Mobile phone lifetime

goodValue

I've just bought my second ever mobile phone and was dismayed to find it has security updates for only two years.

I had two thoughts about this:

1 In terms of value for money, a more expensive phone may be better.

For example, phone A costs £200 and has updates for two years.

Phone B costs £270 and has updates for three years.

In terms of cost only, phone B gives better value (£90 per year cf. £100 per year).

So the cost per year rather than the initial cost is the important factor.

Are there any websites that discuss this issue and gives recommendations?

2 Is there a good reason the updates are limited to such a short time, or is it a money making exercise for the phone companies?

Can users not update their phones themselves with the latest version of Android?

If this breaks the makers warranty, then is this an anti-competitive practice?

oldernonethewiser

Nothing new

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

As the hardware in tech develops new software is introduced to take advantage of this.  This new software will not run on old hardware (eventually) which is why it cannot be updated ad infinitum.

Which phone have you bought that has such poor support?

powerful_Rogue

goodValue said:

I've just bought my second ever mobile phone and was dismayed to find it has security updates for only two years.

I had two thoughts about this:

1 In terms of value for money, a more expensive phone may be better.

For example, phone A costs £200 and has updates for two years.

Phone B costs £270 and has updates for three years.

In terms of cost only, phone B gives better value (£90 per year cf. £100 per year).

So the cost per year rather than the initial cost is the important factor.

Are there any websites that discuss this issue and gives recommendations?

2 Is there a good reason the updates are limited to such a short time, or is it a money making exercise for the phone companies?

Can users not update their phones themselves with the latest version of Android?

If this breaks the makers warranty, then is this an anti-competitive practice?

1. Depending on the phone you might be able to root it and install an updated version.

2. Rooting a phone will break any warranty, but would presume the warranty expires after 12 months anyway. No, it;s not an anti-competitive practice.

Grumpy_chap

I think, maybe, the life of a phone is only determined as 2 years or so by the way the phones are successfully marketed through the "airtime contracts with free phone" and so many people just stay on that type of arrangement for ever, with a new phone every couple of years then a drawer full of old phones...

Battery life can also start to decrease after a couple of years.

The above is not MSE or planet-saving, but seems to be how it is.

goodValue

I looked on the Motorola website, and a few of the g series had only a couple of years availability for security updates.

That's why I asked about websites with information about this issue, as I wanted to get an idea of the range of lifetimes.

My first mobile was also a Motorola, the choice influenced by the longer battery life, which, at the time, I thought was the limiting factor for phone lifetime.

Did personal computers used to have a related problem?

Users did not want to move away from Windows 7 or XP (because they had to pay for the new OS?).

But now updates are effectively free, AFAIK, and users can run their computers for many years.

Is there a fundamental difference between mobiles and personal computers, that means that the phones could not be used for extended periods.

Alderbank

goodValue said:

I've just bought my second ever mobile phone and was dismayed to find it has security updates for only two years.

I had two thoughts about this:

1 In terms of value for money, a more expensive phone may be better.

For example, phone A costs £200 and has updates for two years.

Phone B costs £270 and has updates for three years.

In terms of cost only, phone B gives better value (£90 per year cf. £100 per year).

So the cost per year rather than the initial cost is the important factor.

Are there any websites that discuss this issue and gives recommendations?

2 Is there a good reason the updates are limited to such a short time, or is it a money making exercise for the phone companies?

Can users not update their phones themselves with the latest version of Android?

If this breaks the makers warranty, then is this an anti-competitive practice?

Your assumptions about costs are flawed. 
You assume that after 2 or 3 years the phone has zero value. That is wrong. Typically you might sell phone A for £100 after 2 years and phone B for £120 after 3 years, so similar depreciation of £50pa for each.

The initial cost is related to the specifications a phone has, such as the speed of the central processor, the memory size, the screen quality and the quality of the camera. Individual buyers will place different values on each parameter depending on how they use their phone. There are lots of websites which list and compare specifications.

