• Cypress35z@feddit.deEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t that nice for the Pixel8. I wonder what’s holding them back do the same for older models with their chip. Like the Pixel6

    • TheMadnessKing@lemdro.idEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      I remember reading an article few days ago about this. The gist is:

      • Google was not confident with Tensor 1 & 2 chips and didn’t want to burden itself with a hardware that was going to be difficult to support.
      • Previous iterations of Pixel had Qualcomm chips, and QC doesn’t support its chip for that long.
  • Diplomjodler@feddit.deEnglish
    82·
    1 year ago

    Funny how a single, relatively tiny company that tries to do things more ethically can move the entire industry. We really need more companies like Fairphone.

  • shiveyarbles@beehaw.orgEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    It’s hilarious how they market security updates as a limited time feature. These fuckers need to be regulated so badly.

    • Kogasa@programming.devEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Software maintenance and updates cost money. Nobody reasonable would say you’re entitled to a lifetime of support for a piece of hardware you buy, unless you specifically pay for this service. The specific support lifetime that is cost-effective for the business and consumer depends on the product and the business, it’s not an easy target for regulation.

      7 years of security updates isn’t that bad for a phone.