Seems to be more reasonable than this title suggests?
Some comments:
"So they have introduced a major change and said any older Chromebooks bought going forward will only get 8. So its not a retrospective reduction for existing customers." (Edit: actually I think this comment is wrong, if you bought a Chromebook 1 year ago, you'd only get 9 years of ChromeOS updates)
"From my understanding of the article, it sounds like ChromeOS support is getting pared back for those devices, but the devices themselves should still be supported, albeit via a (planned but not yet in existence) migration path to GooglebookOS."
Reasonable would have been to deprecate support in 10 years, not 8.
Saying "yeah, we promised you 10 years of support, but if you just bought yours the last two years of that will only be supported if you switch to a completely different OS. But happily some of our devices have a direct migration path (if that's not yours, deal with it). Better hope the features you need will be available in our new OS by then, because right now they are not" is a major rugpull and not reasonable at all
“Completely different OS” might not affect the user experience all that much, though, since these devices are for running Chrome and it will still run Chrome. (And be better at other things like running Android apps, presumably.)
We don’t have any details about what the upgrade path will look like and it probably hasn’t been implemented yet, so this is all speculative.
If they didn’t do an OS change, they could still evolve it a lot over 10 years. Chrome could evolve too. You’re trusting the vendor to not screw up your workflow either way.
The downside to the user experience, so to speak, is that the newer OS will be more powerful / featureful, which will require updating a lot of managed policies for places like schools or locked-down businesses. They'll have to evaluate whether they want to deal with that and continue on the new OS and commit to it in the future, continue with it for a very short time then start all over again on windows or something, or just give up the time they were promised.
Of course, I don't think any schools are getting 10 years out of a chromebook, but some businesses might be.
These devices are usually bought on contract, with lots of lock in.
In particular, there are lots of schools getting screwed over financially. Maybe they’ll switch vendors, or use the money for education. Chromebook spending has a strong negative correlation with educational performance.
As a parent, I am supposed to have control over my kids’ personal information, but the schools firehose all the most sensitive kids’ info they have to an unlawful marketing firm that I do not trust. How do I opt out?
Are you saying "the impact of Chromebooks, specifically, is unknown" or are you saying "the impact of Chromebooks is known to be better than the overall average" here?
This absolutely happens, there's a set of teams whose job it is to make sure it happens every time a system is going to be handling customer data. It's not left to the engineers to remember to do so.
Tell me you've never worked at Google without telling me you've never worked at Google.
There are a lot of complaints you can legitimately levy, but "Google doesn't have enough of a compliance org to ensure eng behaves." is not one of them.
Hey ChatGPT, set a reminder for 2036 to tell me whether Google was found not to secretly violate TOS of School Chromebooks and use the data harvested from them to create value for it's shareholders.
they do not. I don't work there anymore and don't have any particular goodwill towards the employer that laid me off last year but I can guarantee that any data related to the education sector is under extremely strict controls.
Legally they cannot, no. And sure, they could violate contracts and break data protection laws. But they’d be trading an enormous hit on their reputation, who knows how many hundreds of millions in educational contracts for, what, some basic demographic data on kids? Data they’ll almost certainly be able to get via other means once the kid becomes an adult?
I don’t like Google’s involvement in education. I don’t like Google much at all. But we should still be able to examine this stuff rationally without devolving into conspiracy theories that don’t make logical sense.
Honestly reputation isn't the main concern if you're in leadership there, although it is absolutely a concern. The main concern is having to do another consent decree with either the EU or the US government. Those are a complete pain in the ass.
Homeschool, vote for free school choice, vote for getting the subsidized funds to where you actually send your kids. Solves most problems related to bad school policies.
> vote for getting the subsidized funds to where you actually send your kids
…which is what happens today with public schools. Your case only makes sense if you’re sending your kid to private school and would like public funds to help pay for it.
School vouchers allow richer families to go to private school while preventing lower income folks from doing so, exacerbating problems with educational achievement.
