As a long-time Android user, it is a little ridiculous how short Google's timeframe for even security support is, on their own hardware. Updates to Android that were supposed to help remedy this problem haven't seemed to make a dent.
I'm sure, being Google, they've done all sorts of data analysis and cost-benefit and shown that it's a small group that keep phones that long and that people don't care that much about the support period... but it's just another seemingly penny-pinching situation from them that I think hurts their brand more than it could possibly be saving.
I like my 3a a lot, and bought it cheap later in its lifecycle, and it's a little galling to check and see that the support "guarantee" only goes up to next May, and the security timeframe is the same! If they stick to that schedule I'll have only basically their dead minimum of 18 months of support from when they stopped selling a device, or close to it. Is there really that much upside to these cutoffs?
If anything, they should be using the Pixel line as a cudgel (or let's be nicer, example) to encourage longer support timeframes from other Android manufacturers.
An iPhone SE from 2016 has about 2 hours of battery life left and is slow as molasses to eke even that little out of it. I know because we have one that my toddler gets to play with once in a while. That's the only thing it's useful for.
Apple does battery replacements on them for a reasonable price. Might not be worth it for a phone that old. But it is nice that Apple keeps updating devices until virtually no one is using them anymore.
Sorry, excuse me while I go burst my sides from laughter. Apple does battery replacements for more than a (entry-level, admittedly) new phone costs. And that new phone includes a battery. ;)
Moreover, Apple refuses to do battery repairs if your phone has other problems, even if those problems have absolutely no relation to the battery, like... a cracked screen. (I'm not kidding, but hey, props to them for actually being honest[1] for a change. That's a refreshing surprise.) Personally, I know very few people with Apple phones over a year or two old who don't have a cracked screen.
The cost of a battery replacement is less than 10% of the cost of the phone and it is something you only really need to do once for a phone. Of course it costs more than some bottom tier android because you are paying someone first world wages to swap the battery rather than having a child labor operated factory in India pump it out.
Replacing the battery with a smashed screen is almost impossible without also replacing the screen because you need to use a suction cap to pull the screen off. If it is smashed you need to scrape off all the chunks which removed what is left of the screen. These days the glass on the iPhone is much stronger than it once was so I don’t know anyone with a cracked screen.
Really? You're going to suggest that Google is the worse perpetrator of planned obsolescence when Apple still slows down phones and uses their flawed design as a scapegoat (and originally did it secretly and lied about it)? Okiedoke. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724
They slowed down phones to prevent them from crashing on peak voltage. If you remember the android scene around the same time, the Nexus 6P would just crash constantly when the battery got degraded.
If you asked the average user if they would rather that their phone crash, or have the top speed capped. They would all rather it did not crash.
Of course this should have been more visible to notify the user to get a battery replacement. Which it now is and there is a full battery health page. It was also never really secret or lied about. There was a mention in the change logs that no one reads.
> If you asked the average user if they would rather that their phone crash, or have the top speed capped. They would all rather it did not crash.
Certainly the average user would choose "no crash _and_ not get slower", conveniently ignoring the either-or nature of the question. (Maybe "get less battery life out of a single charge" if they are trying to come up with an alternative.)
That’s not an option. It’s not that the battery was flat. It’s that when the CPU hit peak power consumption the voltage of the battery would drop low enough to cause the CPU to fail. The only option is to limit power draw or to crash.
No, actually, it IS that the battery was flat, and it IS an option. Apple chose to use a battery which was not durable enough for the requirements imposed upon it by their design. I'm not sure why you think that they couldn't have avoided it like LITERALLY EVERY OTHER PHONE MANUFACTURER (including themselves at one time).
> If you asked the average user if they would rather that their phone crash, or have the top speed capped. They would all rather it did not crash.
No. If you asked the average user if they would rather their phone have the speed decreased, or have a slightly thicker battery (and thus phone), they would all rather it be slightly thicker.
> You're going to suggest that Google is the worse perpetrator of planned obsolescence
Yes.
The big problem was the deception, not the slowing. If they wanted to remove the speed difference between new and old phones, they'd have to slow them all down.
And especially because you can get a new battery, I find updates getting cut off so soon with android to be significantly worse than anything apple does.
No, the deception was what got them fined. However, why do you think they chose to go with the deception, knowing that they were risking fines? Oh, right, it's because the slowing definitely would've been a problem if they had disclosed it up-front.
And you can't get a new battery, by the way. Apple's batteries are not designed to be replaced, remember?
> Oh, right, it's because the slowing definitely would've been a problem if they had disclosed it up-front.
If they made the turbo a bit less aggressive, so slowdowns happened on fewer phones, and made it say "your battery is failing so the phone can't reach peak speed reliably", it wouldn't have been a big problem.
Batteries can only put out so many watts as they age, and apple didn't cause that to spite people into having to buy new products.
> And you can't get a new battery, by the way. Apple's batteries are not designed to be replaced, remember?
> Meanwhile an iPhone SE from 2016 can upgrade to the latest iOS. It just works.
Please don't say things like this here. That part of your comment is inappropriate and incendiary, and contributes at best nothing and at worst drama to this discussion.
This particular bit of your comment does not contribute to the problem under discussion, to the potential solutions or work in progress, or to any other related concern. It is not tangentially-related to Android problems or to Pixel problems. It does no benefit to the post topic, "Pixels bricking unexpectedly", to start a flamewar about iPhones.
HN does not benefit from conversational arson directed at some random Android device post, that has nothing to do with how you feel about Apple versus Android. There are enough fires on HN as it is. If you feel very strongly that we should consider and discuss your views about the relative hardware warranty times of iPhone versus Pixel, then write a blog post and submit it to HN.
Meanwhile an iPhone SE from 2016 can upgrade to the latest iOS. It just works.