The author states that security updates on earlier iOS versions give a false sense of security.
Is that true? What is Apple's incentive to maintain old iOS versions, but only partially?
They will however backport fixes for particularly egregious security issues quite far. For example, iOS 12 got a fix for a web-based remote code execution attack in the beginning of this year, despite at that point being over 4 years old and 4 major releases older than the current iOS.
1. They leave you with a strong impression that all phones and all iOS versions are kept safe by dribbling out a few fixes from time to time for older devices. That's probably worse than on Android, because you think it's safe, but it's not.
2. The whole point of getting your hardware and software from the same place was precisely because then you knew they had a limited number of things they had to support, so it'd work better. If they have too many things to support, then maybe that argument starts to fall apart.
Android on the other hand has a lot of devices with no patches at all. Pot luck and pray that Google saves the negligent manufacturers via play store patching.
If someone has to choose between the two (using an outdated phone), it's sensible to stick with Apple.
I myself use android and still recognize what Apple does right.
The author links to this article which provides more detail:
https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-poor-patchin...
I wouldn't take everything that's written in a random tech article for granted. Fear inducing titles generate more clicks. As soon as you do something in this world, there's a risk. Even if you do nothing, there's a risk. Nobody will be able to be completely safe using any device under the sun. And if a tech company tries to make you believe otherwise, run.
Um...how about encouraging those who can to purchase a $Nice $New $Apple $Product, while not suffering too much bad PR over the security holes in old-but-still-perfectly-functional hardware?