@hj
5 years of software updates with the wast majority of features supported across all devices.
Obviously the locked down nature of Apple devices puts some asterisks on it, but expecteding latest software to run on ancient hardware is something only retards and FOSS autists expect.

@matrix @hj i expect that i could run newer oses on older phones

@1iceloops123
Not without cutting features.
I do wish though that phones were more open so that I could try running Linux on something like the IPhone 2G.
@hj

@matrix @hj with android my 2016 phone is on android 10 and that and i bought it around 2018 i hope it gets maybe some more updates.

@1iceloops123
Hopefully. Android and the manufacturers have been getting better at this.
@hj

@matrix @hj i am glad for custom roms

@matrix while normal people expect software and hardware to be good enough to never need an update. Not all business practices are good nor happen because people want it. Sure you could make a lightbulb that lasts forever, but then it means than each person buys one and never ever again buys another - that's huge initial sales but it's not sustainable. Sure you can sell tractors but people not likely going to pay for your "quality" expensive repairs - better lock it down. You can sell a movie, but if someone shares it with someone - it's a potentially lost sale, gotta implement DRMs.

Even the aforementioned iPhones or smartphones in general - companies expect you to buy shiny new phone every once in a while, and people do, even if their old phone is still more than capable of its tasks.

@hj
Yeah, precisely. Just selling phone after phone is not a sustainable business model. That's why subscription services are becoming increasingly more common because they are much more reliable and that's why Apple has a lot of them and that's why they are releasing "budget" versions of their products to get more people into them.

If you buy a phone, you are still able to use it without updating for the same stuff you were always able to even when they are no longer supported. Maybe excluding all the CDMA carrier exclusive phones from the 00s, some of which died in a few months.
I don't see how it's reasonable to want new features on old phones (and by old I don't mean 2 years), especially iPhones since those get them for a long time and have high end specs on launch. Only now are phones at the point spec wise where the performance increases are no longer noticeable for day to day use.

Yes, the locked downess of especially Apple devices is absolute bullshit and their repair practices too, but normal people don't want to install custom software on their phones.

@hj
Holy crap this post is an unreadable mess...

@hj @matrix Most of those "good" business models require very specific laws with mass government enforcement to be viable. The reason closed garden stores and DRM work is because of massive invasive government support. These business models could never exist in a free market.

@petit @matrix oh no, it's backwards. People are more than happy to get baited - remeber that most people are dumb or at least uninformed. There are little to no DRM enforcement legal-wise, mostly. Completely free market is also kinda bullshit, because even though the idea is that competition puts restrictions on companies and forces them to improve, but they could've just merge, monopolize the industry and make ten time as much of profit?

@hj @matrix "little to no DRM enforcement" What? In the USA under the DMCA, it's a federal crime to subvert DRM. The DMCA implements the WIPO Copyright Treaty with over 30 signatories. Signatories include Australia, Germany, China, Israel, Belgium, and the European Union.

To your point about free markets, no one is arguing a perfectly free market is or isn't possible.

Either way, the viability of DRM is only possible through extensive government protectionism. DRM is an attempt to fix prices via a massive cartel involving government, display companies, cable manufacturers, standards committees, and processor designers.

DRM laws are not "just another regulation" like antitrust or consumer right laws. DRM laws are kickbacks for a very niche business model that hasn't been viable for over a quarter century. DRM is a bailout for an unsustainable business.

@petit @matrix sure but nobody is forced to use DRM for their products, and it's still not an easy job to circumvent DRM even without laws.

@hj @matrix The point of regulation is that some choices are unacceptable to pose.

DRM used to be piss easy to break. Then, they added laws. Finally, they're adding hardware support. We'll see how hard this actually is in the coming decades.

@petit @matrix >DRM used to be piss easy to break

depends. some things were easy to break, other not so. Companies know that their laws are pretty much last resort and nobody is going to be actively monitoring each and every person in all countries to not be trying to hack the DRM, so they improve the technology behind it.

Just imagine that laws forbidding the DRM hacking would be removed, how would it change the situation? I don't see it going away (unless frauds at CDPR actually do something about it) even with laws removed, they'll just work three times as hard to make it even more impenetrable.

@hj @matrix That companies think "laws are a last resort" is nonsense. These companies tried to buttress awful DRM with laws long before DRM got sophisticated. This is the same tech industry that used to (and occasionally still does) attack people who privately disclose vulnerabilities for the sake of users. The tech industry has always preferred litigation to self improvement.

If the laws were removed, Encrypted Media Extensions in browsers could legally be defanged. Mozilla could reverse engineer any proprietary blobs or at least integrate an existing solution.

The value in investing in DRM would plummit.