Every smartphone has an average lifespan or a designated expiration date set by the manufacturer. Software updates ranging from 3 to 7 years can surpass the average lifetime of a phone. So, is a seven-year promise necessary if the hardware dies off long before the software?
Smartphone materials degrade over time. Screens get scratched, minor dents appear around the corners, and batteries need replacing. In the US, the average lifespan of a smartphone is 2.54-2.67 (cycle length) years. That means consumers replace phones every 2–3 years.
Depending on your smartphone model, an average battery can last at least 2–3 years; some may last even longer, depending on how well they are kept. There are great phones with exceptional battery life that can keep up even after your device has experienced wear and tear. Seven years is overkill, and it’s obvious when we examine people’s purchasing habits.
Related
Why do we care about having 7 years of software updates?
On the outside, having extended software support looks attractive. But in reality, it doesn’t matter. Most people replace their phones in 2 to 3 years (some may only last 15 to 18 months). Samsung and Google have been pushing favorably to having seven years, while Motorola and OnePlus lagged by only offering two or three years of major OS updates.
Motorola and OnePlus plan to offer longer software support to match Google’s and Samsung’s. The OnePlus 13 has four years of Android updates and six years of security, while the Motorola G75 has five generations of updates.
A long update cycle helps two types of people. It helps those who are slow at upgrading. It also helps those upgrading to phones that are a generation or two behind. If you take good care of your phone, you can keep it around for four years (I concur, as I replace my main phone every 3–4 years). Adding extended software support gives flexibility and more purchasing power — but is it worth it if we can’t take full advantage of it?
Android phones are not made like iPhones
It’s no secret that iPhones live longer than Android phones. Apple has strict control over manufacturing and build quality. Additionally, Apple has a strong presence with over 500 Apple Stores worldwide, making it easier for consumers to send their phones for repair. Plus, iPhones already have a strong baseline for software support. If the Apple hardware is letting you down, like your iPhone’s battery, it isn’t too costly to replace — you only pay a fraction of the price to replace the battery.
So, the need to replace iPhones less often, combined with great software support, enhances the overall experience. But don’t forget that Apple also restricts its software; the tech giant has set up iOS as a walled garden (which we often criticize). If these phones can’t keep up app-wise, the entire software experience would feel miserable. Comparatively, Android has the luxury of installing different apps, old or new. As it seems, freedom is a price Android users would gladly pay.
Even with Apple setting the precedent with newer iPhones, Android doesn’t need a seven-year promise. It should at least aim for more than two years of updates, but five years is stretching it. Apple has a five-year plan for most new iPhone models — five years is plenty for Android.
Upgrading every year isn’t necessary
The key takeaway is that a middle ground is needed. We keep buying phone upgrades every year, and yet these upgrades are usually far from worth it. If these manufacturers keep shipping out new products every year and we, as consumers, keep buying them, how else does one break the cycle?
Related
Smartphone upgrades aren’t what they used to be, and AI isn’t enough
Outside of foldables, smartphones are becoming far too iterative in updates
It would be counterintuitive if we replaced our phones yearly. We wouldn’t come close to taking advantage of Google and Samsung’s extended software support. We need an in-between: have manufacturers implement meaningful upgrades every one and a half to two years but maintain a regularly scheduled four years (five at most) of software support. That way, we have some breathing room for purchases and more time to plan around it. Moreover, longer wait times between upgrading would reduce e-waste.
What about security patches?
Reducing smartphone software support comes at a cost. We’d also lose out on security patches, which would be the biggest worry. But they do not matter as much as you think (within reason). Security patches update vulnerabilities within the OS and are designed to prevent cyberattacks and exploits. Your data becomes more protected if you are on the latest security patch.
Related
Technically, if your phone’s security is outdated, you can still wait to upgrade. The average user wouldn’t be the target of malicious activity. Moreover, if you’re running a custom Android OS (like LineageOS), you’re also putting your device at risk. Yet, these users manage to find a way around it.
It’s not ideal to keep your phone unpatched for an extended period. Still, you should be fine waiting for a replacement if you aren’t visiting suspicious links (phishing scams) or downloading untrusted apps (always download from the Play Store). I waited around 8 months without replacing my phone when Samsung stopped delivering security updates to my Galaxy S10. Nothing happened: just be aware of the sensitive information you share on it (don’t do banking on it), and you should be okay.
How long do you want to lug around old hardware
Extended software support doesn’t change the fact that your hardware will age. Eventually, old hardware won’t keep up with the latest software updates, especially if AI features keep evolving and have more demanding processing requirements (may require more DRAM, for example). However, some of this could be offloaded to the cloud for processing, so hardware demands shouldn’t be much of an issue. Of course, the worry that this could incur charges we’ve never asked for. What’s stopping Samsung and Google from packaging this up into a subscription?
An extended software promise is just a facade
A seven-year promise may look great on the outside, but it is unneeded. While other manufacturers opt for two or three years of support, it is still too short. Four years is the sweet spot. It gives people enough time to upgrade and helps them break out of the cycle of buying a new smartphone yearly.
Alternatively, if these smartphone companies want seven years, we don’t have to force yearly updates — minus security updates and bug fixes; those should come immediately. Instead, we can wait longer. If we opt into this approach, we might finally see meaningful, feature-rich updates instead of focusing on slight UI changes or luxurious AI add-ons. Otherwise, cut the update cycle short and give us these updates quicker when deemed necessary.
