@humanetech@mastodon.social @jayrope
I don't think it is what you are saying, but my main thought here is always that I'm not convinced by the need for security updates outweighing supporting older hardware.
If anything, more secure software should be more lean, not more bloated + requiring more RAM and CPU. I think that a lot of extra (probably surveillance) crap is pushed out under the guise of "security" updates.
@keith @humanetech @jayrope it's not about no longer supporting hardware, though, it's about no longer supporting a version of Android that is old and no longer receives security support (which IMO is a big deal), and lacks certain APIs that newer versions do have. That's less work for the developers. Less variables to test their software against (which saves time). Not reinventing wheels (which saves development and bugs).
@doenietzomoeilijk @humanetech@mastodon.social @jayrope
Not supporting older hardware is IMPLICIT in not supporting older Android. (I was about to write OS, but i'm really not sure "android" qualifies as an OS)
Tying security support to newer versions, i.e. newer hardware, while bundling new obligatory "functionality" is political, not technology related.
@keith @doenietzomoeilijk @humanetech The point about new obligatory functionality is very valid, i find. Software & hardware industry, #FOSS or other, is bound to grow by inventions, many of which simply try to tie me more to devices, that mostly promise to toast better, than my toaster (not on wifi, no voice control) - and then never get there.
This has turned a lot of people away from overly caring about devices, as long as they perform what they can as reliable & long-term as possible.