How is that? I have a 2014 iPad Air 2 and while it didn't get the very latest major update it is still getting security and bug fix minor updates for iPadOS 15. And not only that it's still working great and very usable!
While A10 phones stopped receiving OS updates with iOS 16, this iPad is still supported by iOS 16.
I had an iPhone 7 (same SoC) til early this year with iOS 15 and it was fine (changed because it got physically destroyed); I was never prevented to install any app even though iOS 16 was released well over 6 months before. I have a 7th gen iPad (A10) and iPad Pro 10.5 (A10X) and they both work perfectly fine with iOS 16.
In any case, even if it stopped being supported that's a far cry from that aforementioned Pixel situation where it stopped being supported _the next year_.
> that aforementioned Pixel situation where it stopped being supported _the next year_.
That Pixel (from 2016) did not stop being supported the next year (2017).
Android 8 was first released in 2017 and was followed by Android 9 one year later. So it was most recent Android up to 2018. Then it was still supported, since the latest patch for Android 8 was in 2021 and the latest compatible Google Play services release was this month (2023).
So the phone and OS are still supported today, but I suppose that circa 2020 (2-3 OS releases later) some applications started requiring a more recent OS.
So as long your device is still receiving security updates, it means you can pretty confidently run the majority of Android apps, even if you're in an older device. This is specially true since essential apps like browsers use their own engine and can receive security updates. This is very different from iOS that once it stops receiving updates, you're pretty much screwed up.
Not saying that one approach is better than the other, but both have trade-offs.
The original poster just said that some apps required the latest OS.
iOS 16 supports all phones back to the iPhone 8/X released in 2017.
> This is very different from iOS that once it stops receiving updates, you're pretty much screwed up.
Apple just released a security patch for the iPhone 5s January of this year. It was released September 2013. It was the first 64 bit iPhone and the first that supported LTE. Is Google or any Android manufacturer doing security updates for a phone released in 2013?
> The original poster just said that some apps required the latest OS.
Yes, of course there is a small number of apps that will need the latest OS, because they're trying to do something new that is not possible before etc. This is not true for 99% of the apps that you use though, and is specially not true for apps used by the mass market like Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/your bank because you would be crazy to only support a small % of your user base.
Also keep in mind that this is valid for both iOS and Android (bigger publishers generally support older versions of iOS because there are folks that will never upgrade/their devices doesn't support the latest version).
> Apple just released a security patch for the iPhone 5s January of this year. It was released September 2013. It was the first 64 bit iPhone and the first that supported LTE. Is Google or any Android manufacturer doing security updates for a phone released in 2013?
I still used my 10 year old tablet (LG G Pad 8.3) a few years ago because even if it didn't had the latest security updates, because at least my browser was up-to-date. Keep in mind that I wouldn't do anything security critical on it, but it is still arguably more useful than a iPhone 5s that should be using an ancient version of WebKit (so a good portion of the Web is broken on it probably).
BTW, before you ask why I stopped using the tablet: it finally broke after all those years.
The equivalent iPad in 2013 when your tablet was released is the 1st iPad Air that had a slightly better screen than your Asus and a much better processor - the A7. It stopped getting OS updates in 2019 and also got a security update January of this year.
The version of WebKit available in 2019 is not “ancient”.
> The equivalent iPad in 2013 when your tablet was released is the 1st iPad Air that had a slightly better screen than your Asus and a much better processor
Apple didn't had that much advantage in CPU power them, looking at the benchmarks A7 seems to be ~30% faster that isn't "much better".
Also, iPad was way expensive than my tablet, specially in my country. It was fifty percent more expensive. 50% more expensive for 30% more performance looked really bad for that time. The screen being better in the Air also didn't matter because I choose LG G Pad 8.3 exactly because it had a 8.3 inch screen.
> The version of WebKit available in 2019 is not “ancient”.
It is. This is at least 4 years without relevant security updates (except maybe for "extremely critical") and without improvements in Web standards.
I could get that same tablet today and get a modern browser like Chrome to run with relatively acceptable performance.
> Is Google or any Android manufacturer doing security updates for a phone released in 2013?
lol, goal posts moved.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this logic, let's talk about how much better Linux is than Apple. Linux (various distributions, collectively referred to here as "linux" for convenience) still supports many systems that are 20+ years old! In fact, Linux is often used to give unsupported Apple devices a longer lease on life. Does Apple do that?
How is this moving the goalposts? We are comparing phones. Unless you have a phone from 20 years ago running the latest version of Linux.
> Google is also much more serious about backward compatibility than Apple, and
How is Google “better” at backwards compatibility when they don’t support devices as long?
The iPhone 5s which was introduced in 2013 got a security update earlier this year. Is the same true for Android phones that are almost 10 years old?
The iPhone 8/X that was introduced in 2017 still is running the latest OS. Is that true for Android devices?
