3 ms·

> Pixel support is fine Uh, what? I just bought a new Pixel 7 (after my perfectly good S7 was deliberately obsoleted by carriers discontinuing some 4G cell ser

> Pixel support is fine Uh, what? I just bought a new Pixel 7 (after my perfectly good S7 was deliberately obsoleted by carriers discontinuing some 4G cell service (and the FCC allowing this!)). The Pixel's official software updates are slated to end in less than 3 short years, and the security updates are slated to end in less than 5 short years, leading third party distributions Graphene/Calyx to project ending of their own support in 5 short years as well. This is most definitely not "fine" ! If the various drivers required to get the device running were actually upstreamed into the mainline kernel, and Google stopped churning Android major versions like it was fashion week, then my phone could happily function for 10+ years just like my laptop and desktop.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
3 years is a huge step up on where Android support was a few years ago, let alone 5 years. There are Android tablets and phones I've bought in the past that never got one update or any kind of security update, and were out of date before they were even released in terms of software. They couldn't even run the apps I'd bought them for as I'd naively assumed they'd be running the latest OS when they launched. Plenty of manufacturers also promise updates and don't deliver because they're at the mercy of Qualcomm providing driver updates. The last Nokia I had got a couple months of updates then nothing for over a year, yet was in the Android One program. Like I said: it's fine. If replacing the phone in 3 years or 5 years time is going to be a problem then perhaps you should have bought a cheaper phone and replaced more often, IMO. The cost of ownership per year assuming 3-5 years is the price of a piece of crap that gets updates for a few months to a year. By the time year 2 hits on most phones, the battery is mediocre versus what it used to be. Google has a trade-in program that gives pretty good credit towards the next device. It's a cellphone. It's not a desktop computer. They aren't built to last or assumed to last. Buy it, use it, trash or trade it in, get the next one. Sure, I wish that there was an ATX-like standard for cellphone chassis and parts, but there isn't, and the support is much better than it was. Cellphones are garbage versus what they used to be in build quality and durability, but they also do much more than they ever did. Maybe an iPhone would suit you better? Hell, I didn't even use a phone for quite a few years as I shared your sentiment, but I aged out of it and found other things to worry about, and a few hundred bucks every few years is whatever to have one less problem with something I use for a good chunk of every day. My modded ThinkPad T440p is still going strong. The missus's X201 is still going strong too. I use 30-50 year old tech elsewhere because it still works, I love the design, and/or it's easy to service. I get the sentiment.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Sure, Google can have some credit for improving the abjectly terrible Android lifetime into a merely bad lifetime. But keep in mind their starting point was Linux which runs on 15+ year old machines without blinking, including API and security updates. I wholeheartedly reject the narrative that cell phones should be considered throw away devices. It's not about money, and making even more e-waste by buying cheaper devices even more often is certainly not what I want. As I said, my Samsung S7 (released 2016) is perfectly fine. Solid physical condition. Battery life is fine (I continue to play games on it). Honestly I would have kept using it data-only but as far as I can tell both AT&T and T-mo have blacklisted the model by IMEI.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    I run Fedora on a ThinkPad T440p. The missus runs it on a ThinkPad X201. I hear ya. But cellphones aren't laptops, and even laptops are mostly crap, as are desktop PCs. Y'gets what y'pays for most of the time. ThinkPads can be enterprise-grade machines (if you don't buy the consumer/prosumer crap), but they certainly don't make them like they used to. The average cellphone doesn't last as long as us nerds on HN can make them last though. People end up smashing them, they wear out, or they flat-out just need an upgrade to run the latest x app or piece of hardware, or stay up to date with security vulns as a workplace mandate. Right to Repair is a step in the right direction, but maybe a "Right to Firmware/Driver Source" or similar would be a good possible next step. I get the sentiment, but the hardware's largely junk unless you're buying an iPhone, and I'm not even saying I think the iPhone is well-made or that I like the modern iPhone. Repairing the back glass now apparently requires the use of a laser. I can only laugh. Never heard of blacklisting non-stolen cellphones. I would contact your carrier for further info and report back, because if so, that's shocking.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      > Never heard of blacklisting non-stolen cellphones Well consider yourself having heard. The AT&T MVNO I was on at the time kept sending me SMSs telling me I had to upgrade, until eventually the phone went no service. I recently tried sticking a T-mo MVNO SIM in the phone, which didn't work either. You can read about this if you search for "non-VoLTE" or "3G shutdown". The S7 was a 4G phone that used LTE data and UMTS voice, so the LTE data would have continued to work without the blacklisting - in fact I think I even used it for a month or two after they shut down UMTS voice but before they forcibly kicked it off the network. > People end up smashing them, they wear out Sure, this has happened to phones I've owned. But in this case it didn't - as I've repeatedly said, I was perfectly happy with the condition of the hardware. > they flat-out just need an upgrade to run the latest x app or piece of hardware, or stay up to date with security vulns as a workplace mandate This is exactly the software issue that we're discussing, so it's not an argument. Sure, people get encouraged to just go with the flow of needless software churn, and use it as an excuse to buy a shiny new thing. We're discussing the (lack of) justification for that churn to begin with. You've shotgunned a heap of half-arguments that fall apart under examination. Replacement parts are readily available from donor phones on eBay. Google certainly has the power to dictate to Qualcomm that kernel sources must be released (per GPL2), and this is irrelevant with Tensor. Regardless of what it took to get Linux running on any given device, it can be kept running without reverse engineering. The primary reason that Google et al get away with artificially short lifetimes from software churn is that it doesn't help their bottom line to do otherwise. And so it seems the only things we can do are shame and/or legislate. And I don't see the point of detracting from that energy just because Google is slightly better than the rest of the terrible industry they had a large part in creating.
kelnos 4y ago
How is 5 years of security updates all that bad? Apple IIRC does around 7 years, and has the luxury of 100% control over their hardware and the firmware/software stack that runs on it. I agree that 3 years of major OS upgrades is frustratingly short. (Edit: See end of post for correction; following paragraphs are incorrect.) But really, complain to Qualcomm. They're the ones who refuse to support their chipsets and keep moving on to the next new thing. It took years of negotiation for Google to even wring 5 years of security support out of them. The only alternative is a new SoC vendor that can beat (or at least compete with) Qualcomm on price/performance/heat/power consumption. Good luck with that. For whatever reason, Samsung's Exynos seems to be constantly behind the competition, and Samsung even doesn't use it for all their phones. If Samsung can't do it, with all their resources, what chance does a new upstart have? Really, I just wish, for the good of humanity, Apple would open up their chips to third-party buyers. Of course they never will, and I get why, but it's still frustrating. Edit: didn't realize Google's Tensor was the main SoC for current-gen Pixels; for some reason I thought the Tensor chip was a co-processor paired with a Snapdragon. In that case: shame on Google for only offering 3 years of OS upgrades and 5 years of security upgrades, when they likely have the ability to do more.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Qualcomm don't make the Pixel SoC, mate. Google makes the Tensor, that's how they're now able to offer 3 years of OS updates and 5 years of security updates.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Thank you for the correction; for some reason I thought the Tensor was a co-processor, paired with a Snapdragon chipset. In that case, there's really no excuse for Google not to offer longer support (well, aside from their own desire to spend less and push people to buy new phones), unless they've farmed out parts of the design and firmware to a third party who won't give them better terms.
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago

