Planned obsolescence with smartphones.

Worztron

Hi. How is it legal for manufactures and shops to sell smartphones with Android (or any other OS for that matter) that will soon become unsupported and vulnerable to attacks. A relative bought an Android smartphone last May and within a year, it's now unsupported - despite it being in great working order. And since most smartphones are totally locked down, so you cannot even install a newer operating system. Loads of Android phones are prone to attacks and most people probably don't even know it. It's a perfect example of planned obsolescence. It's such an incredible waste. The whole situation is total BS.

Worztron

Worztron wrote: »

Hi. How is it legal for manufactures and shops to sell smartphones with Android (or any other OS for that matter) that will soon become unsupported and vulnerable to attacks. A relative bought an Android smartphone last May and within a year, it's now unsupported - despite it being in great working order. And since most smartphones are totally locked down, so you cannot even install a newer operating system. Loads of Android phones are prone to attacks and most people probably don't even know it. It's a perfect example of planned obsolescence. It's such an incredible waste. The whole situation is total BS.

Are you referring to security updates? I believe Google are forcing manufacturers to support updates for at least 2 years. With project mainline, Google can provide security updates via Google Play.

I think most of this security stuff is scaremongering. Do you have any evidence of anyone you know having some kind of attack? I would say well over 90% of Android devices worldwide aren't on the latest security patches, and yet I haven't heard of any major catastrophe.

For the record, one of my Android devices is still running Marshmallow, and I have absolutely no issues with it.

There are plenty of examples of planned obsolescence in smartphones, a lack of software/security updates is not one of them. You cannot expect a manufacturer to continue to update every phone that they have ever released until the end of time.

srsly78

Op, google moved the security stuff inside Play services. So you still get security updates even if the manufacturer stops support.

Also you are missing the obvious point that batteries degrade over time - just because noone has invented a better alternative yet!

cnocbui

Do you know anyone with an Android phone who has suffered a security issue? My phone stopped getting OS updates but the security updates continued for a year or so. Doesn't get those anymore, either, but it doesn't bother me as I think the security vulnerability issue is overblown.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

Do you know anyone with an Android phone who has suffered a security issue? My phone stopped getting OS updates but the security updates continued for a year or so. Doesn't get those anymore, either, but it doesn't bother me as I think the security vulnerability issue is overblown.

this. I've never heard of anyone suffering a security issue on Android.

obviously if you are on an NSA watchlist they could probably access your phone if they wanted to but the security updates probably wouldn't help as it would be a security flaw that they found/bought and don't want patched as it gives them access.

manufacturers simply have too many legacy phone models to support to be on the very latest full version of android as it takes a lot of testing in particular to achieve this.

developments like googles play services and project treble (on a lot of modern phones now) have made it easier to provide security updates in isolation of the whole OS.

another option is to root the phone if there is support for the model for a custom rom like lineage OS which is updated over the air for security etc. would have to be a popular model to have this support tho and usually not the case for budget phones.

Worztron

Basil3 wrote: »

Are you referring to security updates? I believe Google are forcing manufacturers to support updates for at least 2 years. With project mainline, Google can provide security updates via Google Play.

I think most of this security stuff is scaremongering. Do you have any evidence of anyone you know having some kind of attack? I would say well over 90% of Android devices worldwide aren't on the latest security patches, and yet I haven't heard of any major catastrophe.

For the record, one of my Android devices is still running Marshmallow, and I have absolutely no issues with it.

Yes.

A smartphone can be in perfect working order well after 2 years. Not everyone uses GP - I don't because I ditched my google account a while back and instead use the F-Droid repo (provides free and open-source software).

I'd warn against being too laid back when it comes to being secure in the online world. It would not surprise me to see many attacks in the future.

I presume all the old ones here (versions 2.3 to 6.0) are completely without security updates? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Platform_usage

Worztron

Deleted User wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of planned obsolescence in smartphones, a lack of software/security updates is not one of them. You cannot expect a manufacturer to continue to update every phone that they have ever released until the end of time.