You need to distinguish between version numbers and security upgrades. The difference is important.
Typically a new phone will give 2-3 years of Android versions and 5-6 years of security upgrades. The reason that versions are limited is because Google just makes 'stock' versions available to manufacturers and the manufacturer must then carefully tailor the new version to each of their range of phones. This process is labour intensive so is expensive for manufacturers and doesn't really have commercial benefits for them. They don't make any money fitting a new version of Android to each of their phones.

Emmia

There are lots of phones with longer security update timelines, for example the Google Pixel 8 with 7 years of support. But they cost somewhat more than £200 - £300

DoboChopSueyBar

powerful_Rogue said:

goodValue said:

I've just bought my second ever mobile phone and was dismayed to find it has security updates for only two years.

I had two thoughts about this:

1 In terms of value for money, a more expensive phone may be better.

For example, phone A costs £200 and has updates for two years.

Phone B costs £270 and has updates for three years.

In terms of cost only, phone B gives better value (£90 per year cf. £100 per year).

So the cost per year rather than the initial cost is the important factor.

Are there any websites that discuss this issue and gives recommendations?

2 Is there a good reason the updates are limited to such a short time, or is it a money making exercise for the phone companies?

Can users not update their phones themselves with the latest version of Android?

If this breaks the makers warranty, then is this an anti-competitive practice?

1. Depending on the phone you might be able to root it and install an updated version.

2. Rooting a phone will break any warranty, but would presume the warranty expires after 12 months anyway. No, it;s not an anti-competitive practice.

Wouldn't rooting a phone stop some (if not all) banking apps working? I would have thought that would be a major drawback of using a rooted phone.

booneruk

I think something to consider when buying a phone you're intending to use is its release date. A 'new' phone can be one that was released several years ago that just happens to still be being made. The support commitment is often made from the point of its initial launch, 'This phone will be supported through 3 major Android level versions'  - which would mean 3 years. After the last major release, there would be incremental security patches made for some time - so the right decision can get you a new phone that will be good for 5years or so.

If you bought a mobile new 2 years after its launch date, that means you'll likely be seeing 1-3years max of support for it from that point.

This is just the way with tech. A manufacturer being forced to support tech from 5+ years ago would have to do so much more work. We'd find that prices are higher, new releases taking much more time to materialise and/or we'd have to pay for new versions of phone operating systems.

I bought a Motorola Edge 30 ultra a month after its release in late 2022 and I've had Android 12, 13 and 14 with an upcoming 15. This means I'll be good to keep using it well into 2026 before I'll start getting twitchy about security updates (yes, this was a fairly expensive phone though)

Northern_Wanderer

goodValue said:

Did personal computers used to have a related problem?

Users did not want to move away from Windows 7 or XP (because they had to pay for the new OS?).

But now updates are effectively free, AFAIK, and users can run their computers for many years.

Is there a fundamental difference between mobiles and personal computers, that means that the phones could not be used for extended periods.

Gate Soft will offer free upgrades but often the hardware won't run it, so you either have to get a new pc or move to someting like Linux. If you don't upgrade your hardware or change to a different OS you won't be getting security updates which can be risky. RIP XP! You were brilliant. Soon to RIP, W10.....

booneruk

Northern_Wanderer said:

goodValue said:

Did personal computers used to have a related problem?

Users did not want to move away from Windows 7 or XP (because they had to pay for the new OS?).

But now updates are effectively free, AFAIK, and users can run their computers for many years.

Is there a fundamental difference between mobiles and personal computers, that means that the phones could not be used for extended periods.

Gate Soft will offer free upgrades but often the hardware won't run it, so you either have to get a new pc or move to someting like Linux. If you don't upgrade your hardware or change to a different OS you won't be getting security updates which can be risky. RIP XP! You were brilliant. Soon to RIP, W10.....

I had to upgrade my Mac mini from 2014 fairly recently in order to get the latest OS. 

This isn't a Microsoft exclusive thing.