[Delk]

Is that really so different from people buying a phone that will be supported for a year or two and using it for years afterwards? From what I've been able to gather, many Android phone vendors either don't give any promises regarding software updates or they only provide them for a couple of years.

I suppose there could be some genuine reason for why that's a specific problem for Nokia's support claim here, but I'm not sure if you've actually got something like that in mind or if you're just being negative.

[luismedel]

I'm not claiming this to be worse than any other manufacturer's policy. It's simply another bad policy. Also, IMHO selling the phone as "insecure but ecological starting 2025" is a very bad selling point.

I don't need to critize any other manufacturer out there to make a point about this one.

[Delk]

I agree that's a problem. But at least 4 > 2, and being secure until 2025 is at least better than being secure until 2023. (It also allows those who mind the security of their devices to use them for longer compared to a lot of the competition, which is an ecological improvement, although not a sufficient one.)

I'd also like to see longer life cycles that aren't limited to a few years due to unhealthy economical incentives. However, although you may not have meant it that way, your comment seemed to attack this particular policy, and that seemed a weird thing to do considering that it's at least better in that regard than the vast majority of the Android phone market.

[luismedel]

You're right. Being secure until 2025 it's much better than what we have right now in the Android ecosystem.

My comment was about that specific statement praising as "eco" the use of an unpatched phone for the long run, which I find funny (well, sort of) from a security perspective. But re-reading it, you're right and it sounds like an arbitrary attack. I think my crappy english played against me, because I didn't want to be (so) negative :-)