School vouchers are the only fair way to do schooling. Rich people paying for more expensive things isn’t bad. They just shouldn’t be forced to pay for the more expensive thing that they use as well as the less expensive thing they don’t use
Surely that depends entirely on your definition of the word “fair”. Is it fair that a lower income child is deprived of an opportunity to improve their life through education because their parents can’t afford it?
Ultimately the debate here is “should richer people have to contribute back to society to help the lives of the poorer people”? Of course you can say no to that. But the majority of society doesn’t agree.
“School choice” is just marketing language to disguise “funneling general tax dollars into private schools so wealthy people don’t have to pay for the privilege.”
No. It's about pushing decisions out to the edges and empowering parents (and students) to help run the school system. To frame it this way is to deny the powerful evolution brought about by real choice.
Wealthy people don't want more students going to their children's schools. School choice is about funneling public funds to evangelical (aka extremist) Christian churches.
Isn't it retrospective to all customers who purchased in the last 2 years? They're not saying a Chromebook bought yesterday gets 10 years but one bought tomorrow only gets 8. They're saying they all end in 2034. If you bought one yesterday expecting 10 years of updates, you got screwed.
It would be relatively straightforward to do automatically. Both OS's use a Linux kernel and Linux filesystems. Whether they will or should is a different question, but technically it's straightforward.
My pet theory with this move from Chromebooks to Googlebooks is simply that Chromebooks have a major stink on their entire brand reputation, especially in the younger generation that went through school with terrible cheap (and likely used/damaged) Chromebooks being given to them for schoolwork.
I think if you say "Chromebook" around most 20-something and unders, they have an instant negative association with the word.
My kid had a school supplied Chromebook for 4 years that she was allowed to keep. She hated it, constantly abused it and was thrilled to stop using it. It's now my spare/mobile work device and I LOVE IT. It has a rock solid build, small enough to use in my lap, touchscreen, still has a great battery and being a Chromebook... it just works! Kids are kinda dumb (I'm only half joking) and I think even if they were given MacBooks she would have shit all over it just because it was associated with school.
I was in a Chromebook pilot program when I was at Google. They gave me a different model every month or three as long as I kept giving them feedback. The build quality and usability varied wildly. Some models were so good I forgot I wasn’t on a real laptop. Some were so slow and unusable even on basic sites. Unfortunately the latter tended to be the ones that were so cheap that they ended up in schools.
Unless you are the most hardcore Google fan, I don't see why you want to spend $1k on a Googlebook instead of a Windows laptop or MacBook at the same price range.
Agree from a branding standpoint. Idk what a googlebook is or is going to be, but if it’s kneecapped the same way Chromebook, Android, and “iPad OS” are, it’s never going to be a real competitor.
And by this I mean being captive to App Store/Play Store, the weird “everything has to be inside Chrome” thing of Chromebook, the obtuse window-management contortions of iPad, etc. People expect to be able to install software of their choice on a real computer. I already have a smartphone. I don’t need a second giant one with a keyboard.
If they want to actually compete they should put their weight behind a real Linux distribution that works normally. Totally OK to add all the custom features they want, like running Android apps. But just don’t make it so weird.
(And no, developer-mode side loading doesn’t change any of that.)
I was a hardcore Google fan and that's what made me hate them. Trying to invest in their ecosystem is like being in an abusive relationship. They can't commit to anything, so any product you make part of your workflow will be inevitably ripped away from you with an assured promise that the new, blatantly worse thing replacing it is so much better.
All of their output is entirely dependent on internal product owners using Google products as stepping stones to ladder climb. Once they replaced a product, or did a giant 2.0 revamp, they move on and no one wants to maintain it.
> My pet theory with this move from Chromebooks to Googlebooks is simply that Chromebooks have a major stink on their entire brand reputation
I think you're right. Many of the students I've talked to have an immediate reaction of "slow, limited" when asked about a Chromebook. The early years of under-powered hardware and limited storage/memory really did them a disservice when it comes to brand
> ChromeOS devices will continue to receive regular updates and security patches through mid-2034. For qualifying devices purchased today whose 10-year support lifecycle extends beyond 2034, Google is committed to supporting your transition to Googlebook OS, with many devices offering direct migration paths.
