The question is, would it lower the total cost of ownership? A phone that lasts twice as long will cost roughly half as much (perhaps a bit more if repairs are needed).
There is also no good reason for the cost of security fixes to vastly increase the cost for manufacturers if they slow down the release cycle for hardware and software. This isn't 2010 after all. The pace of meaningful improvements is considerably slower.
Most iPhones hit the second user market whether gifted or sold on.
They have a far higher trade in or resale value than any other brand.
It actually causes a bigger second hand market of phones if they have a longer life. Plenty of users still want the latest or there abouts. While others will happily go for the nearly new.
The benefit is receiving security updates. People may not choose to update their phones with security in mind, which is all the more reason to do it. Security updates is a place where consumers can be shortchanged simply because they are invisible, the consumer may not be aware that the security of their phone has been breached, and it is the sort of thing that consumers rarely think of until something bad has happened.
As for cost, I don't see why it would have to go up all that much. Apps are already upgradable on phones and much of the OS is hardware independent. So the only real pressure point is with the kernel and other hardware dependent code.
Expensive phones don’t necessarily have much more long term software support than cheap ones and the cost is typically shared across the full product line.
Yes Apple provides longer support than Android phones, but a high end iPhone and a low end iPhone get the same term of updates, just as a high end Samsung and a low end Samsung get the same term of updates. A highend Samsung absolutely could have longer support which would improve its value. At the point where this is being built for high end phones, the marginal cost of including support for low end models is very low.
Users of low-end phones would still benefit from the extended support lifecycle because their device and data would remain secure for a longer period of time.
They're free to purchase second-hand phones, if they want to buy an even cheaper device. When most phones are supported for 7 years instead of 2-3, the market of second-hand phones that are still supported will expand greatly.
Beyond just battery flash slowly wears out over time, degrading performance. Based on my Nexus 6 I would love it if the EU dictated batteries must be replaceable, but you need an overabundance of flash so a few years in there are still cells left to balance wear across.
The Nexus 6 automatically throttled performance based on battery left, but at some point the battery wore out to the point that less than 1/2 an hour of use got you below that threshold. After that the phone was very laggy and frustrating to use. No way anyone would want 5 years of that experience, updates or not.
Second-hand phones will massively go up in price if this happens. Not a solution.
Not even going into the problems with second-hand phones and that poor people de-factor have zero legal rights as they don't have the money to take sellers to court.
Instead of buying a 1-2 year old phone with 1 remaining year of support, the legislation would allow users to choose to buy a 6 year old phone with 1 remaining year of support. Since new phone releases apply downward price pressure on older phone models each year, the 6 year old model would most likely be much cheaper under the new legislation than the 1-2 year old model is currently. Budget-conscious users would appreciate having the 6 year old model available as a more affordable and equally viable choice.
Many used phone sellers/marketplaces offer extended warranties on second-hand phones, which risk-averse buyers should purchase.
> Not even going into the problems with second-hand phones and that poor people de-factor have zero legal rights as they don't have the money to take sellers to court.
This thread is about EU law.
In EU you don't have to take sellers to court, you just have to nag customer protection authorities until they do.
It might take some time: Google still hasn't gotten a massive fine for abusing its position in search and ads to kill competing browsers despite my reports but I will not be surprised when it happpens.
PS: come on guys and gals and do write to your local competition authorities. The sooner we can get this sorted the better.
There is also no good reason for the cost of security fixes to vastly increase the cost for manufacturers if they slow down the release cycle for hardware and software. This isn't 2010 after all. The pace of meaningful improvements is considerably slower.