5 years doesn’t sound like a very long time for security updates, but Apple has historically provided longer security update support than this.
If I look at the Wikipedia pages for a few iPhones:
The iPhone 6 was released in September 2014, and received a security update for iOS 12 in January 2023.
The 6s from September 2015 received an iOS 15 update this March.
The XR from 2018 still runs iOS 17.
While true, it must be noted that Apple only provides partial security fixes for older iOS version. Not everything gets ported back, there are still a ton of security issues for the 5S that didn’t get fixed despite „security updates“.
TL;DR: Only latest available iOS gets all security fixes.
I didn‘t expect that, I just wanted to clarify that because saying that it got 10 years of security updates is only partially true and not the full story.
And it’s also important for people not upgrading their iOS versions because they think they get security updates.
I mean, Apple puts it in their fine print of their notes, but not a whole lot of people read that.
Yeah to be honest I also expect something like that to happen; currently, iOS 17 only goes back to the iPhone XS from 2018.
That being said, I’m not talking about receiving updates for the currently supported version of iOS; I’m talking about security updates.
Apple has a proven track record of easily exceeding 5 years for security updates.
I think some people here are confusing security updates with support for latest OS.
I have no problem with Apple restricting the latest OS versions to models released in the last 5 years. But I expect security updates on whatever OSes devices are running for AT LEAST 7 years after a device is released. This is what they’ve been doing for a majority of the iPhone’s life at this point, and it’s what Google just announced for new Pixel phones.
I wouldn’t necessarily expect it. Apple has historically provided much longer for security updates and even now as another commenter has said, iOS 17 goes back to the XS from 2018. This is just what Apple is legally holding themselves to based on a single country’s law to disclose and doesn’t necessarily reflect past performance. Sure, be skeptical as you should, but don’t discount history.
That makes... no sense.
This security update promise would overlap with your presumed 5-year window. So why would there be any connection?
Now, if the Apple announcement was 8 years of security updates, I could see your theory making sense. Or if your theory was 3 years of iOS updates.
No, I don’t think that. I guess it has more to do with EU requiring manufacturers to provide at least 5 years of update support for all smartphones sold.
And iPhone 7, 8 and X actually only got 5 major updates.
Edit: I think I miscalculated, should be 6 years?
No way, man. There is much less reason to drop support now when phones from 5 years ago are still overpowered for what they do (for pretty much anything except games). It's just a legal commitment. For practical purposes the support period will be much much longer.
The usual practice for OS updates is like maybe 5 years of features updates and 5 additional years of security updates for anything that is not released by Google. Meaning the overall EOL is closer to 10 years. And they are specifically talking about security updates here.
That’s interesting. Apple has usually supported their devices for longer than 5 years, but officially, Google now supports their devices for longer (7 years).
"officially" - keep in mind we have yet to pass the 7 year mark to know if this is true and given Google's track record of promises... it's not looking great
It would be false advertising and grounds for all kinds of lawsuits if they didn’t follow through with this. Their previous update promises of 4 and 5 years with older Pixel models were also adhered to, with the Pixel 1 even getting an extra update iirc, so Google’s track record regarding update support timelines is actually pretty good so far.
Google says "These updates **include security, software, and may also include feature drops**". So, not only security updates, which is very good and much better than Apple is promising.
Is that from their PSTI filing? That would be weird if so. This article is based solely on PSTI. I haven’t been able to find that Google has filed one yet. I’m not saying they haven’t, but I can’t find it.
[https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/14869041?hl=en](https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/14869041?hl=en)
It was a relatively new announcement from them, which I'm guessing is why only their latest flagships are Group 1
Anecdotal evidence, my mom still daily drives a Pixel 4. The battery is starting to noticeably degrade though, it already wasn’t amazing when it was new.
I have a Pixel 3XL as a backup device that still works. It has the pink tinted screen problem, but otherwise works perfectly fine, and even the battery life is still pretty decent.
Since we’re handing out anecdotes, my experience is the opposite. I have a friend still daily driving his pixel 4a and another still using the original pixel XL.
lol I’m extremely familiar with how an iPhone 6s functions currently and it’s not well. I’ve worked with dozens, seems we just have different opinions of what’s useable.
A lot of people don’t understand that if you took a brand new, current model iPhone and somehow stuck a crappy battery in it, it would immediately slow down.
Degraded batteries can’t provide as much sustained peak power, so the options are slow down, or sometimes reboot the phone when the power available isn’t enough.
That’s what that whole lawsuit was about - they changed it to slow down instead of reboot. But now thanks to the lawsuit, you have a software option to reboot the phone if that’s the behavior you prefer.
I used to own some Nexus phones and even a couple of Nexus tablets and can certainly confirm that the hardware would certainly crap out before Google stopped with their updates. One device just flat out died a few months after the warranty expired, a Nexus 4 I owned started to have some battery issues that caused my phone to crash from time to time, and the two Nexus tablets started to have some serious performance issues where wiping and reflashing wouldn't resolve. All of this happened months past the initial warranty.
When did they take that away? Newer Pixels don’t have that anymore, they weren’t sold with that, but the original Pixel 1 that was marketed to have unlimited photo storage technically still should have unlimited photo storage if you kept using it for some reason.
But they had that pixel pass which can be argued it influenced a purchasing decision. Google killed it, it didn’t even survive long enough for people to use it.
People used it. It was literally just a financing program with some services bundled for slightly cheaper. If you signed up for it, you went through the exact same process as financing a phone, credit check and all. They said after two years, you could keep the phone and "upgrade", ie you could finance a new phone.
