3 ms·
Some of it is to do with your so-called "protocol churn" but also the fact that a phone from the 1890's is order of magnitude less complex than a modern smartph
by fennecfoxy 4y ago
Some of it is to do with your so-called "protocol churn" but also the fact that a phone from the 1890's is order of magnitude less complex than a modern smartphone. It's really a ridiculous argument.
Many of the required updates to a device are security related, perhaps they could write said software better so that there are never bugs...but software is complicated now; millions & millions of lines or code and dozens and dozens of different chips. It's better to make phones much more recyclable than it is to make them last longer.
- vitiral 4y agoThis is indeed the problem and the thing that needs to be focused on if we truly want anything to change.
- Spivak 4y agoAnd to that I point to cars, devices that also have millions of lines of code (some luxury cars apparently have 100 million lines of code) that drive security and safety critical systems. They are also an amalgam of far far more parts and chips than any phone is. But here’s the thing, the complexity isn’t even relevant, the thing that would make phones last for ages is just committing to some basic set of hardware interfaces. You can pull an ancient desktop out of your basement and run the latest Linux on it and you ought to be able to do that with phones too.