this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
215 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

59118 readers
3176 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
215
Is it time to question the yearly release cycle for phones? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So recently I've been seeing the trend where Android OEMs such as Google, Samsung, etc. have been extending their software release times up to like five, six, and seven years after device release. Clearly, phone hardware has gotten to the point where it can support software for that long, and computers have been in that stage for a very long time. From what I can tell, the only OEM that does this currently might be Fairphone.

Edit: The battery is the thing that goes the fastest so manufacturers could just offer new batteries and that would solve a lot of the problem.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I just went with the $100 Motorola stylus (it has a built in stylus!) and just pay $4/month with 0% interest so I'm paying much less than $100 over two years. These cheaper phones usually hold up better to abuse than more expensive phones. I had the pixle 5a and the screen died just after two years (a known issue) screens for it are more expensive than $100 right now.

[–] pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

4*24=96, you're probably paying exactly $100 over two years.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Not a huge savings, but still.

another way of looking at it.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What’s the NPV of 24 monthly $4 payments assuming a 4% annual rate of return?

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

At least $3.50