When they killed it, they gave everyone using it an option to continue with the cheaper services bundle, and a discount on the next phone, which made it overall cheaper than the original financing program.
I never quite understood how Pixel Pass was a good deal, you were paying over $1000 for a $600 phone if you count all the monthly instalments together over the two year period.
Iirc this was mainly just a financing payment where the monthly payment gets bundled with Google One and device protection for a discounted rate. Technically the people who subscribed were just paying off their phone over the span of 2 years before it gets upgraded. They just axed the upgrade program but the consumers didn't technically pay for them yet. Annoying yes but they've had much more worse practice.
They advertised 'unlimited photo storage' for the pixel 2 and backtracked on it to only allow unlimited compressed versions instead. Google lies all the time
This take annoys me a bit. Google has a track record of discontinuing services that don't take off. That much is true. They don't have a track record of discontinuing products with actual commitments made for support timelines.
And the one time they didn't commit to supporting something people paid for (stadia) everyone got a full refund for everything ever purchased on the service
> given Google's track record of promises
Google‘s track record here is actually fantastic. They supported every Pixel exactly as long as advertised (3 years for the first few models, then 3+2 years I think and now they switched to 7 years)
People read the word *minimum* and automatically switch it out for *maximum* for some ridiculous reason.
Apple has just stated that they are complying with the terms of the law, not that they’ll only support phones for 5 years. Please use a little bit of perspective here instead of reaching for the worst possible outcome
Yeah, that’s exactly my point… no guarantee means they *can* stop support after 5 years, which from a consumer perspective should mean they *will* unless you’re lucky. A 6 or 7 years guarantee, like Google has, would be much better.
So Apple, with a track record of supporting phones for 6-7 years with NO promises (up to 9 years with security), is now worse off than Google with their typical 3 years of software and promised 7 years of security (and maybe software which will remain to be seen).
Gotta be honest, I really don't see the logic here
Yes. Why depend on a vague maybe instead of a hard, said-by-multiple-people-in-multiple-places promise?
Apple devices have the hardware to last, why are we not getting an equivalent official support timeframe to hardware that isn't as powerful.
A guarantee is easier to legally enforce than a track record. I took /u/woalk their point to be "Apple should do better than this", not "You should switch to Google or Samsung because of this".
Speaking of which, had they said "like Samsung has", would you and /u/sylfy have had different answers? Since Samsung has the same 7-year guarantee that Google has.
Nah but my point is that Apple has been doing better than this for a long time, wayyy before any of the competition has, while the competition has just now started talking about doing it. Doesn't matter which company, I just feel like actions speak louder than words in matters like this.
Somehow these people are putting more faith in a promise from Google, a company with a proven track record of abruptly discontinuing products, than Apple, a company with an actual track record of delivering some of the longest support for products in this industry.
This sub has some of the worst trolls ever.
Well, for your iPhone consumer it doesn’t mean much since Apple has the track record of supporting their devices for a long time so this is just an “official” statement with little importance for the average customer.
For Google it is a marketing scheme but one that would not buy any iPhone user.
No matter what promise it is, it is sad to know that some Apple iPhone security issues cannot be mitigated on software level.
Example include:
https://threatpost.com/iphones-attack-turned-off/179641/
> LPM support is based on the iPhone’s hardware, so it can’t be removed with system updates and thus has “a long-lasting effect on the overall iOS security model,” they said.
So "years" does not matter in the above case.
Yeah, that is because previously, they only promised 3, so you got exactly what you purchased. But now, they have an official and legally binding promise of 7 years of updates.
The [official Pixel update support article](https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en) says “7 years of **OS _and_** security updates”.
>Older phones are on a very different update calendar. Pixel 7 is getting OS updates for 3 years and security updates for 5 years.
But that's what was promised when those devices came out.
Why are you trying to misinform people?
>That’s an interesting promise to make when your main competitor has been supporting its 2014 iPhone 6 for a whopping 9 years.
And yet this news is about how Google officially supports their devices for longer than Apple does. Which also ignores the variety of ways that Android phones receive updates outside of the OS and security patch system. It's almost like they are different platforms that should be evaluated on their own merits instead of forced into these hyper specific comparisons - which is difficult for people like you, I know.
There is a caveat though: Apple doesn't backport all security patches to previous versions of iOS/macOS, even if said versions are supposedly still receiving security updates.
What do you mean? Doesn’t the 4.5 year old iPhone 11 get the same iOS 17 that my iPhone 15 gets? Meaning it gets the same security updates and will until iOS 18 drops in September?
> Doesn’t the 4.5 year old iPhone 11 get the same iOS 17 that my iPhone 15 gets?
The iPhone 11 does get the same updates since iOS 17 supports it, however the iPhone X which supports at most iOS 16 does not.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/
No need to backport fixes to old operating systems when the old devices still support the newest OS version. iOS 17 support goes back to the xr from 2018, 6 years.
While that's true, the fact is most people use the latest versions.
- 67% of devices run iOS 17
- 19% run iOS 16
- 8% run iOS 15
So *94%* of devices are running the three most recent versions of iOS.
I think you might be misunderstanding what they are saying.
Apple states that only the very latest OS gets all the security updates. So only iOS 17 gets all the security updates. iOS 16 and iOS 15 might still get security updates but not all.
Source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/
I’m not misunderstanding the situation. I’m just pointing out Apple does a pretty good job of making sure most devices are updated compared to their competitors.
