[voidwtf]

They do communicate it in every major release, including which devices are supported. Many major vendors release security updates for EOL devices when doing so would greatly increase the security posture of those devices and comes at little to no cost to the vendor. Notably Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, and Samsung come to mind.

Is the implication that once a device is EOL that a vendor should never release an update for that device again?

[dangus]

They only communicate it after the fact, when the new OS is impending release. There’s no way to know at time of purchase how many years your device will be supported.

I feel like Apple changed the dynamics of smartphone market from company-issued devices like BlackBerry to BYO with the iPhone essentially on purpose so they don’t get stuck providing decades of enterprise support promises like companies like Microsoft.

Companies purchasing bulk orders of hardware probably wouldn’t tolerate a vendor unwilling to make any sort of concrete support promise for the contract. But a company who employs iPhone users can basically put the responsibility on the user and simply block access to non-compliant devices.

[wtallis]

> Is the implication that once a device is EOL that a vendor should never release an update for that device again?

It seems typical for vendors use "EOL" to refer to end of support life, not merely discontinuing sales of the produce. Most notably, that's how Microsoft generally frames EOL for major Windows releases, hence expectation of jumps in PC sales corresponding to EOL of XP, 7, and 10.

[handsclean]

They communicate OS version device compatibility, I’m talking about communicating OS version EOL. For example, Windows 10 EOL is 2025-10-14, and we know this years in advance. For Apple, not only do we not get advance notice, we don’t even know when it’s already happened.

No, I’m not implying there’s something wrong with shipping the occasional update to EOL devices.