Pixel 8: released in 2023, updates through 2030 Pixel 5: released in 2020, stopped getting updates in October 2023.
3 years worth of updates is pretty shit… my son’s iPhone 5c got updates for over 5 years (and I think there were some security issues they patched after that even)
At the moment I’ve got a perfectly usable Pixel 4a that I’m going to have to replace as it’s not secure enough for work related stuff anymore
This isn't a debate about what company is better. The word "now" is used for Google's promises for a reason.
Over a decade of Nexus then Pixel devices being flashable has not moved any needle of Apple doing the same. Google promising 7 years is in line with Apple's 10 year track record of providing 6-8 years of updates, so it's more like Google aligning with Apple, not Google pushing Apple.
Still, a vague† promise in a blog post or keynote address is not going to fit the bill, at the very least it should be in the EULA or other contractually enforceable document, otherwise the promise is worth nothing.
Ideally I wish software would be treated as with e.g automotive or washing machine manufacturers, who in the EU have a legal requirement to provide parts for 10 years.
† I mean the promise is clearly worded but bears no weight, especially when pitted against Google's track record over the last decade of making grand announcements then puling the rug down the road.
Let’s talk again in 5 years, once they had the opportunity to prove their plans. So far, it’s all just talk.
"not everyone" is an understatement.
That's a solution for you (and the dozens - dozens! - of people doing the same), in practice it is not for 99% of Android users, therefore, again in practice, there's a huge fleet of devices with out-of-date software out there.
> But Android also lets you run custom builds
That's not even counting that:
- many Android manufacturers make it non-trivial† to root/unlock/flash a build and/or make it blow a warranty fuse, and that's if it's even possible at all.
- usually the camera goes ape shit, and often loudspeaker audio quality too.
- unless you relock the bootloader it immediately compromises security and makes bootloader updates nontrivial as unlocking again clears the device.
Mind you, this is a fine, intellectually satisfying strategy for you and me to be able to flash open builds, but it's by and large an extremely fringe strategy, and it's been shown over a decade that it's staying that way.
† Often involving downloading random flashing tools from obscure forums, that run only on Windows, some of these being one shot and requiring to plug in magic numbers corresponding to your exact device, and if you screw it up the device is bricked (e.g Samsung). Or the unlocking is on a low-write-count chip and once you exceed that limit the device is bricked (e.g OnePlus). I know, I've been there, bricked a few, recovered only one through JTAG.
Yes, but that is only one component of a modern phone. Basebands and system bootloaders, among other firmwares, don't receive updates. Those are regularly attacked.
It's good that they do but it's not enough.
Don’t buy brand new old phones new from Apple, they’re a ripoff. If you buy either an iPhone 12 or 13 used for $250-350 you can basically plan on a $50 a year budget to have a smartphone that always has the latest OS judging by their expected remaining lifespans.
I think the big flaw with the status quo is e-waste more than cost to the consumer. I think an iPhone 6S or 7 are incredibly slow and outdated devices for today’s usage but in 5 years I don’t think we will be able to say the same thing about an iPhone 12 or 13. Smartphone hardware is far more mature now than it was even 6 generations deep into the iPhone product line.
We should be able to replace batteries for $20 and replace things like broken screens for not much more, and Apple should be enthusiastic about it considering how services are their bread and butter moving forward. Apple should be happy to produce fewer phones and keep more consumer dollars allocated toward the purchase of high margin digital goods.
The wildcard here is local LLM use cases and any new hardware that increases their speed by orders of magnitude.
I also don’t see any indication that there will be impactful local LLM silicon at the smartphone scale anytime soon.
The 2020 SE is available from a wide variety of sources for 200USD (still new in box); it'll be supported until 2027. The 2022 SE is 400USD, supported until 2029.
By comparison the Android phones at this price point functionally went out of support 2 years before they even existed- not only is there zero support for them, but they ship with outdated OS versions to begin with. And no, "but I can go to XDA and get a shitty ROM at the cost of my camera" doesn't count as support.
While Google promises, Apple actually has a decade long track record of updating older phones for 5 or more years. We don’t know if Google will actually follow through on their promises or the execs in charge in 5 years will feel differently. But I personally bet $1000 that the iPhone 13 will get 5 years of OS updates minimum.
I’ll believe it at 6 years in, maybe.
Google: promises
you're being disingenuous
Google is not promising this out of the goodness of their heart. They're just getting ahead of what the EU is planning to mandate [0], and doing that to get some good marketing while they're at it.
So, while Google's track record leaves a lot to be desired, in this, I think they'll keep their promise, either because they actually care, or because the EU will force them to. Either way, we, the end users, will benefit from it.
And this will apply to all electronic device makers. That's probably why Samsung also increased their updates policy to five years as well.
[0]: https://www.insideprivacy.com/cybersecurity-2/eu-publishes-d...
> "The requirements apply for the lifetime of a product or five years from its placement on the market, whichever is shorter."
If that was the case then why did Google exceed the requirement by 2 years? Additionally, Google is providing 7 years of OS upgrades and 7 years of security updates. Google could have easily just do what they did with the Pixel 7 and offer 3 years of OS upgrades and 5 years of security updates, thus, meeting these EU requirement of 5 years of updates. So to claim that Google offering an industry leading 7 years of OS upgrades and 7 years of security updates is not out of the "goodness of their heart" is being disingenuous IMO.
Do you really think the cost of the class action lawsuit and settlement and the bad publicity for not adhering to their 7 years of support would not exponentially exceed the cost of a team of engineers tasked with supporting updates for their Pixel phones?
As for "promises" - why hasn't any other OEM matched or exceeded Google? Apple should have been the first one to step up the very next day.
And how many are there, then?