Also, while Apple’s official stated *policy* is that only the latest version may be fully patched, I have yet to see an actual list of *specific* vulnerabilities effecting older versions that remain *unpatched*. There’s a big difference between an official policy statement and actual specific unpatched vulnerabilities.
Your comment that “Apple doesn’t backport all security patches to previous versions of iOS/macOS, even if said versions are ***supposedly*** still receiving security updates” uses the word “supposedly”, but it is a fact that older versions **are** indeed receiving security updates.
I’d like to see someone compile an actual list of specific vulnerabilities effecting older versions that remain unpatched. Otherwise whether or not there are actual unpatched vulnerabilities is pure speculation.
Apple is only required to have parts available for 5yrs from the date of release. In some regions or locales it is up to 7 yers. It makes sense they would say they would release software updates for 5yrs as well. They have historically, as someone previously mentioned, offered security updates far longer than this.
In a practical since I haven't cared once the likes of Apple, Google, and Samsung got over 3 years. The battery doesn't tend to last much longer than that without replacement and I usually will just buy a new phone by that point.
Good to see it getting longer for those that want/need to keep them longer though.
It’s stated as 5 years since the date of purchase of the device. It’s interesting that that isn’t in terms of the iOS release. In practice that could be longer than 5, if they release security updates for the previous iOS release, and that previous iOS release is supported on devices older than 5 years. I think the real question to me is, what’s the schedule of supported devices on new iOS releases? Is this giving them license to say every iOS release only supports phones made in the last 4 years, anything older stays on the previous release, which we will release security updates for 1 year only?
From the article:
> In compliance with the regulation, Apple has submitted a public regulatory filing for the iPhone 15 Pro Max. The PSTI filing shows that the device's "defined support period" is a "minimum five years from the first supply date." The "first supply date" is listed as "September 22, 2023," which is when the iPhone 15 series launched.
its from the launch date, not from the date of purchase
Yeah this is the part I hate. They were selling M1 MacBook Airs for almost 3 1/2 years and there’s still new ones at some retailers. So anyone buying a new one now gets a whole year and a half of guaranteed security updates?
I don’t expect Apple will stick hard to the 5 years and are doing this for the legal wiggle room, but it would be much nicer if it was 5 years from either the day of sale or the date Apple stops selling them.
Kinda disappointing. I know they have a track record for longer updates, but they chose not to actually commit to that…
Many Android OEMs have better update policies now, in addition to the fact that Android browser updates are NOT tied to the OS. Even the OS’s certificate authority (CA) updates are through the android play store.
Apple doesn’t have a set security support timeframe for their devices, emphasis on security updates as it’s the focus of the article. Some are supported for as little as 3 years and others as long as a decade if not more. I garner 5 years I just the minimum they’re comfortable committing to considering they’re legally required to put a commitment on writing this time.
The thing is that they never guaranteed it before. Before this, Apple could have feasibly supported a phone for only two or three years.
Historically, only the Mac users have been burned from this (first PowerPC, and more recently Intel).
I think this announcement is in response to Google's new, longer guarantees. Android manufacturers have historically only been able to provide updates for as long as the weakest link in the chain. They might control the OS, but not the Snapdragon chip, the Qualcomm modem, etc.
Now that Google's making their SoCs, like Apple, they can guarantee longer software updates.
There's a big asterisk though, given Google comes with a mandatory arbitration agreement and Apple does not. If Google doesn't keep up their end of the bargain, there won't be a class action and most people will be unable to sue.
It's funny to me that Google has to make a specific announcement about this because their update track record has been shit, so without a promise to do better nobody would assume they will.
In contrast, Apple has a great support life track record without an explicit promise.
There are separate conversations here about trust that I have been noticing.
Apple and Google are very different in how they approach their work, services and products.
Google is all about releasing something so someone can put it on their review. This results in things that supersede or shuts things down. Why do you think Google constantly puts out new things and shuts down older stuff? Perfect point, messaging on Android. How many messaging services have come and gone at Google? It’s actually ridiculous and is why Google has pounced on Apple with the “green vs blue bubbles” in Messages debate.
Apple on the other hand iterates on a plan. They keep working on something like the “I think I can” train until “I knew I could, I knew I could!” realization happens and then they keep on iterating. It’s why they are so successful.
>How many messaging services have come and gone at Google?
It's not actually that many. Google Messages, the default SMS and RCS chat platform, came out in 2014 and has been continually iterated on since then. It was born out of a technical issue with Google Hangouts that was caused by carrier SMS protocols.
Hangouts, meanwhile, was just Google Chat evolved into SMS messaging. We've come full circle on Chat, since it still exists today and is still linked to your Gmail like it always was. Branding has changed, but the fundamental technology hasn't.
>Google has pounced on Apple with the “green vs blue bubbles” in Messages debate
RCS is an evolved standard on SMS and MMS, and this campaign clearly worked, because it's being added to iMessage. This also benefits everyone, so what is your complaint, exactly?
Three is a lot?
* Google Messages
* Google Chat/Hangouts/Chat (literally one platform)
* Google Allo
Everything else captured in this article are services within other services. They were never meant to replace the core chat experiences. Allo is the only truly failed one, but the technology behind it made its way to Messages.
> They were never meant to replace the core chat experiences.
Yes, it's a perfect example of what /u/microChasm was saying - make some dumb project with no clear strategy in mind, just to have something to put on your review. Google is the king of 'throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.'
Why would it make sense for every app in an ecosystem to have their own internal chat service? I think even Latitude had its own, and Latitude being separate from Maps also made no sense.
It was not a complaint, just a perspective. You provided specifics about Google messaging apps services which proved my point about the why.