I don't expect them to. But no smartphone should be totally locked down as to prevent someone choosing to install a different OS (even a non-Android OS such as Ubuntu Touch).

Worztron

cnocbui wrote: »

Do you know anyone with an Android phone who has suffered a security issue? My phone stopped getting OS updates but the security updates continued for a year or so. Doesn't get those anymore, either, but it doesn't bother me as I think the security vulnerability issue is overblown.

Another laissez-faire outlook. The 'there hasn't been a major disaster so there won't ever be' attitude just doesn't cut it.

Worztron

srsly78 wrote: »

Op, google moved the security stuff inside Play services. So you still get security updates even if the manufacturer stops support.

Also you are missing the obvious point that batteries degrade over time - just because noone has invented a better alternative yet!

The battery can still outlive updates. Or you could even buy another battery.

Worztron

glasso wrote: »

this. I've never heard of anyone suffering a security issue on Android.

obviously if you are on an NSA watchlist they could probably access your phone if they wanted to but the security updates probably wouldn't help as it would be a security flaw that they found/bought and don't want patched as it gives them access.

manufacturers simply have too many legacy phone models to support to be on the very latest full version of android as it takes a lot of testing in particular to achieve this.

developments like googles play services and project treble (on a lot of modern phones now) have made it easier to provide security updates in isolation of the whole OS.

another option is to root the phone if there is support for the model for a custom rom like lineage OS which is updated over the air for security etc. would have to be a popular model to have this support tho and usually not the case for budget phones.

Many phones cannot be rooted. That's the point I made in post #1.

cnocbui

Worztron wrote: »

I don't expect them to. But no smartphone should be totally locked down as to prevent someone choosing to install a different OS (even a non-Android OS such as Ubuntu Touch).

On the one hand you profess to worry about security, and on the other you advocate phones being open and having virtually no security at all.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of planned obsolescence in smartphones, a lack of software/security updates is not one of them. You cannot expect a manufacturer to continue to update every phone that they have ever released until the end of time.

why not?

Ok, not until the end of time, but why not 10 years?

There are a massive proliferation of models of smartphones which are all basically marketing, ways to extract the last few euros from consumers who have a budget of (lets say) 300 euros, but can 'stretch' to €330 for the +version of the model they like.

I think that smartphones peaked years ago. Some of the cheapest smartphone in the shop now have more features and higher spec than the very best smartphone 5 or 6 years ago, the only difference is in build quality.

I would happily support regulations requiring extended manufacturer support for phones. It might make them more expensive to buy, but if they last longer, then the consumer and the environment both win.

cnocbui

Worztron wrote: »

Another laissez-faire outlook. The 'there hasn't been a major disaster so there won't ever be' attitude just doesn't cut it.

I use Samsung's Secure Folder for when I need security. I'm not complacent at all.

If you want multi-year OS updates, pay for them and buy an iPhone.

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

I use Samsung's Secure Folder for when I need security. I'm not complacent at all.

If you want multi-year OS updates, pay for them and buy an iPhone.

And have your phone throttled after every update..

And Apple tried to sue people who sold replacement batteries and screens for their phones...


The industry needs regulation. There are far too many scarce resources being put into 'disposable' devices that are almost impossible to sustainably recycle

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

why not?

Ok, not until the end of time, but why not 10 years?

Simply put, the average consumer would rather pay €300 for a phone with 2 years of updates than €400 for the same phone but with 10 years of updates. It's also better to put smartphone employees to better use than preparing and pushing updates to the hundred or so people still using one of their ten year old phones.

pullu69

Planned obsolescence is not new and there are many examples of the same in the smartphones world. The pace with which Tech has developed in the past decade or so has kinda left no choice for manufacturers but to make a year old device obsolete and sell a new one with minimal upgrades each year.

pullu69

Deleted User wrote: »

Simply put, the average consumer would rather pay €300 for a phone with 2 years of updates than €400 for the same phone but with 10 years of updates. It's also better to put smartphone employees to better use than preparing and pushing updates to the hundred or so people still using one of their ten year old phones.

Agred!