In other words, support will be offered until 2034. if you're buying a new Chromebook today and intend to keep it for longer than 8 years, you're doing so at your own risk.
> Google promised 10 years of updates for all Chromebooks, and it’s now breaking that promise for anyone buying a Chromebook between now and whenever the last Chromebook rolls off the production line
So, they're changing the promise from now on, and not breaking it for past users. Doesn't sound like they're breaking their promise to me.
Is Googlebook OS going to be "open source" like Chrome OS was (through Chromium)? Or is this also a forced transition from open -> closed? (that would make me far madder than simply forcing a migration).
It's a special version of Android that has a developer mode that unlocks a virtual (sandboxed) Linux environment. Because otherwise, no one would be able to use git (Android's filesystem abstraction is so slow for git, it's worse than NTFS).
Inside the virtual layer, you get real ext4/btrfs and real terminal applications will run at near-native speeds (supposedly) but their ability to interact with other applications (Android side) will be limited.
In short, it's not a real computer. Not a general-purpose one, anyway.
Google thinks that the selling point will be that enterprises can have their locked-down environment in the Android OS which allows remote wipe capabilities and heavily-sandboxed apps while it also allows developers the power to run whatever they want inside their little virtual Linux sandbox (e.g. VS Code). Sort of like WSL.
What they fail to understand is that enterprises will want just as much control over that sandboxed Linux environment as they have over the Android side of things. Making the entire purpose of the device moot.
Another idea behind the project is that it will allow Google to sell laptops that run processors that are traditionally used in smartphones without having to port the drivers and whatnot to general, open source Linux. Things like deep sleep states with rapid resume should "just work" because it's using Android which was what the vendor targeted when they made the chip.
The foundation of the entire device is hacks upon hacks in order to avoid doing the right thing (and possibly giving up market share to generic OEMs that might make their own ARM laptops).
The actual solution to all these issues is for mobile processor companies like Qualcomm to just be good Linux citizens.
I too would like to know this. I suspect there won't be an equivalent of ChromiumOS for Googlebook OS. Likely a combo of AOSP and proprietary closed source code.
The willful ignorance of the tech community is getting out of hand. This is the same thing as the "windows 10 is the last version of windows" discourse which stems from the absolutely abysmal state of tech journalism. You would think that by now that it would at least match financial journalism, but apparently we're fine settling for people who don't care about or understand what they are writing about.
This isn't an issue, the 10 years of support was promised for the hardware, not the software. They are fulfilling that promise by updating the devices to GooglebookOS.
Was “automatic“ a part of the promise? Now there’s some e.g. fixed income seniors sold on the inexpensive, hassle-free gear who have to deal with a lack of a “direct migration path“ in their later years?
Googlebook is an absolutely awful name. Imagine being one of the people who worked on that. You collect your 200k paycheque, you go home to your family, you have to look your children in the eyes… knowing you called it a googlebook.
I'm sure it was just a pinky promise with a million lines of small print saying they can actually do whatever they want regardless of what they said.
Also, in 2034 things will likely be radically different in computing. A local llm will likely either make such considerations entirely obsolete because support will be easy, or all current tech will be taken away from consumers anyway and everything will be much tighter controlled and monitored.
Is anyone surprised at this? Abandoning products in an untimely fashion is their specialty. I've never bought a hardware product from them for that reason, except for a 2nd gen Chromecast which was something whose longevity I didn't care too much about.
Statements a manufacturer makes about their device before purchase are usually treated as legally binding. Saying you provide 10 years of updates is just like saying your charger delivers 60W.
You don't need a contract for that, if the statement is untrue the product is now defective. And if done on purpose this is usually considered fraud
They’ve already got the necessary lawyers to negotiate the class action settlement and to send checks for a portion of the purchase price to every class member, and they calculated that this would still save them money vs. whatever the alternative was.