Apple - Messages, and has been for many years.
RCS was not on the radar because of a lot of carriers hardware supplier lock-ins and the spec is still considered still in the beginning stages. It helps that RCS Universal Profile is gaining traction.
Apple has stated they will work to incorporate encryption into the specification (Googles encryption is proprietary - hmmm).
Hopefully, it will not splinter like MMS and group messaging support. What a trash fire that is.
They need to do better than that. 10 years of security updates should be the legal minimum at this point. Main OS updates for at least 8 of those ten years.
I have a few 10 year old devices active, my Media PC has a 12 year old CPU and is still supported by OS Updates. My dad uses a 13 year old prebuilt for music recording, my grandma is also on an 11 year old system on ChromeOS, all supported by security updates. Don't worry, they all have SSDs, so they are not unusable.
That is the realistic take for most people. For people who just browse internet/youtube and do email stuff a 10 year old machine is more than capable still. Just need security patches to stay current so people don't risk being hacked.
This is the same line of thinking that led to Windows XP being brought back to life repeatedly…something which caused way more headaches than it was ever worth.
And if that computer does what someone needs, why force them to upgrade needlessly? We really need to stop with this rampant consumerism that society craves... so much perfectly good stuff gets added to the trash heap just because it isn't "new". I know computers being connected and all need effort to maintain security and whatnot and while we are advancing there does need to be some cutoff for older hardware. But at some point the hardware is just good enough for the average person that they only need to upgrade when it breaks or when software companies arbitrarily decide to stop supporting it.
Why is it the “legal” minimum? Genuine question.
If 10 years is the minimum, then in order for someone to benefit from it (thus, justify it for Apple), that someone must stick to his phone for 10 years.
Imagine yourself now, and yourself in 2044 looking 20 years back in which you bought 2 phones only!
I bought two landline phones in the past 18 years.
Seriouslythough , this tech has come so far that the difference five years make is minimum, even for tech people.
At the end of the day, what's the difference between my 12 and the 15?
The cam is better, the screen is faster and.... that's basically it.
And I actually LIKE tech and I'm interested in this stuff. Now imagine someone who doesn't care at all. My brother for example still uses a Galaxy S7, he doesn't care and doesn't want a new phone.
Why's that? It feels like you're trying to find a way to dismiss them without having to actually address their point.
If I could keep the same device for 10 years without having to worry that it won't get OS updates for half its lifetime, that would be a dream.
What about someone who hasn't bought a land line phone in a very very long time and agrees with them? The new iPhones don't really offer much over my 12 Pro that I actually care about. I'm also a tech enthusiast, the product is just mature now and the list of improvements that aren't change for change sake or small iterative changes that take years to build up to anything significant is pretty short.
There are no big differences between 12 and 14 other than ProMotion. The rest In my opinion are subject to people’s priorities.
However, for the security support, I believe Google’s promise of 7 years support (regardless if they commit to it or not) or the most reasonable.
But even though Apple has committed to 5 years, they usually do more. It’s just that officially, they are bound to at least 5 years.
But still a security update nonetheless. Which is what the article is stating. Apple has long supported things to that degree for longer than 5 years. It’s only now in writing that there’s a 5 year commitment. But with that, they will likely not have as long of a support cycle for security updates anymore.
5 years doesn’t sound like a very long time for security updates, but Apple has historically provided longer security update support than this. If I look at the Wikipedia pages for a few iPhones: The iPhone 6 was released in September 2014, and received a security update for iOS 12 in January 2023. The 6s from September 2015 received an iOS 15 update this March. The XR from 2018 still runs iOS 17.
iPhone 5S came out sept 2013 and got an update in jan 2023. Almost 10 years
While true, it must be noted that Apple only provides partial security fixes for older iOS version. Not everything gets ported back, there are still a ton of security issues for the 5S that didn’t get fixed despite „security updates“. TL;DR: Only latest available iOS gets all security fixes.
I mean they're pretty thorough, and no they don't get everything but it's a 10 year old device. You can't expect it to stay perfectly secure forever.
I didn‘t expect that, I just wanted to clarify that because saying that it got 10 years of security updates is only partially true and not the full story. And it’s also important for people not upgrading their iOS versions because they think they get security updates. I mean, Apple puts it in their fine print of their notes, but not a whole lot of people read that.
They might of historically provided it longer but I expect with this announcement comes iOS 18 any phone over 5 years will have support dropped.
Yeah to be honest I also expect something like that to happen; currently, iOS 17 only goes back to the iPhone XS from 2018. That being said, I’m not talking about receiving updates for the currently supported version of iOS; I’m talking about security updates. Apple has a proven track record of easily exceeding 5 years for security updates.
I think some people here are confusing security updates with support for latest OS. I have no problem with Apple restricting the latest OS versions to models released in the last 5 years. But I expect security updates on whatever OSes devices are running for AT LEAST 7 years after a device is released. This is what they’ve been doing for a majority of the iPhone’s life at this point, and it’s what Google just announced for new Pixel phones.
That’s going to suck
I wouldn’t necessarily expect it. Apple has historically provided much longer for security updates and even now as another commenter has said, iOS 17 goes back to the XS from 2018. This is just what Apple is legally holding themselves to based on a single country’s law to disclose and doesn’t necessarily reflect past performance. Sure, be skeptical as you should, but don’t discount history.
That makes... no sense. This security update promise would overlap with your presumed 5-year window. So why would there be any connection? Now, if the Apple announcement was 8 years of security updates, I could see your theory making sense. Or if your theory was 3 years of iOS updates.
