Which device? That doesn't sound right. We're in a more or less identical situation, with Galaxy Tab S2's for the kids that we bought three years ago. And indeed, they're running comparatively ancient Android 7.0 images and will never see a version bump again.

They do, however, continue to see security updates. And in particular they've been patched against the vulnerability in the linked article. I'd be very surprised if yours was any different.

He's probably wrong, but inadvertently so. Most people seem to confuse android version update with security update, which is compounded by the fact that security updates on android are very "discreet" all things considered, and you don't notice it much.

> comparatively ancient Android 7.0

7.0 is ancient? 5.1, or rather 4.4 is ancient.

The Android ver on my phone is 4.1. Still runs just fine, but then again all I use it for are calls/SMS, so there's little scope to be exploited.

It might still be vulnerable to stagefright, exploitable over MMS.

Stagefright is the name of the component, not the exploit. And in most cases, devices from major vendors are going to have patched binaries, even on images as old as Jellybean.

> ...all I use it for are calls/SMS, so there's little scope to be exploited.

You mean little scope of exfiltration (I'm guessing it's not connected to the internet). There are a lot of vulnerabilities in text rendering that can be exploited via SMS.

Android with a version number is ancient; current Androids have single letters in their name.

I'll have a check in a couple of hours and and report back.

The Device, bought in September 2016 was a Samsung Galaxy TAB E 9.6 SM-T560 WI-FI

I've had luck with official Google phones the past couple years, and in the past the Moto line of Android phones stayed up to date to a point.

My Moto phone hasn't had a security update in a year, and sale of the model was stopped 2 years ago, so that's 1 year support. Luckily it was cheap. I'll be ditching Android I think

Yeah, I'm doubting that.

Go into settings, about device and check the Security Patch Level.

better than ios updates making the phone unusable. happened to me on old ipod touch models, not even the battery thing.

> Not even the battery thing.

That was an attempt at graceful degradation that wasn’t communicated well.

The general belief was that having a phone that runs a bit more slowly, but consistently used it’s battery as the battery life naturally degrades is better than a phone suddenly dying with 40% battery remaining if the peak power draw exceeds what a several year old lithium ion battery can produce.

I much prefer the former personally, but I get where the misunderstanding and public outcry came from.

Beyond that, what made your phone unusable? The last 4 or 5 iOS versions have improved performance across the board, even for phones several years old.

In the class action lawsuit against Google, Nexus 6P customers said their devices were shutting off unexpectedly while reporting that the battery still had a 60% charge.

>In April of last year, a class action investigation began concerning Google, Huawei, and the Nexus 6P bootlooping issues. Many users were reporting issues with the Nexus 6P shutting down randomly, even when the battery was showing up to 60% charge.

https://www.xda-developers.com/google-huawei-nexus-6p-class-...

It's probably true that this was more an image problem than an actual misdeed, but the outcry was symptomatic of consumers' deep mistrust of tech companies' intentions. Some of that is because, to most people, a computing device is a black box, but some of it is because they've been burned before.

It would have been graceful if the phone gave a pop-up on every boot with 'Your iPhone has a worn-out battery. Have it serviced at your nearest Apple retailer'. Apple was fully aware that people with slowed down phones would buy a newer model iPhone. And besides the free battery replacement for the old model they gave zero recompense if you bought a new phone because your old phone was performing suboptimally.

I had a first or second gen iPod Touch and it became unusably slow right after updating it some time later.

Just make it so the batteries are easily replaceable. It's wasteful to buy a brand new phone when all you need is a new battery.

Ease of maintenance is rarely a marketable feature in mass-market consumer products, and most often is deprioritized.

Replaceable batteries apparently make water resistance a lot harder. I always preferred having an easily replaceable battery but I don't mind the tradeoff on my S10+.

A battery replacement is $79. No one is forcing you to buy a new phone.

A lithium ion battery doesn't cost anywhere near that much, its either poor design and/or profiteering on the device manufacturers part to charge that much for a $15 battery to be replaced.

You could say that about all pricing everywhere. Seems like a waste of breath.

Also doesn't change the upstream clarification that you don't need to buy a new device to get a new battery.

The battery is a user changeable part on most mid-range and low end phones.

The point of this predatory pricing tactic is to force owners of phones with sub-$200 in value to upgrade, rather than potentially waste half (or more) of the phone's value on replacing the battery.

Which carrier sold Android phones - where most users by their phones - have user replaceable batteries?

The Moto G is usually cited as one of the best mid range phone and it doesn’t have user replaceable batteries. I don’t think most of the cheap Walmart phones have user replaceable batteries.

The Samsung Galaxy J7 and Moto E5 Play (both free under 24 month commitment on T-Mobile) have removable batteries.

I do about a dozen mobile repairs a year for family, and it really does seem like the new automobile.

Auto’s were not built for ease of repair, the repairs themselves can be quite easy if you know what to do, and often require components that are only 1 or 2 orders of magnitude in price. Paying someone who knows what to do with it, they also add an order (similar to screen repairs).

> That was an attempt at graceful degradation that wasn’t communicated well.

That was nearly outright fraud which went swimmingly well. The big issue wasn't so much the unannouced throttling. It was that Apple knew that a lot of customers had battery issues but misled them (by denying the entire issue) so that they'll buy a new device. Instead, the debate turned on slightly more defencible for Apple.

Slightly more defencible, because while Apple _says_ that was done to counteract the battery issues, nobody knows whether iOS really checked battery state and didn't just throttle all older models indiscriminately. The latter would be rather convenient for the bottom line.

Apple has had a battery replacement option for quite a few years. Apple Store employees don't work on commission, so a customer coming in with a battery problem would most likely be offered the battery replacement option before being sold a new phone.

Employees can only give answers they know about, and a general battery issue was denied by Apple. That they didn't tell their own employees does not clear Apple from misleading their customers.

Aside, I'm pretty sure that Apple Stores do care about margin, and so do employees that identify with their business or are encouraged by their managers, but I am not accusing them (the employees) of anything.