Microsoft is done supporting the original Surface Duo, three years after it first launched on September 10. The company has stated from the very start that the Surface Duo would receive just three years of OS updates, meaning today is the last day that Microsoft has to stay true to its word.

Going forward, Microsoft will no longer ship new OS updates or security patches for the original Surface Duo, meaning Android 12L is the last version of the OS it will ever officially receive. Surface Duo only ever got two major OS updates, one shy of the average three that most high-end flagship Android devices get these days.

  • @Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    81
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You know, I don’t disagree with vendors putting whatever hardware they want in their devices, and I don’t mind vendor-customized software. But what I do mind is the barrier of supporting these devices without relying on the vendor.

    If I buy an x86 computer, I can use it basically however long I want to. I can put a variety of operating systems on it, and I don’t really need to rely on vendors much aside from binary driver blobs, which isn’t really that much of a problem these days.

    I really wish that Android wasn’t so customized per device. I wish I could just install upstream Android on anything that can run it, instead of special binary images for each vendor’s make and model. Android is open source and all, but simply having the sources to work with is the easiest part. Making it actually work is significantly n more difficult.

    Imagine buying that aforementioned x86 machine, but you had to run a giant, customized binary blob specifically made for a laptop’s make and model. And you had to throw it away after a few years not because you need more resources, but because you cannot upgrade the OS anymore.

    • Savaran
      link
      fedilink
      English
      501 year ago

      The reality is that we need laws that force them to either to continue to offer affordable support or publish all the specs and documentation when they drop support. Vendors shouldn’t be allowed to do otherwise.

      • @imgonnatrythis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        That sounds pretty reasonable. I feel so owned by technology lately. It used to be exciting to have tech that you could decide when you wanted to retire it and focus spending on something new and different that served a different purpose. Now I feel like I’m stuck with all the same basic gadgets but I just need to keep throwing money at them to replace them every few years. It’s about as unexciting as having to spend money on an oil change. I’m pretty primed by this as recently my electric objects picture frame just pulled the plugs on their server recently with no notice and bam, I have a black screen in my living room instead of pictures of my dog, family, and favorite artwork.

    • @Aopen@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      I wish I could just install upstream Android on anything that can run it, instead of special binary images for each vendor’s make and model.

      Why doesnt it work like that though? Combined with mandatory open bootloader it would free people

      pls,eu🥺

      • @mplewis@lemmy.globe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Generally, the hardware in a small, power-efficient, SoC embedded device is going to be a lot more particular and a lot less general than your gaming computer’s motherboard. It’s harder to write general OS software for specific integrated systems rather than a big set of chips which provide an individual chip for the BIOS, specialized chips for the PCI ports, etc., all of which have become more standardized over time.