I'm on the school board for our school, and they last a few years if we're lucky. There are some that survive up to maybe 7, but they accrete so much damage by then. While I think it would have been ideal for G to keep it 10 years, I think in practice it won't matter for many people. Most students are awfully hard on those things after all.
if you are a school or similar which ordered a large stack of them in the last two years then yes, especially if multiple such organizations join together on a legal case.
In the end "help with migration to" isn't the same supporting the existing product.
And if you advertised a product with 10 year support that _is_ legally binding (in the EU) and a clear cut case of you losing around 10-20% of the advertised value.
Given that legal costs might be to some degree covered by legal insurance and it being a clean cut case this is likely worth the money. But also a case where google can "just settle and not care" as in many cases schools did more things like forcing parents to buy chrome books then buying them themself, so it's unlikely to amass any relevant damage amount for Google.
More funny would be if the judge rules "10 years promised? You are cable of delivering 10 years?! You have to deliver it! And for all chrome books bought [8;10[ years before the deadline not just the suing party".
I don’t think school districts have the necessary thousands of highly-paid lawyers it would take to scare Google. Schools might join a class-action and get 20% credits for the 2 years of lost support, towards their next purchase, which Google will make sure is a little bit more expensive. The schools aren’t going to switch to Macs that cost literally 2x and are more fragile.
Besides, I’d be shocked if any Chromebook lasts 8 years in a school! Kids literally stick metal in the ports to fry them on purpose, and drop and throw them, etc.
Not saying Google is good, just that they don’t care about this and have no business need to care.
> In the end "help with migration to" isn't the same supporting the existing product.
I don't know that that's clearly true. Apple gives at least 5 to 7 years of updates past the last sale date for computers. (I don't know if this is an explicit promise or not; they have an explicit hardware support for 5 years and limited support for vintage [5-7 years old] equipment.)
I don't think I get to demand 5 years of support for specifically Sonoma or Tahoe on that equipment, but rather just N years of "some usable version of an OS and support to transition to it".
Replacing ChromeOS with GooglebookOS 8 years from now seems not that different from replacing Tahoe with Golden Gate.
The other alternative could be "we still support ChromeOS for 10 years, and will release security patches for all critical vulnerabilities that we find and fix after 2034" (but we might privately not look that hard for them...)
Thing is, not every country in the world is trigger happy with lawsuits like in US, so there is a very high chance it goes nowhere, depending on the jurisdiction.
Likewise many legal insurances have footnotes regarding how far they are actually going to support you in a claim process.
I will support you for 10 years for this car I am selling you now.
(things change in-between for a year)
I will support you less than 5 years for this car, if you buy now.
---
Google didn't do anything wrong legally, because the good sold a year ago is not the same as the good you are selling at current point.
YOu can have different support schedule.
Yes, it's very shady shit, because some people would find Chrome book in blogs/review a year ago thinking, oh 10 years, only to find out now it's less than that.
They did. Probably broke contract law (contract needn’t be a signed piece of paper saying “contract” at the top), and depending on the region, multiple consumer protection laws.
It isn’t criminal, but it is illegal mostly everywhere.
Are the people who made the promise even still at Google?
It reminds me of those sketchy companies on Amazon promising "lifetime guarantee" on their products when they know already they're gonna close shop and reopen on a completely different brand the very next year.
The whole point of corporations is that the assets (and liabilities) created by the people working on behalf of the corporation outlive the term of their employment.
They don't (or at least shouldn't) get to keep the assets without also honouring the liabilities.
Entering into an arrangement with a big corp doesn't imply trust; it could be that there aren't other viable options as everything either dies or gets too big to fail...
Good thing I did not trust Google 10 years ago either.
What we see here is a strategic shift by Google; you need
to connect this here, with the prior Google strategy of no
longer open sourcing Android-related stuff or with a huge
delay. This is not an isolated thing - Google is planning
Evil again, as usual.
