Youtube video

    • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Apple still giving software support to the iPhone 8, released almost 6 years ago. Is there currently another company still pushing updates to a phone that old?

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        A PC from 2003 still runs a modern OS. No Apple isn’t the good guy, other companies are just even cheaper.

          • Swarfega@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t get slow. Modern software just gets better resulting in more powerful hardware needed which results in older hardware feeling slow.

        • Quokka@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Can it run Windows 11 with that tpm or whatever it was called requirement?

            • Quokka@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Some very minimal versions of Linux.

              And I’m sure an old iPhone can run some jailbroken shit as well. So afaic there’s little argumentative difference.

          • LiGuangming1981@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you use Rufus you can remove that and all other hardware requirements and install 11 on much older computers than Microsoft intended.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would you run windows when there’s better operating systems for free?

            • Quokka@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve got arch on a laptop. It’s fun for ricing and all but Windows is so much easier from a user standpoint.

              There’s a reason Linux makes up only 1.2% of OS’s used, maybe next year will be the “year of Linux” and everything will suddenly work and support all software but until than I’ll use the “worse” OS daily.

              • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bro, you’re talking about Arch. No duh it isn’t user friendly—it isn’t designed to be. If you’re going to compare Windows to Linux, the only fair comparison would be to Ubuntu or Linux Mint or something else designed for the people outside of the tech-illuminati.

                • Quokka@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve used many distros before, don’t try to pretend it’s only this distro holding Linux back.

                  Linux is just not there. No one wants to deal with compiling from source, worrying about dependencies, and all that other shit that makes software such a fucking pain in the arse.

                  With Windows you have the worlds largest selection of software and it largely continues to work 20+ years after release for many apps.

                  • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In my opinion, it is perceived difficulty that keeps people from using it. Most basic users will use the OS that is installed on the computer when it ships and never stray from that. It often takes another Linux user to introduce someone to it before they will use it.

                    Those concerns you mentioned are basically non existent for a low level user who just wants to do email, internet, and word documents, which covers a decent chunk of home windows users. Not all, of course, but many.

        • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          That 2003 PC probably does not receive firmware updates from the manufacturer, and hasn’t for over a decade.

          It might still function, but that doesn’t mean it is still supported. At this point, many operating systems won’t even install due to the x86-64bit requirements.

          • AProfessional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            None of that matters. No company can say what your hardware can do. Apple’s policies are disgustingly anti-user.

            • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Nothing else matters except privacy and security for me. Apple provides that in their phones.

              PCs from 2003 are full of vulnerabilities, use legacy instruction sets, lack power efficiency, lack manufacture support, do not support UEFI, have no IOMMU hardware isolation, have no modern VM capabilities, probably have no TPM, etc etc etc.

              If Apple is anti-user, then we need to also start blaming every single hardware manufacturer that doesnt support their products anymore. Manufacturers of phones, motherboards, TVs, SSDs, displays, mice, keyboards, printers, network equipment, etc etc etc.

                • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ok then those that can’t afford Apple can shop other brands. They just won’t get the Apple support, and will have to rely on community efforts to keep their machines running.

                  What exactly do you want Apple to do here?

                  • AProfessional@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Provide an open boot loader on all devices they sell at the minimum (I believe that should be law).

                    Basic documentation helping a community OS would be nice.

      • Kitten_Mittens@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        My 6s still gets software support, does it run the latest OS? No, of course not and nor should it. But Apple is still supporting/supplying my old ass iPhone general software/security updates. It’s in a company’s best interest to get customers to purchase their latest products but that shouldn’t undercut their commitment to their older products. I have stayed an Apple customer not because of their new products but because of the longevity of their old products/ support for said products.

      • gzrrt@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is that an argument in favor of glued-in batteries, though? A lot of users’ phones aren’t going to make it for six years if it’s non-trivial (or impossible) to swap out the battery for a new one.

        • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It uses pull-tab adhesive, which even most Right-to-Repair advocates consider ‘sufficiently repairable’. When it comes to glue, Samsung’s worse by a mile.

        • reddig33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          The battery is replaceable. Take it to any Apple Store and they’ll swap it for you for $89 or so. The adhesive is kind of like what they use on those 3m command strips.

          • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you think paying a third or even half of the current value of your phone to replace its battery is okay…well that’s your loss I guess.

            You can’t call a device sustainable when the cost to repair it is more than what most people are willing to pay.

            • reddig33@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not aware of a brand new iPhone that costs $170. For me it was worth the $80 or so to have it swapped and extend the life of my phone another six years. Cheaper than buying another phone.

              • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not aware of a brand new iPhone that costs $170

                Why would you be replacing the battery of a brand new iPhone? I am talking about the cost of an iPhone when its old enough that its battery is giving out. The value of that old iPhone is not as much as a brand new one. Deprecation is a thing. Spending $80 bucks on something that’s currently worth $170 is just stupid. $80 bucks is easily in the price range that makes people consider whether it’d be better off for them to put that towards a new phone. It’s a lot of money to sink into an old device that you know is already about to become obsolete.

                • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes it’s like taking your $500 beater car to the mechanic and they tell you it’ll cost $3000 to get it running again but with no guarantee for how long.

                • Graphy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing. I just replaced my battery for shy of $50 which is a bit much but I lazied out on the ifixit kit.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The most sustainable phone is the one you already own

      and that’s coming from Fairphone, a company that sells more sustainable devices. Imagine the footprint of other brands.