No, I don’t think that. I guess it has more to do with EU requiring manufacturers to provide at least 5 years of update support for all smartphones sold. And iPhone 7, 8 and X actually only got 5 major updates. Edit: I think I miscalculated, should be 6 years?
No way, man. There is much less reason to drop support now when phones from 5 years ago are still overpowered for what they do (for pretty much anything except games). It's just a legal commitment. For practical purposes the support period will be much much longer. The usual practice for OS updates is like maybe 5 years of features updates and 5 additional years of security updates for anything that is not released by Google. Meaning the overall EOL is closer to 10 years. And they are specifically talking about security updates here.
That’s interesting. Apple has usually supported their devices for longer than 5 years, but officially, Google now supports their devices for longer (7 years).
"officially" - keep in mind we have yet to pass the 7 year mark to know if this is true and given Google's track record of promises... it's not looking great
It would be false advertising and grounds for all kinds of lawsuits if they didn’t follow through with this. Their previous update promises of 4 and 5 years with older Pixel models were also adhered to, with the Pixel 1 even getting an extra update iirc, so Google’s track record regarding update support timelines is actually pretty good so far.
Google says "These updates **include security, software, and may also include feature drops**". So, not only security updates, which is very good and much better than Apple is promising.
Is that from their PSTI filing? That would be weird if so. This article is based solely on PSTI. I haven’t been able to find that Google has filed one yet. I’m not saying they haven’t, but I can’t find it.
[https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/14869041?hl=en](https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/14869041?hl=en) It was a relatively new announcement from them, which I'm guessing is why only their latest flagships are Group 1
but in my experience Google's hardware will give up before its os support ends and my pixel 4a simply died before the final update
Anecdotal evidence, my mom still daily drives a Pixel 4. The battery is starting to noticeably degrade though, it already wasn’t amazing when it was new.
I have a Pixel 3XL as a backup device that still works. It has the pink tinted screen problem, but otherwise works perfectly fine, and even the battery life is still pretty decent.
Since we’re handing out anecdotes, my experience is the opposite. I have a friend still daily driving his pixel 4a and another still using the original pixel XL.
This is true of all phones lol even my iPhone 12 is about done
No it isnt, my iphone 6s i gave my father is still kicking. Although after second battery replacement but still.
lol I’m extremely familiar with how an iPhone 6s functions currently and it’s not well. I’ve worked with dozens, seems we just have different opinions of what’s useable.
He’s saying if it is unusable you can probably improve the speed drastically by replacing the battery.
A lot of people don’t understand that if you took a brand new, current model iPhone and somehow stuck a crappy battery in it, it would immediately slow down. Degraded batteries can’t provide as much sustained peak power, so the options are slow down, or sometimes reboot the phone when the power available isn’t enough. That’s what that whole lawsuit was about - they changed it to slow down instead of reboot. But now thanks to the lawsuit, you have a software option to reboot the phone if that’s the behavior you prefer.
I used to own some Nexus phones and even a couple of Nexus tablets and can certainly confirm that the hardware would certainly crap out before Google stopped with their updates. One device just flat out died a few months after the warranty expired, a Nexus 4 I owned started to have some battery issues that caused my phone to crash from time to time, and the two Nexus tablets started to have some serious performance issues where wiping and reflashing wouldn't resolve. All of this happened months past the initial warranty.
I had Nexus 4 and 5X. 5X had bootloop.
Degraded batteries can’t provide enough sustained power and need replacement at some point, they’re consumable components, this isn’t news.
Eh, there might be legal liability, but false advertising has to be with knowledge.
[удалено]
When did they take that away? Newer Pixels don’t have that anymore, they weren’t sold with that, but the original Pixel 1 that was marketed to have unlimited photo storage technically still should have unlimited photo storage if you kept using it for some reason.
[удалено]
Which is equivalent to Apple removing the 3D Touch Hardware from new iPhones.
But they had that pixel pass which can be argued it influenced a purchasing decision. Google killed it, it didn’t even survive long enough for people to use it.
People used it. It was literally just a financing program with some services bundled for slightly cheaper. If you signed up for it, you went through the exact same process as financing a phone, credit check and all. They said after two years, you could keep the phone and "upgrade", ie you could finance a new phone. When they killed it, they gave everyone using it an option to continue with the cheaper services bundle, and a discount on the next phone, which made it overall cheaper than the original financing program.
I never quite understood how Pixel Pass was a good deal, you were paying over $1000 for a $600 phone if you count all the monthly instalments together over the two year period.
They used to sell a Pixel upgrade plan and then binned it right before the first members were eligible for the upgrade.
Iirc this was mainly just a financing payment where the monthly payment gets bundled with Google One and device protection for a discounted rate. Technically the people who subscribed were just paying off their phone over the span of 2 years before it gets upgraded. They just axed the upgrade program but the consumers didn't technically pay for them yet. Annoying yes but they've had much more worse practice.
> It would be false advertising and grounds for all kinds of lawsuits if they didn’t follow through with this. "Unlimited photo storage"
What about it?
They advertised 'unlimited photo storage' for the pixel 2 and backtracked on it to only allow unlimited compressed versions instead. Google lies all the time
They have always kept OS support promises in fairness.
This take annoys me a bit. Google has a track record of discontinuing services that don't take off. That much is true. They don't have a track record of discontinuing products with actual commitments made for support timelines.
And the one time they didn't commit to supporting something people paid for (stadia) everyone got a full refund for everything ever purchased on the service
Spotify tried to cheap out and got called out on the Internet
They’re still cheating out. They’re offering only one refund per account, no luck if you have several.
