![]() ![]() > Pixel phones get Android version updates for at least 3 years from when the device first became available on the Google Store. Honestly, I'd be just as happy if updates were guaranteed for just 1 year (though I'd probably just sit for a year without updates between upgrades), and I'd definitely be less happy if they were guaranteed for 5 years because I feel like a significantly larger portion of development time would go towards backwards compatibility instead of pushing tech forward. If I'm buying a new phone every 2 years, any amount of development time that goes into making sure that update works on 3+-year-old phones is wasted on me, and explicitly means less development time was spent on features that are actually relevant to me. Take "wasting time" here defined as selfishly as possible. I know the developers are focusing on making the update work as well as they can on just the last two years' worth of hardware, and not "wasting time" on making it work well on lesser/older hardware. Are we supposed to be happy with two years?Īs someone who buys a new phone around every 2-3 years, two years is perfect for me. It seems for all sorts of reasons that experience doesn't translate to mobile phones. That 5 year expectation was set by my experience with desktop's. Which brings me back to my original point. Compare that to desktop CPU's: I don't think they don't have IPU's yet. Do things really move that fast in the mobile space? Maybe they do - everyone is adding bigger and bigger IPU's now. The thing that did catch me by surprise is the Nokia 8.1 is a better phone than the 6P ever was - faster, better screen. This time around it is a Nokia 8.1 which cost me a tad over $400, so even on a 2 year vs 5 year replacement schedule it would cost me less than the 6P. My previous phone was a Nexus 6P which cost me around $1200, which I planned to have for about 5 years (but didn't). With my latest phone I've come to accept that I'll be replacing it in 2 years. Nothing I've done fixes it, up to and including including re-imaging the flash. The really annoying part for me, a veteran embedded programmer who has rolled his own multitasking operating systems, is I have no idea what is causing this slowdown. They've all slowed down to almost unusable some time after the 2 year mark, despite me fighting my way past the glue and tape to replace the non-replaceable battery. The reality is none of my mobile phones have aged gracefully. And initially I wasn't happy with 2 years on a mobile phone because I thought they would age like their bigger brethren. If it was a laptop of desktop definitely not. > Are we supposed to be happy with two years? Unfortunately apart from small bunch of people on HN, no one is willing to paid extra $50 - $100 more just for Software update, they expect it to be free, or they would rather not update at all. The answer often to all these question is simple, paid up, and find enough people to paid up, in business terms this means market fit. That is why iPhone is unprecedented, when was the last time you saw a product in its segment taking 20% of shipment and 80-90% of industry profits? ![]() Only if it is sold for 100 millions unit +. Compared to Apple, you could hardly find any decent discount on iPhone, and iPhone has much lower margin for Carrier and Retail, from low end of 10s to even single digit percentage.Ģ. It is like those Flagship Samsung and Huawei phone, their pricing strategy is always $100 lower than comparative official iPhone price, except they are often retailing for 20% lower. That means on average it is highly likely not even getting $250 out of it. If it was really $400, the problem is most ( pretty much all apart from Apple ) gives plenty of Retail margin and incentive to carriers. Then someone without awareness of this difference reformulated it into the current form.ġ. I guess that some internal document written by people who understood the difference had something like "with this feature you can have now secure passwords and you are still able share them with guests". However, when you normally read this sentence, this isn't the interpretation that comes to your mind. In this interpretation, "keeping your passwords secure" would refer to the entropy of the password instead of how shared it is. With this feature, they can use longer secure passwords. I'm saying misleading because there is an interpretation of that sentence that is technically correct: Some people might use short passwords so that they can tell them to guests. The format used does contain the password so your password is still being shared: Now, you can share your Wi-Fi details with guests via a QR code while keeping your password secure.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |