I'm sure manufactures are slow to embrace this new reality because consumers see little value in paying for it.

But not in computers. Even in the 80ies, we would buy new version of MS-DOS for our existing hardware.

The difference is that on most normal computers (except Apple), software was/is decoupled from hardware, they have different manufacturers. Software developers want to reach an as large as possible audience, so it is typically not in there interest to support only the latest hardware iteration.

Consumer understanding and/or regulation needs to change in order to provoke a different response from the manufacturers.

Industries that do not self regulate tend to find that they will then be regulated by the authorities.

The phone companies used to be so anal about this that they would ban 'unlicensed' hardware from their networks to the point that you could only use their overpriced hardware. Now that has changed to the point where they will push whatever junk gives them the biggest margins at the moment of sign-up and never mind the long view.

Yet another example of a place where strict software liability would be a great thing to have.

The phone companies used to be so anal about this that they would ban 'unlicensed' hardware from their networks to the point that you could only use their overpriced hardware.

I thought that was more because it was overpriced than out of any attempt to avoid regulation. And that they were blatant enough about being anti-competitive that they got regulated for it.

This to me clearly indicates that the carriers at least have the option to ensure that the equipment connected to their network is up to certain standards. But since they don't car e (they never did) they'll be happy to sell you a phone from some manufacturer that is most likely not going to outlive the contract because of the extra margin they make on that phone.

So either they should take it back for some residual value (which they can then try to recover from the manufacturer) or they should ensure it keeps working properly.

I thought some of the fallout from that mess was that they can't impose rules beyond "doesn't break our shit".

A major recall that affects a large number of cars can create huge expenses in the aggregate. According to Toyota's Q3 conference call, they have set aside 100 billion yen (approximately $1.12 billion) for these "quality-related expenses" which will be allocated between the third and fourth quarters. (Some products were announced with great hype, only to be pulled from shelves. Find out more in A Year In Product Recalls.)[1]

I suspect that legally required recalls are viewed differently than security updated mainly because they are legally required. I wouldn't mind a consumer law requiring companies to provide at least a minimum period of security updates from the time it's officially available from the manufacturer. I also wouldn't mind if that period was longer for "appliance-like" IoT devices...

It probablt can even use the same justification. Unsafe vehicles on the road are a danger to us all, and so are unsafe devices on our networks.

1: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0210/the-cost-of-...

I'm thinking Apple may be the way to go this time, because they maintain security updates for older devices for longer. (Seems like 5+ years.)

Another way of looking at this is that lacking security updates create unnecessary electronic/chemical pollution/waste. I think the EU should tackle this. I'm sure they could come up with some scheme for penalties for lacking security updates. (Does anyone know of any initiative in this area?)

http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_g_(2nd_gen)-6647.php

(I still reckon my mom needs a new phone though, there are other less severe exploits out there for this non-updated device.)

Yes, an iPhone is better, but if you're on a budget and don't have those security needs, the Moto G seems fine.

The iPhone SE has a reasonable price and is only a year old. E.g., here in Germany you can still get the 16GB version from before last month's storage bump for 399 Euro. It has the same SoC as the iPhone 6s (A9).

"Security updates guaranteed for: nn months"

or

"Security updates guaranteed until: YYYY/MM"

There should be a also scheme where companies who claim these things would have to deposit some calculated amount in some offical place.

(Btw, since so there's so much cheap crap being imported from china, I guess the most consumer-protecting approach would be to make both the reseller and producer responsible for the penalties resulting from a lack of security updates.)

Asking as I'm aware of a couple of cases with friends in the past few years. Personally had one case in which was about to go to SCC regarding software update removing some functionality and the company settled out of court and left me most happy with the settlement.

Also http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/940/is-there-a-prefer... kinda back's this up alas.

Maybe somebody else knows one, but as I stated, I have personally used this law in comparable circumstances and aware others have. But without the ability to lookup such cases on a non-paywall site then alas we have hit an enpass.

So unless you are able to link such a site then your not helping at all.

You are right, we are not helping at all with proving your unsubstantiated claim.

More evidence would be preferred, and would definitely raise my trust that there wasn't some mistake of memory, but it seems a bit extreme to dogpile on someone who is stating what they believe as fact from personal experience, and when asked for verification seems willing to try to find that but without the knowledge or ability to do so and asking for pointers on how to do that.