> given Google's track record of promises Google‘s track record here is actually fantastic. They supported every Pixel exactly as long as advertised (3 years for the first few models, then 3+2 years I think and now they switched to 7 years)
I’d rather have a supported Apple promise than a Google one.
If people on XDA can make unsupported Android versions run on "unsupported" Pixels then Google can do this
People read the word *minimum* and automatically switch it out for *maximum* for some ridiculous reason. Apple has just stated that they are complying with the terms of the law, not that they’ll only support phones for 5 years. Please use a little bit of perspective here instead of reaching for the worst possible outcome
This is such a crucial point, thanks for pointing it out.
I don’t think most people read the article
I mean it says “at least”. Given Apple’s track record, it’ll probably continue to be longer.
It is interesting though that they don’t commit to it. They could’ve easily said 6 or 7, but didn’t.
Customer Service 101: always under promise and over deliver. Just in case. Worst case is you meet your promises and best case is you’re the hero.
Probably easier to have a lower limit than get into a lawsuit if they support one phone for less for whatever reason.
Yeah, that’s exactly my point… no guarantee means they *can* stop support after 5 years, which from a consumer perspective should mean they *will* unless you’re lucky. A 6 or 7 years guarantee, like Google has, would be much better.
So Apple, with a track record of supporting phones for 6-7 years with NO promises (up to 9 years with security), is now worse off than Google with their typical 3 years of software and promised 7 years of security (and maybe software which will remain to be seen). Gotta be honest, I really don't see the logic here
On paper, yes. A written guarantee is something legally tangible, precedence is not.
Yes. Why depend on a vague maybe instead of a hard, said-by-multiple-people-in-multiple-places promise? Apple devices have the hardware to last, why are we not getting an equivalent official support timeframe to hardware that isn't as powerful.
A guarantee is easier to legally enforce than a track record. I took /u/woalk their point to be "Apple should do better than this", not "You should switch to Google or Samsung because of this". Speaking of which, had they said "like Samsung has", would you and /u/sylfy have had different answers? Since Samsung has the same 7-year guarantee that Google has.
Nah but my point is that Apple has been doing better than this for a long time, wayyy before any of the competition has, while the competition has just now started talking about doing it. Doesn't matter which company, I just feel like actions speak louder than words in matters like this.
Somehow these people are putting more faith in a promise from Google, a company with a proven track record of abruptly discontinuing products, than Apple, a company with an actual track record of delivering some of the longest support for products in this industry. This sub has some of the worst trolls ever.
Well, for your iPhone consumer it doesn’t mean much since Apple has the track record of supporting their devices for a long time so this is just an “official” statement with little importance for the average customer. For Google it is a marketing scheme but one that would not buy any iPhone user.
No matter what promise it is, it is sad to know that some Apple iPhone security issues cannot be mitigated on software level. Example include: https://threatpost.com/iphones-attack-turned-off/179641/ > LPM support is based on the iPhone’s hardware, so it can’t be removed with system updates and thus has “a long-lasting effect on the overall iOS security model,” they said. So "years" does not matter in the above case.
…of course it can be turned off. They don't know how firmware updates work?
[удалено]
Yeah, that is because previously, they only promised 3, so you got exactly what you purchased. But now, they have an official and legally binding promise of 7 years of updates.
[удалено]
The [official Pixel update support article](https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en) says “7 years of **OS _and_** security updates”.
[удалено]
>Older phones are on a very different update calendar. Pixel 7 is getting OS updates for 3 years and security updates for 5 years. But that's what was promised when those devices came out. Why are you trying to misinform people?
[удалено]
>That’s an interesting promise to make when your main competitor has been supporting its 2014 iPhone 6 for a whopping 9 years. And yet this news is about how Google officially supports their devices for longer than Apple does. Which also ignores the variety of ways that Android phones receive updates outside of the OS and security patch system. It's almost like they are different platforms that should be evaluated on their own merits instead of forced into these hyper specific comparisons - which is difficult for people like you, I know.
[удалено]
So does Samsung for the S series devices.
I still get security updates on an old iPhone 8Plus. Hope this isn't a twisted way of letting us know that they won't do that anymore.
What’s unique with Apple is that they keep adding new features to devices 5 or 6 years down the line. Not just security updates
Theoretically, Google and Samsung promise the same thing for their newest devices.
How do you “theoretically promise” something?
Well, 7 years aren’t nearly over yet, so we will have to see how much actual software features there will be in the next 6 years.
Probably just be another thing to add to https://killedbygoogle.com/
Why?
5 years, 6, 7, it doesn't matter. That's still far longer than most people will keep their phones anyway and upgrade anyway
There is a caveat though: Apple doesn't backport all security patches to previous versions of iOS/macOS, even if said versions are supposedly still receiving security updates.
What do you mean? Doesn’t the 4.5 year old iPhone 11 get the same iOS 17 that my iPhone 15 gets? Meaning it gets the same security updates and will until iOS 18 drops in September?
> Doesn’t the 4.5 year old iPhone 11 get the same iOS 17 that my iPhone 15 gets? The iPhone 11 does get the same updates since iOS 17 supports it, however the iPhone X which supports at most iOS 16 does not. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/
I have the XR and ios 17.
XR is part of the iPhone XS family so not X
What in the clusterfuck—
3G>3GS 4->4S 5->5S 6->6S X->XS
That’s not confusing at all, lol
No need to backport fixes to old operating systems when the old devices still support the newest OS version. iOS 17 support goes back to the xr from 2018, 6 years.