hammyhavoc 4y ago

3 years is a huge step up on where Android support was a few years ago, let alone 5 years. There are Android tablets and phones I've bought in the past that never got one update or any kind of security update, and were out of date before they were even released in terms of software. They couldn't even run the apps I'd bought them for as I'd naively assumed they'd be running the latest OS when they launched. Plenty of manufacturers also promise updates and don't deliver because they're at the mercy of Qualcomm providing driver updates. The last Nokia I had got a couple months of updates then nothing for over a year, yet was in the Android One program. Like I said: it's fine. If replacing the phone in 3 years or 5 years time is going to be a problem then perhaps you should have bought a cheaper phone and replaced more often, IMO. The cost of ownership per year assuming 3-5 years is the price of a piece of crap that gets updates for a few months to a year. By the time year 2 hits on most phones, the battery is mediocre versus what it used to be. Google has a trade-in program that gives pretty good credit towards the next device. It's a cellphone. It's not a desktop computer. They aren't built to last or assumed to last. Buy it, use it, trash or trade it in, get the next one. Sure, I wish that there was an ATX-like standard for cellphone chassis and parts, but there isn't, and the support is much better than it was. Cellphones are garbage versus what they used to be in build quality and durability, but they also do much more than they ever did. Maybe an iPhone would suit you better? Hell, I didn't even use a phone for quite a few years as I shared your sentiment, but I aged out of it and found other things to worry about, and a few hundred bucks every few years is whatever to have one less problem with something I use for a good chunk of every day. My modded ThinkPad T440p is still going strong. The missus's X201 is still going strong too. I use 30-50 year old tech elsewhere because it still works, I love the design, and/or it's easy to service. I get the sentiment.

