Hacker News Reader

Comment by luismedel | Hacker News Reader

"Nokia XR20 is designed for the long run. A phone that can stand up to anything life throws at it [...] with up to 3 years of OS upgrades and 4 years of monthly security updates, so your phone will be up to date into 2025. And because you’ll be using it longer, it’s better for the environment."

So, you end with users running an unpatched life-centric device for years after 2025. That's better for the environment...and for the ransomgangs.

View on HN

As a point of comparison, the nearly 6-year old iPhone 6s is still getting updates to the latest iOS versions, including the upcoming iOS 15.

And the nearly 8-year old iPhone 5s is still getting security updates.

Is it really that much of a comparison? I think a more fair comparison would be an Android device with a similar update horizon. As far as I am aware, no such Android phone exists.

Google promises 3 years of updates on Pixel devices.

In my experience, Google largely bets that the pixel won't live that long, considering how quickly after 2 years my Google phone broke.

Updates that slow down the phone. Apple has built planned obsolescence into the phone. Good luck repairing an iphone.

> the nearly 6-year old iPhone 6s

How is the 6 years (non-user replaceable) old battery holding up?

It's true that the batteries don't last 6 years, but they are perfectly user-replaceable for someone with moderate technical skills and a few basic tools. Here's a kit that has everything you need:

https://www.ifixit.com/Store/iPhone/iPhone-6s-Battery/IF314-...

Otherwise, Apple will replace the battery for $49 while you wait:

https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/service/battery-powe...

Is that really so different from people buying a phone that will be supported for a year or two and using it for years afterwards? From what I've been able to gather, many Android phone vendors either don't give any promises regarding software updates or they only provide them for a couple of years.

I suppose there could be some genuine reason for why that's a specific problem for Nokia's support claim here, but I'm not sure if you've actually got something like that in mind or if you're just being negative.

I'm not claiming this to be worse than any other manufacturer's policy. It's simply another bad policy. Also, IMHO selling the phone as "insecure but ecological starting 2025" is a very bad selling point.

I don't need to critize any other manufacturer out there to make a point about this one.

I agree that's a problem. But at least 4 > 2, and being secure until 2025 is at least better than being secure until 2023. (It also allows those who mind the security of their devices to use them for longer compared to a lot of the competition, which is an ecological improvement, although not a sufficient one.)

I'd also like to see longer life cycles that aren't limited to a few years due to unhealthy economical incentives. However, although you may not have meant it that way, your comment seemed to attack this particular policy, and that seemed a weird thing to do considering that it's at least better in that regard than the vast majority of the Android phone market.

You're right. Being secure until 2025 it's much better than what we have right now in the Android ecosystem.

My comment was about that specific statement praising as "eco" the use of an unpatched phone for the long run, which I find funny (well, sort of) from a security perspective. But re-reading it, you're right and it sounds like an arbitrary attack. I think my crappy english played against me, because I didn't want to be (so) negative :-)

Still better than most Android OEMs and above all Pixel devices, you know, those phones produced by the company that develops Android.

Combined with "A phone designed for the long run" that reads like a joke. 3 years is the "long run"? My Raspberry Pi's uptime is probably longer than that. For comparison, Ubuntu LTS releases have 5 year support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com