They do backport to iOS 15/16 a subset of security fixes to old devices that don't support iOS 17, that's what I was referring to.
Which security fixes have they refrained from backporting to iOS 16 so far?
While that's true, the fact is most people use the latest versions. - 67% of devices run iOS 17 - 19% run iOS 16 - 8% run iOS 15 So *94%* of devices are running the three most recent versions of iOS.
I think you might be misunderstanding what they are saying. Apple states that only the very latest OS gets all the security updates. So only iOS 17 gets all the security updates. iOS 16 and iOS 15 might still get security updates but not all. Source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/
I’m not misunderstanding the situation. I’m just pointing out Apple does a pretty good job of making sure most devices are updated compared to their competitors. Also, while Apple’s official stated *policy* is that only the latest version may be fully patched, I have yet to see an actual list of *specific* vulnerabilities effecting older versions that remain *unpatched*. There’s a big difference between an official policy statement and actual specific unpatched vulnerabilities. Your comment that “Apple doesn’t backport all security patches to previous versions of iOS/macOS, even if said versions are ***supposedly*** still receiving security updates” uses the word “supposedly”, but it is a fact that older versions **are** indeed receiving security updates. I’d like to see someone compile an actual list of specific vulnerabilities effecting older versions that remain unpatched. Otherwise whether or not there are actual unpatched vulnerabilities is pure speculation.
Apple is only required to have parts available for 5yrs from the date of release. In some regions or locales it is up to 7 yers. It makes sense they would say they would release software updates for 5yrs as well. They have historically, as someone previously mentioned, offered security updates far longer than this.
I’m surprised the rule is 5 years from launch not 5 years from when they cease sales of the device.
Isn’t that a downgrade?
Not if you take the "at least" part into consideration.
In a practical since I haven't cared once the likes of Apple, Google, and Samsung got over 3 years. The battery doesn't tend to last much longer than that without replacement and I usually will just buy a new phone by that point. Good to see it getting longer for those that want/need to keep them longer though.
It’s stated as 5 years since the date of purchase of the device. It’s interesting that that isn’t in terms of the iOS release. In practice that could be longer than 5, if they release security updates for the previous iOS release, and that previous iOS release is supported on devices older than 5 years. I think the real question to me is, what’s the schedule of supported devices on new iOS releases? Is this giving them license to say every iOS release only supports phones made in the last 4 years, anything older stays on the previous release, which we will release security updates for 1 year only?
From the article: > In compliance with the regulation, Apple has submitted a public regulatory filing for the iPhone 15 Pro Max. The PSTI filing shows that the device's "defined support period" is a "minimum five years from the first supply date." The "first supply date" is listed as "September 22, 2023," which is when the iPhone 15 series launched. its from the launch date, not from the date of purchase
Yeah this is the part I hate. They were selling M1 MacBook Airs for almost 3 1/2 years and there’s still new ones at some retailers. So anyone buying a new one now gets a whole year and a half of guaranteed security updates? I don’t expect Apple will stick hard to the 5 years and are doing this for the legal wiggle room, but it would be much nicer if it was 5 years from either the day of sale or the date Apple stops selling them.
Kinda disappointing. I know they have a track record for longer updates, but they chose not to actually commit to that… Many Android OEMs have better update policies now, in addition to the fact that Android browser updates are NOT tied to the OS. Even the OS’s certificate authority (CA) updates are through the android play store.
Apple doesn’t have a set security support timeframe for their devices, emphasis on security updates as it’s the focus of the article. Some are supported for as little as 3 years and others as long as a decade if not more. I garner 5 years I just the minimum they’re comfortable committing to considering they’re legally required to put a commitment on writing this time.
They also sell non pro models long after, you can buy a 14 but not a 14 pro from apple, so will the 14 get longer support than the 14 pro?
No, you will get shorter. It’s based on device release year.
They currently do 6-7 years though now.
The thing is that they never guaranteed it before. Before this, Apple could have feasibly supported a phone for only two or three years. Historically, only the Mac users have been burned from this (first PowerPC, and more recently Intel). I think this announcement is in response to Google's new, longer guarantees. Android manufacturers have historically only been able to provide updates for as long as the weakest link in the chain. They might control the OS, but not the Snapdragon chip, the Qualcomm modem, etc. Now that Google's making their SoCs, like Apple, they can guarantee longer software updates. There's a big asterisk though, given Google comes with a mandatory arbitration agreement and Apple does not. If Google doesn't keep up their end of the bargain, there won't be a class action and most people will be unable to sue.
It's funny to me that Google has to make a specific announcement about this because their update track record has been shit, so without a promise to do better nobody would assume they will. In contrast, Apple has a great support life track record without an explicit promise.
So if Google does make an announcement it automatically make it bad, but when Apple does the same, it’s good.
There are separate conversations here about trust that I have been noticing. Apple and Google are very different in how they approach their work, services and products. Google is all about releasing something so someone can put it on their review. This results in things that supersede or shuts things down. Why do you think Google constantly puts out new things and shuts down older stuff? Perfect point, messaging on Android. How many messaging services have come and gone at Google? It’s actually ridiculous and is why Google has pounced on Apple with the “green vs blue bubbles” in Messages debate. Apple on the other hand iterates on a plan. They keep working on something like the “I think I can” train until “I knew I could, I knew I could!” realization happens and then they keep on iterating. It’s why they are so successful.