mindslight 4y ago
Sure, Google can have some credit for improving the abjectly terrible Android lifetime into a merely bad lifetime. But keep in mind their starting point was Linux which runs on 15+ year old machines without blinking, including API and security updates. I wholeheartedly reject the narrative that cell phones should be considered throw away devices. It's not about money, and making even more e-waste by buying cheaper devices even more often is certainly not what I want. As I said, my Samsung S7 (released 2016) is perfectly fine. Solid physical condition. Battery life is fine (I continue to play games on it). Honestly I would have kept using it data-only but as far as I can tell both AT&T and T-mo have blacklisted the model by IMEI.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  I run Fedora on a ThinkPad T440p. The missus runs it on a ThinkPad X201. I hear ya. But cellphones aren't laptops, and even laptops are mostly crap, as are desktop PCs. Y'gets what y'pays for most of the time. ThinkPads can be enterprise-grade machines (if you don't buy the consumer/prosumer crap), but they certainly don't make them like they used to. The average cellphone doesn't last as long as us nerds on HN can make them last though. People end up smashing them, they wear out, or they flat-out just need an upgrade to run the latest x app or piece of hardware, or stay up to date with security vulns as a workplace mandate. Right to Repair is a step in the right direction, but maybe a "Right to Firmware/Driver Source" or similar would be a good possible next step. I get the sentiment, but the hardware's largely junk unless you're buying an iPhone, and I'm not even saying I think the iPhone is well-made or that I like the modern iPhone. Repairing the back glass now apparently requires the use of a laser. I can only laugh. Never heard of blacklisting non-stolen cellphones. I would contact your carrier for further info and report back, because if so, that's shocking.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > Never heard of blacklisting non-stolen cellphones Well consider yourself having heard. The AT&T MVNO I was on at the time kept sending me SMSs telling me I had to upgrade, until eventually the phone went no service. I recently tried sticking a T-mo MVNO SIM in the phone, which didn't work either. You can read about this if you search for "non-VoLTE" or "3G shutdown". The S7 was a 4G phone that used LTE data and UMTS voice, so the LTE data would have continued to work without the blacklisting - in fact I think I even used it for a month or two after they shut down UMTS voice but before they forcibly kicked it off the network. > People end up smashing them, they wear out Sure, this has happened to phones I've owned. But in this case it didn't - as I've repeatedly said, I was perfectly happy with the condition of the hardware. > they flat-out just need an upgrade to run the latest x app or piece of hardware, or stay up to date with security vulns as a workplace mandate This is exactly the software issue that we're discussing, so it's not an argument. Sure, people get encouraged to just go with the flow of needless software churn, and use it as an excuse to buy a shiny new thing. We're discussing the (lack of) justification for that churn to begin with. You've shotgunned a heap of half-arguments that fall apart under examination. Replacement parts are readily available from donor phones on eBay. Google certainly has the power to dictate to Qualcomm that kernel sources must be released (per GPL2), and this is irrelevant with Tensor. Regardless of what it took to get Linux running on any given device, it can be kept running without reverse engineering. The primary reason that Google et al get away with artificially short lifetimes from software churn is that it doesn't help their bottom line to do otherwise. And so it seems the only things we can do are shame and/or legislate. And I don't see the point of detracting from that energy just because Google is slightly better than the rest of the terrible industry they had a large part in creating.

kelnos 4y ago

How is 5 years of security updates all that bad? Apple IIRC does around 7 years, and has the luxury of 100% control over their hardware and the firmware/software stack that runs on it. I agree that 3 years of major OS upgrades is frustratingly short. (Edit: See end of post for correction; following paragraphs are incorrect.) But really, complain to Qualcomm. They're the ones who refuse to support their chipsets and keep moving on to the next new thing. It took years of negotiation for Google to even wring 5 years of security support out of them. The only alternative is a new SoC vendor that can beat (or at least compete with) Qualcomm on price/performance/heat/power consumption. Good luck with that. For whatever reason, Samsung's Exynos seems to be constantly behind the competition, and Samsung even doesn't use it for all their phones. If Samsung can't do it, with all their resources, what chance does a new upstart have? Really, I just wish, for the good of humanity, Apple would open up their chips to third-party buyers. Of course they never will, and I get why, but it's still frustrating. Edit: didn't realize Google's Tensor was the main SoC for current-gen Pixels; for some reason I thought the Tensor chip was a co-processor paired with a Snapdragon. In that case: shame on Google for only offering 3 years of OS upgrades and 5 years of security upgrades, when they likely have the ability to do more.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
Qualcomm don't make the Pixel SoC, mate. Google makes the Tensor, that's how they're now able to offer 3 years of OS updates and 5 years of security updates.
- kelnos 4y ago
  Thank you for the correction; for some reason I thought the Tensor was a co-processor, paired with a Snapdragon chipset. In that case, there's really no excuse for Google not to offer longer support (well, aside from their own desire to spend less and push people to buy new phones), unless they've farmed out parts of the design and firmware to a third party who won't give them better terms.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago