[rivo]

Note that WKRL and DIDRL (two new European directives) will be in effect in Germany starting Jan 1, 2022. They include a consumer's right to updates that allow the device to keep working (including security updates).

But they don't specify an actual period for updates (this will have to be decided by the courts). And, what I find worse, they force the seller to provide the update, not the manufacturer. If the seller is not able to do that (which will be the case most of the time), they can be relieved of their duty.

We're only halfway there.

[FieryTransition]

I'm eternally grateful every time I can complain to the seller, and hold them liable for the product for at least 2 years here in Europe. I once tried getting in contact with a major manufacturer about a broken device, and they did absolutely everything to make my life hard and draw the dispute out, even when I had video evidence of the failure. I just gave up at the end. So yes, the seller has to be held liable, and if the product is bad for business, the seller will not want to carry the products. If sellers stop buying unreliable, hard to update devices/vulnerable devices, maybe it will make enough of a dent on the bottom line.

[glenneroo]

So who was this deplorable seller, so that we may also avoid them?

[FieryTransition]

It was a case with Samsung, but I've had bad experiences before with other brands too like Lenovo. The only reason I've got my money back with the Lenovo case, was because the seller was so tired of lenovos responses, he just gave me the money back because he thought their customer service was hopeless and it didn't lead anywhere. I think good service from the brands themselves is the exception, and judging by the ratings they get here in Denmark, it seems to be true.

[jorams]

I don't know anything about these directives, but

> they force the seller to provide the update, not the manufacturer.

This (like warranties) is normally because there's no actual relationship between the consumer and the manufacturer. You do enter a contract with the seller, so they can be held liable when the law is broken.

For smartphones this can be different, since they tend to come with EULAs, but not necessarily.

[J-Kuhn]

And the sellers can in turn ask their seller for updates.

[drugones]

So for smartphones devices, if you buy from Apple and Google directly the law should apply. By support extension (through paywall?!) I’d think it will be a small step away from applying to all.

[kalleboo]

> And, what I find worse, they force the seller to provide the update, not the manufacturer. If the seller is not able to do that (which will be the case most of the time), they can be relieved of their duty

I'm not familiar with the Android world these days, is it still common for mobile carriers to be a bottleneck for updates? If so, it sounds like this could at least be a solution for that.