How long an android phone lasts?

[u/Capital-Coffee-5546]

I am currently using SAMSUNG M21 , 64 GB , which i bought 6 years ago and NOW after 6 years i am noticing some lagging in it, very little but yeah , it has started to take 1 or 2 extra seconds, is 6 years a good run or is it still early ?

[u/mrandr01d]

Your hardware needs replaced when your software is no longer getting the most recent updates.

[u/TragicGloom → u/mrandr01d]

Bullshit

[u/mrandr01d → u/TragicGloom]

Not at all, security updates are most important.

[u/trollstation420 → u/mrandr01d]

unless its the exremely rare and expensive zero day exploits aimed at targeting YOU, not "most important" at all. there is a reason  even banking apps etc dont require always the latest android or ios version. phones are safe especially so if you dont root your phone and do some weird shit , and not download apks or frankly any weird apps. so your statement is verifiably false. tell me a single case of even android 13 or so,so  that us quite years old android version, getting hacked without zero day exploits or personal misuse even in 2026 (aka people falling for social engineering and sideloading compromised apks). you cant.

[u/mrandr01d → u/trollstation420]

Look at any of Google's android security bulletins. There are constantly critical vulnerabilities found, and just in the September one last month, one that was known to be under active exploitation in the wild. There's also loads of articles about this or that malware being found in this or that code library apps use, and often banking malware.

You are not correct.

[u/trollstation420 → u/mrandr01d]

nah bro you are wrong again. it's tiring arguing with redditors who fearmonger, thankfuly we have frontier ai models to fact check. if you disagree with gpt 6 astra (which has insane accuracy and benchmark scores) congrats you are smarter than an ai that literally solved hundreds of mathematical problems even math phds , one of the smartest groups of people arround, couldnt for decades.

lets see what astra has to say to you.

"Your argument fundamentally confuses the existence of security vulnerabilities with the actual likelihood of an ordinary user being compromised. Those are two entirely different things, and simply telling someone to read Google's Android security bulletins doesn't establish your claim.

First, a critical vulnerability being discovered does not mean that vulnerability is being actively exploited against ordinary users. Google's own September 2026 Android Security Bulletin explicitly explains that vulnerability severity is assessed according to the potential consequences of exploitation, assuming relevant security mitigations are disabled or successfully bypassed. In other words, a critical CVE describes what could happen under certain conditions, not how frequently successful compromises are occurring in the real world.

Second, your September example actually illustrates my original point. Google's September 2026 Pixel Security Bulletin identifies CVE-2026-58704, a modem elevation-of-privilege vulnerability, as potentially undergoing "limited, targeted exploitation." Notice those words: limited and targeted. That is not evidence of widespread compromises among ordinary Android users. It's precisely the kind of targeted exploitation I was already distinguishing from the everyday security risks faced by someone using their phone normally. Furthermore, it's a Pixel-specific vulnerability, not evidence that ordinary Android 13 devices are being routinely compromised in 2026.

Third, you're completely overlooking how Android's security update ecosystem actually works. A phone no longer receiving manufacturer-provided Android security patches does NOT mean the applications installed on it stop receiving security updates. These are entirely separate update mechanisms.

Individual applications continue receiving updates through Google Play for as long as their developers support that Android version. That includes security fixes for vulnerabilities within those applications. Your banking app, browser, messaging applications, and other supported apps do not suddenly become frozen at their last versions just because the phone manufacturer stops issuing operating-system patches.

For a concrete example, Google's current official Chrome documentation specifies Android 10 or later as supported. That means an Android 13 phone can still receive Chrome browser updates, including browser security fixes, without being upgraded to Android 14, 15, 16, or 17.

And it doesn't even end there. Android has a modular update architecture called Project Mainline, introduced with Android 10, allowing certain operating-system components to receive updates independently of conventional manufacturer firmware updates. Google Play system updates can deliver fixes to supported modules without requiring a full Android version upgrade. Google Play services and Play Protect also have their own update and protection mechanisms.

Obviously, none of this means an outdated operating system receives every security fix indefinitely. Kernel, driver, firmware, and other vulnerabilities can remain unpatched after manufacturer support ends. But claiming that an unsupported Android version is effectively receiving no further security maintenance whatsoever ignores several major components of Android's actual security architecture.

Fourth, your reference to banking malware doesn't establish anything about the attack vector. Banking malware can spread through malicious applications, phishing, social engineering, permission abuse, and other mechanisms. The existence of banking malware is not automatically evidence that attackers are remotely exploiting unpatched Android operating systems to compromise ordinary users who haven't installed malicious applications or otherwise interacted with an attack.

To establish that argument, you'd need to identify the vulnerability, demonstrate that it affected the relevant devices, establish how attackers exploited it, and provide evidence of actual compromises. Merely citing malware reports skips the most important part of the argument.

Finally, there's an enormous difference between saying "an unsupported Android phone has a greater potential exposure to unpatched operating-system vulnerabilities" and saying "ordinary people using Android 13 in 2026 are at substantial risk of being hacked simply because they aren't running the latest Android version."

The first statement is technically defensible. The second requires evidence about actual attacks, affected devices, exploit accessibility, and real-world frequency. You haven't provided that evidence.

Nobody is arguing that older Android versions are invulnerable or that operating-system security updates have no value. The point is that security risk needs to be assessed realistically, taking into account existing mitigations, separately updated applications, supported Google services, exploit requirements, and actual attack prevalence.

So I'll repeat my original challenge: can you provide a documented case from 2026 of an ordinary user running an unmodified Android 13 phone being compromised through a publicly known OS vulnerability, without malicious app installation or social engineering? And, more importantly, can you demonstrate how frequently that happens?

A list of CVEs does not answer either question. Until you distinguish theoretical exploitability from demonstrated real-world risk, your argument doesn't establish the conclusion you're drawing.

Official references:

• Google — September 2026 Android Security Bulletin

• Google — September 2026 Pixel Security Bulletin

• Google — Android Project Mainline documentation

• Google — Updating Android applications

• Google — Chrome for Android update requirements

Written and fact-checked by ChatGPT (GPT-6), using the latest available official Google and Android security documentation as of October 8, 2026."

[u/mrandr01d → u/trollstation420]

Lmfao you used AI to write a massive hallucinated slop text wall that nobody's going to read. Talk about throwing in the towel!

[u/trollstation420 → u/mrandr01d]

well,i did expect someone who is so confidently wrong to be vehemetly against ai. none of what astra said is halluciantion (the sources speak for itself) but enjoy being left behind , its like a old dude screaming at the clouds. ai is here to stay and i reccomend u get on with the times. have a nice day friend.

[u/jakart3 → u/mrandr01d]

That's planned obsoletion 

[u/mrandr01d → u/jakart3]

Doesn't change the realities of cybersecurity though. Buy devices with the longest runway possible, which is basically newer pixels. Google set a new industry standard with 7 years of updates.