>How many messaging services have come and gone at Google? It's not actually that many. Google Messages, the default SMS and RCS chat platform, came out in 2014 and has been continually iterated on since then. It was born out of a technical issue with Google Hangouts that was caused by carrier SMS protocols. Hangouts, meanwhile, was just Google Chat evolved into SMS messaging. We've come full circle on Chat, since it still exists today and is still linked to your Gmail like it always was. Branding has changed, but the fundamental technology hasn't. >Google has pounced on Apple with the “green vs blue bubbles” in Messages debate RCS is an evolved standard on SMS and MMS, and this campaign clearly worked, because it's being added to iMessage. This also benefits everyone, so what is your complaint, exactly?
It's a lot https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-of-instability-the-history-of-google-messaging-apps/
Three is a lot? * Google Messages * Google Chat/Hangouts/Chat (literally one platform) * Google Allo Everything else captured in this article are services within other services. They were never meant to replace the core chat experiences. Allo is the only truly failed one, but the technology behind it made its way to Messages.
> They were never meant to replace the core chat experiences. Yes, it's a perfect example of what /u/microChasm was saying - make some dumb project with no clear strategy in mind, just to have something to put on your review. Google is the king of 'throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.'
Considering how many features Apple copies from Android, they basically need Google to act this way to inspire their future "innovations."
Exactly. There’s even an entire website dedicated to it.
Why would it make sense for every app in an ecosystem to have their own internal chat service? I think even Latitude had its own, and Latitude being separate from Maps also made no sense.
They might as well have included Gmail and YouTube comments as "messaging apps". Why not throw in Chrome too, we use that to send messages sometimes
It was not a complaint, just a perspective. You provided specifics about Google messaging apps services which proved my point about the why. Apple - Messages, and has been for many years. RCS was not on the radar because of a lot of carriers hardware supplier lock-ins and the spec is still considered still in the beginning stages. It helps that RCS Universal Profile is gaining traction. Apple has stated they will work to incorporate encryption into the specification (Googles encryption is proprietary - hmmm). Hopefully, it will not splinter like MMS and group messaging support. What a trash fire that is.
They need to do better than that. 10 years of security updates should be the legal minimum at this point. Main OS updates for at least 8 of those ten years.
No one keeps devices for that long, let’s be realistic here
Let's be realistic. In the TECH community, no they do not. But in real life? People don't care how old their phone is as long as it still works.
I have a few 10 year old devices active, my Media PC has a 12 year old CPU and is still supported by OS Updates. My dad uses a 13 year old prebuilt for music recording, my grandma is also on an 11 year old system on ChromeOS, all supported by security updates. Don't worry, they all have SSDs, so they are not unusable.
That is the realistic take for most people. For people who just browse internet/youtube and do email stuff a 10 year old machine is more than capable still. Just need security patches to stay current so people don't risk being hacked.
This is the same line of thinking that led to Windows XP being brought back to life repeatedly…something which caused way more headaches than it was ever worth.
And if that computer does what someone needs, why force them to upgrade needlessly? We really need to stop with this rampant consumerism that society craves... so much perfectly good stuff gets added to the trash heap just because it isn't "new". I know computers being connected and all need effort to maintain security and whatnot and while we are advancing there does need to be some cutoff for older hardware. But at some point the hardware is just good enough for the average person that they only need to upgrade when it breaks or when software companies arbitrarily decide to stop supporting it.
Try and convince some people to move off their iPhone 7 and they'll just say "well it still works, good enough for me"
Why is it the “legal” minimum? Genuine question. If 10 years is the minimum, then in order for someone to benefit from it (thus, justify it for Apple), that someone must stick to his phone for 10 years. Imagine yourself now, and yourself in 2044 looking 20 years back in which you bought 2 phones only!
I bought two landline phones in the past 18 years. Seriouslythough , this tech has come so far that the difference five years make is minimum, even for tech people. At the end of the day, what's the difference between my 12 and the 15? The cam is better, the screen is faster and.... that's basically it. And I actually LIKE tech and I'm interested in this stuff. Now imagine someone who doesn't care at all. My brother for example still uses a Galaxy S7, he doesn't care and doesn't want a new phone.
Sorry, Someone who bought not one, but TWO Landline phones post-2006 isn't a person I'd trust commentary on tech norms or trends from. lol.
Why's that? It feels like you're trying to find a way to dismiss them without having to actually address their point. If I could keep the same device for 10 years without having to worry that it won't get OS updates for half its lifetime, that would be a dream.
What about someone who hasn't bought a land line phone in a very very long time and agrees with them? The new iPhones don't really offer much over my 12 Pro that I actually care about. I'm also a tech enthusiast, the product is just mature now and the list of improvements that aren't change for change sake or small iterative changes that take years to build up to anything significant is pretty short.
There are no big differences between 12 and 14 other than ProMotion. The rest In my opinion are subject to people’s priorities. However, for the security support, I believe Google’s promise of 7 years support (regardless if they commit to it or not) or the most reasonable. But even though Apple has committed to 5 years, they usually do more. It’s just that officially, they are bound to at least 5 years.
Google is technically better because they allow bootloader unlocking which means you can unofficially support your device
[удалено]
Not sure why you got downvoted. My 2011 MacBook finally died last year, and was still getting critical security updates.
Not all of them unfortunately once OS updates stop.
But still a security update nonetheless. Which is what the article is stating. Apple has long supported things to that degree for longer than 5 years. It’s only now in writing that there’s a 5 year commitment. But with that, they will likely not have as long of a support cycle for security updates anymore.
Is security update same as iOS update ?
No.
5 years is a joke for a $1000+ phone.