Seeing that Apple didn’t even create phones 20 years ago, and that you can’t even connect a phone older than the iPhone 5s to a modern network, I fail to see how that is relevant.
Or do you expect Apple to support the original iPhone that 128MB of RAM, 4GB/8GB of storage, 2G networking (which isn’t supported by carriers anymore) and a 320x480 screen?
> How is this moving the goalposts? We are comparing phones.
No the conversation is not comparing phones in general. They're discussing specifically when the Pixel (from 2016) stopped being supported. Your comment is the first one that expanded/changed the subject from when one specific phone lost support to all phones/Apple/Google in general, and it was in a reply/rebuttal to a defense of when the Pixel 2016 stopped receiving updates. Classic definition of the fallacy of moving the goalposts.
If you want to debate all phones in general, you should clearly bring that up rather than sneak it in as a rebuttal to a different subject.
For the record, I'm not disagreeing that in general Apple > Android on updates. It clearly is IMHO and this is a major thing Goolge needs to improve on (and I say that as someone who will never buy an Apple product again).
I looked very hard a two years ago for a high end tablet that I could put my own OS on. All I could find was the one by Pine64, and it was not "high end"
I am typing this on an eight year old laptop I bought second hand at the start of COVID lock downs. Running Linux, it works pretty damn well.
In my experience, the issue with tablets running GNU/Linux is not so much hardware driver support, but that the usual desktop just does not support touch input very well. For example, last time I tried, Debian does not build Firefox in such a way that you could use it with a touch screen for scrolling, opening links in new tabs, and so on. Similarly, evince did not properly support navigation in PDF documents. But libinput debugging showed that the software stack was producing touch data that looked quite detailed.
with that requirement I would concur, Surface (Intel) seems to be the best bet, although last time I checked (which was a couple of years ago) full support was spotty depending on generation.
Maybe someone else can chime in with feedback about getting Linux on there?
I have been using Surface devices for a couple of years. I liked them a lot; in particular, I think that the Surface Book is (was) a unique machine, before being abandoned by M$ (it definitely needs/needed a reengineering).
Long time after release (Pro 3, Book 1), both devices became usable (BT, camera/mic, wifi; I've never used touch on Linux, and anyway, Linux's DEs are/were not really designed for touch), although sleep is a significant problem, due M$'s s0 idle. I've ultimately moved to a normal laptop plus Android tablet.
Without really good O/S support, I think that hybrids in general don't make much sense (I used to dual boot).
The advantages of a split configuration are considerable, both in terms of ergonomy and specs. For example, a recent Ipad Air, is lighter, and lasts much more than any Surface, while being large enough. In practice, the only time when I need a large tablet is when I read magazines, but even then, an A4 is "not great" on a 13.5", so even a Surface Book doesn't universally solve any reading need with its size (the 15" is too heavy).
An Ipad Pro is IMO the only acceptable hybrid/tablet (but I personally don't use Mac stuff for work) on the market, currently.
Even cheapo Android tablets now have 2000x1200 displays. I bought an ARM Windows tablet for 200 Euro and that has a 2880x1920 display. My eyes are grateful when reading text, not going back to displays reporting in inches per pixel.
I'm really sad Intel pulled the plug on X86 Atom chips for tablets. It was super easy to boot any OS on them. Unlike ARM tablets.
My 2019 iPad Pro is kind of obsolete, its battery life isn’t great. But it still does mostly what I need it to do, so I can’t bring myself to buy a new one.
What does obsolete mean to you? There’s nothing obsolete about a 2019 iPad Pro. It received the most recent iPadOS update and it’ll certainly receive an update to iPadOS 17. The hardware is as good or better than current entry level iPads. The battery should still be good, but maybe yours needs replaced.
Hmm, if that were the case I would have just done it already. But no, I looked at the trade in value for it via Apple's exchange program, and they said...they would be happy to recycle it for me.
I own one device that I cannot imagine wanting to upgrade or call “obsolete” in foreseeable future: the 2018[0] 256 GB third generation 13-inch iPad Pro.
Granted, in my workflow it faces fewer demands than for example a laptop or phone (I don’t program on iPad or use it for full media production workflow), I don’t rely on it day in day out like I do on those devices, and perhaps I will change my mind once it stops receiving updates, but all of what it needs to do it just does (communication, leisure, music/art playground) and had been doing for years with no noticeable degradation. Somehow I have a soft spot for this particular trusty shiny rectangle.
[0] Replaced in 2020 due to no fault of its own but my idiocy that resulted in broken screen. Incidentally, with expired AppleCare+ that cost me around half of the original price. I’m not super wealthy but I don’t regret this specific expense.
My iPad 2011 is also obsolete. The screen looks great and it runs both Vlan and iBook just fine, so I can connect it to a PC and move books and videos on it.
It’s not great for browsing any more it is still a great study tool (still runs anki, still great for reading)
It’s still a good tool, but it has definitely lost features over time.
