> There is no reason preventing any manufacturer to support older devices with security upgrades for a time way longer than this. Well, it's complicated. The b

> There is no reason preventing any manufacturer to support older devices with security upgrades for a time way longer than this. Well, it's complicated. The baseband is the biggest obstacle, because it's generally not made by the manufacturer and has a lot of arcane requirements that prevent them from having a great negotiation position, but yes, things could be better. Smaller manufacturers have a serious challenge with this, especially since they can't negotiate as well as Apple, and these kinds of things slaughter their margins. This is partially why Apple is the best at this and also partially why I think we need legislation in this area. >And remember that Apple was the one throttling iphones with a bad battery. What would be the first reaction of 90% of the users, replace the battery or replace the phone because it's now slow? They were doing that to extend the lifespan of the device, and communicated it poorly. Now, iOS informs you that you need to have your battery replaced, and Apple does it for a relatively reasonable cost. >Don't fall for Apple's greenwashing, they are like or even worse than everybody else. See the "no charger included" campaign. Apple is doing more than anyone else. They _should_ be doing better, but they certainly _could_ be doing worse. I would love legislation that suggested that all new phones sold in the US must have 5+ years of security updates /from when the model of device is last sold/. It would raise the price of phones, but there are already subsidy programs in place that could be (slightly) expanded to fill that. Actually, I'd prefer 10 years of security updates ;) but the bar is already tragically low.