED to be supported to not be dangerous, with the knowledge that they will be used beyond their support period, just to save money. Sometimes there is a minimum cost a thing has to be to be done right, and anything cheaper than that is cutting corners somewhere. --- If it's connected to the internet it needs to be receiving security updates, period. No exceptions. If you can't update for whatever reason (crappy software, ancient but irreplaceable hardware, production requirements), it shouldn't be connected to the internet. --- edit: Another point to make, specifically when referring to cell phones and similar systems, is that in a lot of cases the vendors making these devices are themselves at fault for them being hard to support long term. They're the ones who choose to hack up the Linux kernel in their own weird ways, with no common base. A phone vendor should be able to update their entire line more or less one-shot for the majority of fixes, but they usually cant due to bad decisions made in-house or by their SoC vendor. And all of those bad decisions are things these vendors have been getting yelled at about for well over a decade now, so they know they're doing it wrong and choose to continue.
  - brap 5y ago
    How is this different than a warranty, which already comes with every device? I agree with you that this should be very explicit, although it’s the consumer’s responsibility as well to understand what they’re purchasing. Not sure I understand the 2nd part. If Apple or Google don’t want to issue security fixes after N years, should they remotely disable the device? How many of us are currently using devices beyond their warranty period? How many of us will appreciate it if our devices got disabled “for our own good”?
judge2020 5y ago
the lifecycle of the unit, or the lifecycle of the model? Because there's already an issue with both Android phones and iPhones where you might buy a phone whose near the end of its production run, and that can mean you only get 1 year of updates on it if that.

In practice it often is -- even in the case of many bad Android phones. It's just that the lifecycle they work to is the two year phone contract replacement lifecycle, not the longer one you might imagine. It's Darwinian: as long as the phone is not abandonware by the time the user's contract runs out, it doesn't matter. And the only Darwinian pressure to resolve this would be longer plan terms.

hughrr 5y ago
I think they should actually forcibly separate buying a phone from the carrier.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  In the UK and the EU at least, there's not much of a tie anymore, and the market probably has enough choice; not sure how much things have improved in the USA or elsewhere. I suspect the increasing discussion of longer support periods does suggest my Darwinian scenario is changing. A bit.
  - jpindar 5y ago
    In the US it is a choice, at least for anyone willing and able to pay the full price of the phone up front.

brap 5y ago

So would you be happy to pay this “baked in” cost (which will cost you the same as paying for a subscription)? And should all buyers be forced to pay this cost as well, even those who can’t afford it? Should we not allow any alternatives?

wolrah 5y ago
> So would you be happy to pay this “baked in” cost (which will cost you the same as paying for a subscription)? And should all buyers be forced to pay this cost as well, even those who can’t afford it? Should we not allow any alternatives? An alternative would be to require that all products with an "expiration date" list it prominently on the packaging and marketing materials. Make it very clear that the device will no longer be receiving security fixes and will be increasingly likely to be dangerous to use after that date. Then you still have the option to produce and purchase devices that won't be supported a reasonable time, but the consumer is aware of exactly what those limits are before purchasing so they can compare prices accurately. What you seem to be suggesting is that it should be OK to sell people products that NEED to be supported to not be dangerous, with the knowledge that they will be used beyond their support period, just to save money. Sometimes there is a minimum cost a thing has to be to be done right, and anything cheaper than that is cutting corners somewhere. --- If it's connected to the internet it needs to be receiving security updates, period. No exceptions. If you can't update for whatever reason (crappy software, ancient but irreplaceable hardware, production requirements), it shouldn't be connected to the internet. --- edit: Another point to make, specifically when referring to cell phones and similar systems, is that in a lot of cases the vendors making these devices are themselves at fault for them being hard to support long term. They're the ones who choose to hack up the Linux kernel in their own weird ways, with no common base. A phone vendor should be able to update their entire line more or less one-shot for the majority of fixes, but they usually cant due to bad decisions made in-house or by their SoC vendor. And all of those bad decisions are things these vendors have been getting yelled at about for well over a decade now, so they know they're doing it wrong and choose to continue.
- brap 5y ago
  How is this different than a warranty, which already comes with every device? I agree with you that this should be very explicit, although it’s the consumer’s responsibility as well to understand what they’re purchasing. Not sure I understand the 2nd part. If Apple or Google don’t want to issue security fixes after N years, should they remotely disable the device? How many of us are currently using devices beyond their warranty period? How many of us will appreciate it if our devices got disabled “for our own good”?

judge2020 5y ago

the lifecycle of the unit, or the lifecycle of the model? Because there's already an issue with both Android phones and iPhones where you might buy a phone whose near the end of its production run, and that can mean you only get 1 year of updates on it if that.