GBX

Why is there an automatic assumption that when you buy a phone it is to be supported forever. It is a device with a limited lifespan like any household appliance.
When buying a phone have you ever read in any terms that it is to be supported without any interruption?
Id say its very unlikely that any manufacturer would offer unlimited to continue the life of a phone.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Simply put, the average consumer would rather pay €300 for a phone with 2 years of updates than €400 for the same phone but with 10 years of updates. It's also better to put smartphone employees to better use than preparing and pushing updates to the hundred or so people still using one of their ten year old phones.

300 euros for 2 years equals 1500 euros for 10 years worth of phones. If a 400 euro phone had 10 years worth of support and was designed to be durable then it would have resale value. You could still trade it in if you want the newest model, but the old phone could still be used by others who are happy with a good quality phone for much less money.

Phones need to be made more durable and repairable rather than thrown away when the battery is worn or the screen gets cracked.

Twenty Grand

Akrasia wrote: »

Phones need to be made more durable and repairable rather than thrown away when the battery is worn or the screen gets cracked.

People prefer to upgrade every few years.

Technology moves too fast to bother with 5 year life cycles.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

300 euros for 2 years equals 1500 euros for 10 years worth of phones. If a 400 euro phone had 10 years worth of support and was designed to be durable then it would have resale value.

No phone would have resale value of anything near its initial cost price after ten years because of phone technological advancements, and even simply battery degradation. You could not sell the Nexus 5 from 2013 for anything close to its initial price because of these factors, with or without 10 years of updates.

The iPhone 3 came out 8 years ago. Have a play around with it for a few minutes today and see if is really a lack of updates that makes you not want to change phone immediately.

Worztron

cnocbui wrote: »

On the one hand you profess to worry about security, and on the other you advocate phones being open and having virtually no security at all.

How is being given the option of installing a fresh, secure OS the same as 'having virtually no security at all'? A locked down device with zero support is ultra unsecure.

Worztron

cnocbui wrote: »

I use Samsung's Secure Folder for when I need security. I'm not complacent at all.

If you want multi-year OS updates, pay for them and buy an iPhone.

You admitted that you use an unsupported phone - sounds complacent to me. You could not pay me to use any apple product.

Worztron

pullu69 wrote: »

Planned obsolescence is not new and there are many examples of the same in the smartphones world. The pace with which Tech has developed in the past decade or so has kinda left no choice for manufacturers but to make a year old device obsolete and sell a new one with minimal upgrades each year.

It totally sucks for the environment.

Worztron

GBX wrote: »

Why is there an automatic assumption that when you buy a phone it is to be supported forever. It is a device with a limited lifespan like any household appliance.
When buying a phone have you ever read in any terms that it is to be supported without any interruption?
Id say its very unlikely that any manufacturer would offer unlimited to continue the life of a phone.

Who here expects support forever for a particular phone? There should always be an option to unlock phones and install another OS - LineageOS for example. I have an old laptop (over 10 years old) which came with Vista. It was sluggish from day 1. I wiped the HDD many years back and installed GNU/Linux aka Linux. I can upgrade to the latest Linux whenever I want to have a secure system. I can do this with an ancient laptop but cannot with a 1 year old phone. That's madness!

Riesen_Meal

Worztron wrote: »

Many phones cannot be rooted. That's the point I made in post #1.

What phone's can't be rooted?

Worztron

Fieldog wrote: »

What phone's can't be rooted?

Most, it seems.

Riesen_Meal

Worztron wrote: »

Most, it seems.

I'm yet to see a popular one that can't, obscure Chinese handsets aside...

Worztron

Fieldog wrote: »

I'm yet to see a popular one that can't, obscure Chinese handsets aside...

Plenty of well known brand phones are totally locked down - Sony, etc.

Worztron

Worztron wrote: »

Plenty of well known brand phones are totally locked down - Sony, etc.

But at the end of the day, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I guarantee your relative didn't care one bit about future updates when buying their phone, and they would have happily used it without any issues for years.

I'm sure you have convinced them that they should be outraged, though.