How? Corporate interests have fully captured the government and are systematically destroying all avenues by which they could ever be removed from power.
So it's as low as 8 years instead of 10 for models purchased in the last 2 years (2034 being the cutoff), with those few devices being covered by a separate commitment to transfer them to GoogleOS by 2034.
Pretty lame detail to be enraged about, but it is Google and this is HN. This aligns with Apple's timeline for killing Intel MacBook support after releasing Apple Silicon (2029 being the last commitment).
Apple promises all customers 5 years hardware support after the model was last sold, and at least two years of limited hardware support thereafter.
In the UK, for iPhone 15 and later, Apple promises at least 5 years of software updates from time the model was first offered for sale (I would assume similar schedule outside the UK as well, but it is only explicitly promised in the UK, due to regulations there).
For enterprise customers, Apple can and does guarantee a minimum period of software security updates for macOS, but the exact period is kept confidential in the specific agreements.
I assume that while that macOS support commitment is not made for most consumers, they don’t cut special releases for enterprise customers, as much as they just avoid publishing the period publicly (I would further guess to avoid legal-induced headaches, which I personally think is the worst excuse, but I digress)
Seems to be more reasonable than this title suggests?
Some comments: "So they have introduced a major change and said any older Chromebooks bought going forward will only get 8. So its not a retrospective reduction for existing customers." (Edit: actually I think this comment is wrong, if you bought a Chromebook 1 year ago, you'd only get 9 years of ChromeOS updates)
"From my understanding of the article, it sounds like ChromeOS support is getting pared back for those devices, but the devices themselves should still be supported, albeit via a (planned but not yet in existence) migration path to GooglebookOS."
Saying "yeah, we promised you 10 years of support, but if you just bought yours the last two years of that will only be supported if you switch to a completely different OS. But happily some of our devices have a direct migration path (if that's not yours, deal with it). Better hope the features you need will be available in our new OS by then, because right now they are not" is a major rugpull and not reasonable at all
We don’t have any details about what the upgrade path will look like and it probably hasn’t been implemented yet, so this is all speculative.
If they didn’t do an OS change, they could still evolve it a lot over 10 years. Chrome could evolve too. You’re trusting the vendor to not screw up your workflow either way.
Of course, I don't think any schools are getting 10 years out of a chromebook, but some businesses might be.
In particular, there are lots of schools getting screwed over financially. Maybe they’ll switch vendors, or use the money for education. Chromebook spending has a strong negative correlation with educational performance.
As a parent, I am supposed to have control over my kids’ personal information, but the schools firehose all the most sensitive kids’ info they have to an unlawful marketing firm that I do not trust. How do I opt out?
To be clear, this is only true because it’s been true for all screens.
Every single time? I sincerely doubt it.
Whatever logical business firewalls Google has between orgs for this kind of purpose seems pretty frail and thin from what I have seen reported.
There are a lot of complaints you can legitimately levy, but "Google doesn't have enough of a compliance org to ensure eng behaves." is not one of them.
So my question is, what have you seen reported and what makes you doubt it?
https://www.classaction.org/news/microsoft-collects-massive-...
https://www.k12dive.com/news/week-in-review-april-6-2026/816...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/journalists-sue-goo...
https://www.courthousenews.com/google-settles-class-action-o...
I don’t like Google’s involvement in education. I don’t like Google much at all. But we should still be able to examine this stuff rationally without devolving into conspiracy theories that don’t make logical sense.
Through your government. Maybe you could form a union strong enough but unlikely as you have more to lose than them, but both is a good idea.
Totally agree. Would love far fewer computers in schools.
…which is what happens today with public schools. Your case only makes sense if you’re sending your kid to private school and would like public funds to help pay for it.
School vouchers allow richer families to go to private school while preventing lower income folks from doing so, exacerbating problems with educational achievement.
