Google keeps providing security updates for older devices. I'm not sure how far back it goes but Gingerbread still occasionally gets patches, so that's 2010. They are provided via the Play Store app, and can patch OS level issues just like iOS updates.

That only helps for frameworks and API's that are covered by Google Play services. Anything else is up to the vendor/carrier to actually send updates to your phone. How many vendors would send a security update to a phone released in 2009 four years later?

Updates should keep coming for years, although realistically 5 years is a stretch. Apple tend to release crippling updates after a couple of years so that you either get stuck on an old version or are "encouraged" to upgrade your device.

Google only promises upgrades for 18 months. Apple provided security updates for 3GS released 6/2009 in 2/2014. The iPhone 4 released 6/2010 will have the latest OS until 9//2014. I used iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 and it works fine.

I think it is the even number rush.
The original iPhone (iPhone 2) Had a good demand on it.
People gradually got the iPhone 3 and 3g (incremental improvements nothing show stopping)
There was a big demand on the iPhone 4 (The higher res screen, and FaceTime)
The iPhone 4S 5 and 5S were incremental improvements the bigger screen on the 5 is nice but not enough to get people off the 4.
The iPhone 6 with a significantly larger screen means the people who have been hanging onto the 4 needs an upgrade.

[sarcasm]
It's almost like someone in the US has a reason to buy a new phone every two years....what could possible cause this pattern?
[/sarcasm]

The purpose of a buyback program is to BUY BACK stock to progressively regain a higher % of ownership of the company. The higher the stock price, the lower the effect of the buyback. Apple spent about 44 billions to buy back some of its stock over the last year. But it did not make a huge difference.

That's not the reason for the buy back. There are two reasons for a company to do a partial stock buy back.

1. Each share of a company's stock is a share of the company. If the company buys back shares, that makes each outstanding share worth a greater percentage of the company - in theory that raises the value of shares.

There are two ways you can give money back to shareholders - through a dividend and through a share buy back. Because of the way the US tax code is structured, dividends are taxed as regular income but long term sell of stock that appreciates is considered a capital gain with much lower tax rates.

2. Whenever shares are given to employees, it dilutes the value of existing shares making them less valuable. To counteract that, a company buys shares from the open market to counter act the effect.

It's like you think that going private is a bad thing or is a sign of financial struggle. But it's quite the opposite; a company that goes public is basically borrowing money from a shitload of small investors, and giving away the control of the company to a group of board members elected by the investors.

Wow. When a company sells stock they are selling a share of the company to the public. They are not *borrowing money*.

In fact, a company "borrowing money" and selling equity is completely opposite from each other.

Dell's revenue, profit, and stock price had been declining for years before they went private:

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ADELL&fstype=ii&ei=n-oFVKiwMdDm8QbZpIH4Bg

And from that point there is an ongoing conflict between the people in the company who want to work on long term projects and the investors who want to see the stock price go up and to receive higher dividends quarter after quarter.

And that didn't seem to be a problem for Apple transitioning from a computer company to a company where most of its revenues from phones....

Apple has a buyback program but it's not making a dent.

Not making a dent in what? Apples stock is at an all time high.

Then maybe they will have the opportunity to do like Dell, but I doubt it because Apple never had the kind of cash Dell has.

Apple right now has $67 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Dell had to borrow the money for the buy out.

You don't know what you are talking about. Dell went private because they wanted to switch the company's focus on enterprise services and software, but the short-term agenda of shareholders was preventing them to do that and was forcing them to keep wasting energy trying to increase their PC sales.

So that must explain why Apple had to go private to switch the company's focus from selling computers, to selling mp3 players, music, phones, and tablets....

oh wait...

All those companies won. They made great profits from an important product. So what if many are no longer in business. Many steam engine companies are out of business. That doesn't mean that steam engines were bad and we should have invested more in horses or blimps. Life moves on.

A good company run by strong management knows how to adapt. A steam engine company that went out of business is evidence of management that thought they were in the "steam engine" business and not the business of powering things.

Netflix knew their business wasn't "delivering DVD's to people" and that it was "delivering movies to people" and they switched from DVD delivery to focusing on streaming.

Apple has been selling personal computers for almost 40 years. So why is Apple the most valuable company in the US and the rest of the PC titans has-beens?

The users are winning, because they're not being roped into a monoculture.

With inferior hardware, horrible support, and crapware infested computers?

Monocultures can be very successful. They do have associated risks though. Diversity usually wins in the end.

So who "won" in the PC industry?

Dell -- revenues and profits declined so badly they went private?
HP - PC division is doing so bad they almost got rid of it.
IBM -- completely left the business
Compaq - Dead
Gateway - Dead

And at the same time, who is "winning" selling Android? Samsung is about the only one and their profits are declining because of Apple on the high end and Chinese manufacturers on the low-end.

Even Google isn't "winning" with Android since the vast majority of Android phones sold worldwide are not using Google services/

So how does that help "discoverability"? Amazon is able to recommend books based on the buying habits of others with similar taste as those with my buying history. They are able to list the top sellers, etc - none of which would be available on 8 different websites.

Then that also means that you have to sign up for 8 different websites and give your payment information to 8 different websites. Do you really think this would be more convenient than going to one website, buy an ebook and then it automatically shows up on all of your devices?

I can start reading a book on my iPhone, go home and pick up my Nexus tablet and everything is automatically synced -- bookmarks, notes, the page I was on etc.

If I buy a new device, I can install the Kindle app and my entire library is automatically there with all of the meta data no matter which device.

How would you propose you do that with random ePub readers?

You really think major publishers are going to give up their DRM? Even if you assume they will, are customers suppose to go to 8 different websites and know which publisher publishes which book?

That depends on what you think keeps other companies from going into business.

Right. All another company has to do is make distribution deals with all the major publishers, get people to give up their e-ink readers and make apps for every major platform....

And then Amazon starts back selling below cost just long enough to run them out of business...

That should be real easy....

Until the single marketplace uses its market power to exclude sellers entirely from a market. This has allegedly happened in the markets for iOS apps and console games. What editorial power does Amazon exercise over its Kindle store, other than to remove obvious copyright infringements and erotica [slashdot.org]? Is the "preference to publishers with larger ebook catalogs" a way of dealing with the likes of VDM [slashdot.org] and 30 Percent Fewer Shades of Grey [yahoo.com]?

What do you think is going to happen when Amazon runs everyone else out of business?

I would aggressively punish apps that demand overly broad access to your data.

That's an Android problem not an Apple problem. An iOS app has very few permissions by default and the app ask for permission it needs in the course of running. If you say "no" , the app still should work. You can turn off previously granted permissions on a per app basis - something you can't do with Android without hacks.

They may eventually unify all of those with a single, future design, I suppose, but that hasn't happened yet.

They already did.

The iPhone 4s was GSM/CDMA. There was only one 4s.

As far as the 5s (from Apple's site). All of their phones support GSM. The difference is support for CDMA and the LTE bands they support.

Model A1533 (GSM)*: UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25)

Model A1533 (CDMA)*: CDMA EV-DO Rev. A and Rev. B (800, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz); UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25)

Model A1453*: CDMA EV-DO Rev. A and Rev. B (800, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz); UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26)

Model A1457*: UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20)

Model A1530*: UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); FDD-LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20); TD-LTE (Bands 38, 39, 40)