“Absurd”: Google, Amazon rebuked over unsupported Chromebooks still for sale
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
iPads are supported for longer. (And at <$500, not much more expensive.)
It's even worse.
From the article:
> But right now, you can buy a "new," unused Flip C302 for $550 from Amazon or $820 via Walmart's Marketplace
So it's actually cheaper to buy an ipad than an unsupported chromebook.
On the other if you are like me and prefer to read from a 10" or a 12.4" (Samsung) tablet, for which I don't mind the 'no updates', as I use it only as a reader that is always on Airplane mode and never connects to the internet. But I have no idea how many people go to that extreme (use a tablet only for reading and zero online connection).
> These updates depend on many device specific non-Google hardware and software providers that work with Google to provide the highest level of security and stability support. For this reason, older Chrome devices cannot receive updates indefinitely to enable new OS and browser features. For this reason, older Chrome devices cannot receive updates indefinitely to enable new OS and browser features.
https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/9367166?hl=en confirms that security updates are also discontinued after the AUE date.
By contrast, Microsoft supported security updates for Windows 7, across all the hardware supporting it, from its release in 2009 all the way through early 2020. A five-year AUE, less than many students' times in post-secondary education, is comparatively user-hostile - and downright dangerous from a security perspective.
I can't imagine buying a brand new device and be told that it's already too old for system updates because Google and the hardware provider are choosing not to work together to provide support. Google can point the finger all they want, but this is entirely a self-inflicted issue that other system software providers seemed to have worked past.
They are but the parts that matter (i.e. the SoC containing the CPU and GPU, as well as anything RF such as WiFi/BT) is either made by Apple themselves or at least Apple has the full spec sheets - Apple writes all the drivers on their own, which was why NVIDIA got the boot, they didn't want to give Apple the documentation they needed (and were still dealing with the fallout of Soldergate, which made it an even easier decision for Apple). I think they also do the binary firmware blobs for RF devices, or at least that was the suspicion years ago when I was more involved in Hackintoshes as the stability of the same chipset was night and day between Windows and macOS.
Apple controls the full stack from hardware over kernel to a huge part of userspace. No other vendor comes even close to that level of control and experience, even Google only started rolling their own SoC (Tensor series) in the Pixel 6 and above two years ago.
To me, resolution of this issue looks like either letting hardware providers release their own drivers to enable them to support the sales of hardware currently on the shelves, or refuse to license ChromeOS to hardware providers unwilling to meet support standards that Google’s customers expect. Selling unsupported hardware as new seems like a recipe to drive customers away from the ChromeOS experience.
Exactly. Whats the point of getting a chromebook if you need a cheap laptop, when you can get a cheap windows one which you know will receive updates for at least a decade
5-6 years, or 8 for newer releases, is a good lifespan for a cheap laptop. Just write a large expiry date in the listing and on the box.
Everyone has EOL dates in this game, but Google consumer device ecosystems are the worst of the bunch in this regard.
The phone that I got before my iPhone was a razor phone 2. I was hoping it would be one of the last androidphones I'd have to buy for a while due to its beefy specs.
Unfortunately they dropped support for it within the year that I bought it and it never got the latest android. Now it's it's in my basement.
But many of these Chromebooks are from a before-time, when it was more traditional vendor development models.
Aka a huge gnarly vendor ask code drop. That may or may not matter be replaced by a other similar or quite different code drop. This is how wireless routers mostly exist today. Most embedded devices. Alas. Because it's utterly unsupportable over time. There's huge piles of hacks to get Chrome, the thing running the OS, going. And the new platform sdk changes everything around and introduced new issues and it's just a mess.
Now though, two things are happening. A lot a lot a lot more devices have Linux kernel mainstream support. So the kernel should support these devices basically forever-more, which is a huge change.
ChromeOS is also a moving target with a shifting sea of services & standards & expectations. Just a thin client maybe the end goal but there's basically a pretty complex featureful desktop, and with cause really. There's real burden upgrading a device to support newer ChromeOS, to keeping up.
The good news here is that ChromeOS is decoupling chrome the browser from Chrome the OS. So users may be stuck on an old ChromeOS desktop perhaps, ut they can keep upgrading Chrome the browser, which should expand effective lifetime a lot. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36977107
Albeit the question exists of how long hardware/desktop support will last. I spoke to how mainline drivers should make the task much easier. But whether companies actually do support their hardware beyond the current short lifespan or not is unknown, is anyone's guess.
I mean, this sounds like pretty good reason to me
The phone is perfectly fine and shame on Google for trying to make it worthless.
Good resource: https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/wiki
LineageOS is in the same boat as GrapheneOS in this regard.
"GrapheneOS passes the basicIntegrity check but isn't certified by Google so it fails the ctsProfileMatch check. Most apps currently only enforce weak software-based attestation which can be bypassed by spoofing what it checks."
Of course, the software was entirely out of support when I brought the device up and logged in.
Avoid used Chromebooks at all costs.
https://old.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/comments/15i9ucc/back_to_s...
More information here: https://mrchromebox.tech/
In general nothing is changing for me. I still have to babysit EVERYONE I know through the computer buying process so that they don’t get screwed over.
They wouldn't update the base kernel, but they'd be no less secure than the average windows box.
[0] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/l...
[0] https://blog.crosexperts.com/google-is-taking-chrome-out-of-...
The comment I submitted only went so far as to say they started doing "that", referring to the parent's post about decoupling and providing separate updates.
I guess alternatively, one could run Chromium under their Linux instances on a lot of them.
But they don’t care about PR as evidenced by this stupidity that makes Google look like stupid engineers who can’t support their product.
And the prices are high. $500 for a “new” Chromebook mode from 5 years ago is madness.
I give them 5 years until they just kill it all. If we’re lucky they’ll make some bogus foundation that will give it a few years to limp on.
its not google's fault that resellers sell them on amazon for $500.
also, google increased support term, I think it is now 8 years for new chromebooks.
OEMs don't want to spend time/money on kernel updates for old devices. They'd rather sell you a new one.
Vendor's interest to sell new devices as quickly as possible, by definition does not align with users' interest to keep using a device as long as practical - or until the hardware breaks.
If devices' hardware improves fast enough, users will replace old with new by themselves. Which makes both "pure hw company" or "Apple style vertical integration" viable business models.
But in more mature market, 'old' device = good enough. Vendor wants to sell new device, user wants to keep using old device longer.
Community developed OS (with or without vendor support) fits that situation better.
With most Linux setups, web browsing on extremely JS-heavy websites is the only area where you might feel considerable differences between a new laptop and one from 7-10 years ago.
Or does the math say they'd probably keep that user, no matter what device that user uses (at least for now, though over time Apple or MS could edge out Google services with their own), and that turning old Chromebooks into insecure/irresponsible bricks helps generate revenue from sales of new Chromebooks, and keeps manufacturing partners happy?
All tech is destined to become e-waste.