Ultimately the debate here is “should richer people have to contribute back to society to help the lives of the poorer people”? Of course you can say no to that. But the majority of society doesn’t agree.
I mean they may not use their local library or parks either, but they ain't getting a refund for that.
Are they going to make the switch automatic? It sure doesn't sound like the sort of transition that can be done automatically.
I think if you say "Chromebook" around most 20-something and unders, they have an instant negative association with the word.
Unless you are the most hardcore Google fan, I don't see why you want to spend $1k on a Googlebook instead of a Windows laptop or MacBook at the same price range.
And by this I mean being captive to App Store/Play Store, the weird “everything has to be inside Chrome” thing of Chromebook, the obtuse window-management contortions of iPad, etc. People expect to be able to install software of their choice on a real computer. I already have a smartphone. I don’t need a second giant one with a keyboard.
If they want to actually compete they should put their weight behind a real Linux distribution that works normally. Totally OK to add all the custom features they want, like running Android apps. But just don’t make it so weird.
(And no, developer-mode side loading doesn’t change any of that.)
All of their output is entirely dependent on internal product owners using Google products as stepping stones to ladder climb. Once they replaced a product, or did a giant 2.0 revamp, they move on and no one wants to maintain it.
Site updated fast https://killedbygoogle.com
I think you're right. Many of the students I've talked to have an immediate reaction of "slow, limited" when asked about a Chromebook. The early years of under-powered hardware and limited storage/memory really did them a disservice when it comes to brand
> ChromeOS devices will continue to receive regular updates and security patches through mid-2034. For qualifying devices purchased today whose 10-year support lifecycle extends beyond 2034, Google is committed to supporting your transition to Googlebook OS, with many devices offering direct migration paths.
In other words, support will be offered until 2034. if you're buying a new Chromebook today and intend to keep it for longer than 8 years, you're doing so at your own risk.
> Google promised 10 years of updates for all Chromebooks, and it’s now breaking that promise for anyone buying a Chromebook between now and whenever the last Chromebook rolls off the production line
So, they're changing the promise from now on, and not breaking it for past users. Doesn't sound like they're breaking their promise to me.
Now that I say that, breaking the promise by two years might’ve been a compromise. Maybe management wanted five.
Inside the virtual layer, you get real ext4/btrfs and real terminal applications will run at near-native speeds (supposedly) but their ability to interact with other applications (Android side) will be limited.
In short, it's not a real computer. Not a general-purpose one, anyway.
Google thinks that the selling point will be that enterprises can have their locked-down environment in the Android OS which allows remote wipe capabilities and heavily-sandboxed apps while it also allows developers the power to run whatever they want inside their little virtual Linux sandbox (e.g. VS Code). Sort of like WSL.
What they fail to understand is that enterprises will want just as much control over that sandboxed Linux environment as they have over the Android side of things. Making the entire purpose of the device moot.
Another idea behind the project is that it will allow Google to sell laptops that run processors that are traditionally used in smartphones without having to port the drivers and whatnot to general, open source Linux. Things like deep sleep states with rapid resume should "just work" because it's using Android which was what the vendor targeted when they made the chip.
The foundation of the entire device is hacks upon hacks in order to avoid doing the right thing (and possibly giving up market share to generic OEMs that might make their own ARM laptops).
The actual solution to all these issues is for mobile processor companies like Qualcomm to just be good Linux citizens.
This isn't an issue, the 10 years of support was promised for the hardware, not the software. They are fulfilling that promise by updating the devices to GooglebookOS.
Also, in 2034 things will likely be radically different in computing. A local llm will likely either make such considerations entirely obsolete because support will be easy, or all current tech will be taken away from consumers anyway and everything will be much tighter controlled and monitored.
Alternatively, if users want legally binding contracts they should not treat promises as such, and demand a contract instead.
You don't need a contract for that, if the statement is untrue the product is now defective. And if done on purpose this is usually considered fraud
https://docs.mrchromebox.tech
That seems quite impressive when compared against the 2-3 years of updates android phones historically got.
In the end "help with migration to" isn't the same supporting the existing product.
And if you advertised a product with 10 year support that _is_ legally binding (in the EU) and a clear cut case of you losing around 10-20% of the advertised value.
Given that legal costs might be to some degree covered by legal insurance and it being a clean cut case this is likely worth the money. But also a case where google can "just settle and not care" as in many cases schools did more things like forcing parents to buy chrome books then buying them themself, so it's unlikely to amass any relevant damage amount for Google.
More funny would be if the judge rules "10 years promised? You are cable of delivering 10 years?! You have to deliver it! And for all chrome books bought [8;10[ years before the deadline not just the suing party".
Besides, I’d be shocked if any Chromebook lasts 8 years in a school! Kids literally stick metal in the ports to fry them on purpose, and drop and throw them, etc.
Not saying Google is good, just that they don’t care about this and have no business need to care.
I don't know that that's clearly true. Apple gives at least 5 to 7 years of updates past the last sale date for computers. (I don't know if this is an explicit promise or not; they have an explicit hardware support for 5 years and limited support for vintage [5-7 years old] equipment.)
I don't think I get to demand 5 years of support for specifically Sonoma or Tahoe on that equipment, but rather just N years of "some usable version of an OS and support to transition to it".
Replacing ChromeOS with GooglebookOS 8 years from now seems not that different from replacing Tahoe with Golden Gate.
The other alternative could be "we still support ChromeOS for 10 years, and will release security patches for all critical vulnerabilities that we find and fix after 2034" (but we might privately not look that hard for them...)
In reality, even the crazy levels of frontend web bloat still haven’t caught up with the M1, at least with 16GB of RAM.
Likewise many legal insurances have footnotes regarding how far they are actually going to support you in a claim process.
(things change in-between for a year)
I will support you less than 5 years for this car, if you buy now.
---
Google didn't do anything wrong legally, because the good sold a year ago is not the same as the good you are selling at current point.
YOu can have different support schedule.
Yes, it's very shady shit, because some people would find Chrome book in blogs/review a year ago thinking, oh 10 years, only to find out now it's less than that.
It isn’t criminal, but it is illegal mostly everywhere.
It reminds me of those sketchy companies on Amazon promising "lifetime guarantee" on their products when they know already they're gonna close shop and reopen on a completely different brand the very next year.
(If they _weren't_ in said position, it's still Google's problem but with some caveats provided Google actually treats it as abuse of authority.)
They don't (or at least shouldn't) get to keep the assets without also honouring the liabilities.
What we see here is a strategic shift by Google; you need to connect this here, with the prior Google strategy of no longer open sourcing Android-related stuff or with a huge delay. This is not an isolated thing - Google is planning Evil again, as usual.
Isn’t it illegal? It’s actual false advertising. You can sue them, it’s just no one has.
It's getting to be that nothing can be trusted. Even legislation, if it's not enforced.
Pretty lame detail to be enraged about, but it is Google and this is HN. This aligns with Apple's timeline for killing Intel MacBook support after releasing Apple Silicon (2029 being the last commitment).
Apple doesn't promise how many years of support any device gets.
Apple promises all customers 5 years hardware support after the model was last sold, and at least two years of limited hardware support thereafter.
In the UK, for iPhone 15 and later, Apple promises at least 5 years of software updates from time the model was first offered for sale (I would assume similar schedule outside the UK as well, but it is only explicitly promised in the UK, due to regulations there).
For enterprise customers, Apple can and does guarantee a minimum period of software security updates for macOS, but the exact period is kept confidential in the specific agreements.
I assume that while that macOS support commitment is not made for most consumers, they don’t cut special releases for enterprise customers, as much as they just avoid publishing the period publicly (I would further guess to avoid legal-induced headaches, which I personally think is the worst excuse, but I digress)
Lining up with Apple is meaningless. Apple didn't promise updates for a longer period and then pull back.
This is just standard operating procedure. Remember --- "Don't be Evil".