Security as a Brand Promise: Why Software Support Is Becoming Part of Customer Trust

A smartphone can have an excellent camera, a smart doorbell can offer convenient home monitoring, and a connected appliance can simplify everyday tasks. Yet the experience of owning these products depends on something less visible: whether the manufacturer continues to protect them against security vulnerabilities after the initial purchase.

As connected devices become part of everyday life, software support and brand trust are becoming increasingly connected. Security updates, vulnerability disclosures and long-term support commitments are no longer exclusively technical matters. They can also influence how customers evaluate a company’s reliability and its promises.

The European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act adds new urgency to this relationship. With certain reporting obligations already applying from September 2026 and broader requirements approaching in December 2027, brands face an important challenge: communicating cybersecurity as a credible, ongoing responsibility rather than another attractive feature on a product page.

Why Brand Trust No Longer Ends at the Point of Sale

For many years, consumer technology marketing has concentrated on the moment of purchase.

Advertising campaigns highlight performance, design, convenience and innovative features. Product launches introduce new capabilities, while promotional content encourages customers to upgrade to the latest generation.

However, connected devices differ from many traditional consumer products.

Their functionality and security can depend on software that continues evolving after they leave the factory.

A router might operate normally for years while requiring updates to address newly discovered vulnerabilities. A smart camera may depend on cloud services and firmware maintained by its manufacturer.

Even a smartphone that remains physically functional can become increasingly difficult to use securely if essential software support ends.

This means that the experience of purchasing connected technology extends beyond the initial transaction.

Customers may continue interacting with the manufacturer’s software, support channels, notifications and services throughout the product’s useful life.

For brands, these interactions create repeated opportunities to demonstrate reliability.

They also create opportunities for disappointment.

A company that promises a secure, convenient experience but provides unclear or inconsistent support can create a gap between what customers expected and what they eventually receive.

That gap is particularly important because cybersecurity is difficult for ordinary consumers to evaluate directly.

Most people cannot inspect the software architecture of a connected device or independently verify every security mechanism.

They must rely, at least partly, on information provided by the manufacturer.

Consequently, the credibility of that information becomes part of the relationship between the brand and its customers.

Software Support and Brand Trust: A New Dimension of Customer Experience

Customer experience is often associated with website usability, delivery, onboarding and customer service.

For connected products, however, software maintenance deserves a place alongside those traditional considerations.

A customer might purchase a device because it promises convenience and long-term usefulness.

Several years later, the same customer may need to know whether security updates are still available, whether a newly discovered vulnerability affects the product or whether an older application remains supported.

How the company responds to these questions can influence the ownership experience.

Clear information can reduce uncertainty. Reliable support processes can make customers feel more confident about continuing to use the product.

Conversely, unexplained changes, confusing support pages or poorly communicated security incidents may weaken that confidence.

The relationship between software support and brand trust should not be confused with a simple claim that more updates automatically lead to higher sales.

Customer decisions are influenced by many factors, including price, features, service quality and personal preferences.

Nevertheless, ongoing software maintenance represents a concrete form of after-sales responsibility.

Unlike a general advertising statement about reliability, a published support commitment can be compared with the company’s actual behaviour.

This creates an important distinction between brand promises and verifiable brand performance.

A company may describe itself as customer-focused, but users can also examine whether it delivers the updates and support it has committed to providing.

Why the Cyber Resilience Act Changes the Conversation

The European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act introduces a regulatory framework for cybersecurity requirements affecting covered products with digital elements.

Formally established through Regulation (EU) 2024/2847, the legislation addresses secure product development, vulnerability management, user information and related responsibilities.

The implementation follows a phased timetable.

Since 11 September 2026, manufacturers have been required to report certain actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe incidents affecting the security of covered products.

These reporting obligations involve early warnings within 24 hours and more detailed notifications within 72 hours, followed by applicable final reports.

The broader cybersecurity requirements are scheduled to apply from 11 December 2027.

The European Commission’s September 2026 explanation confirms this distinction.

For marketers, the significance extends beyond regulatory compliance.

The legislation is making cybersecurity a more explicit part of what consumers can expect from products sold in the European market.

Once the relevant provisions apply, manufacturers will have responsibilities concerning vulnerability handling and information about the product’s support period.

This could make security-related information more visible during the purchasing process.

However, complying with a regulation and developing a trusted brand are not identical objectives.

Compliance establishes obligations. Brand trust also depends on how clearly those obligations are communicated and whether customers experience the company as reliable.

The opportunity for marketers is to connect genuine cybersecurity practices with understandable customer information.

The risk is treating security as another promotional claim without ensuring that the underlying product and support processes can deliver it.

When Software Support Becomes a Competitive Differentiator

Manufacturers have already started using long-term software support as an explicit element of their product positioning.

Three examples illustrate different approaches.

Google Pixel: Seven Years as Part of the Product Promise

Google introduced a seven-year software support commitment with the Pixel 8 series in 2023.

The commitment included Android operating system upgrades, security updates and Pixel Feature Drops.

Google subsequently extended this approach to newer models.

In August 2026, the company announced that its Pixel 11 series would receive seven years of operating system updates, security updates and Pixel Drops.

From a marketing perspective, the significance is that software longevity becomes part of the product’s value proposition.

Instead of focusing only on current hardware specifications, the company provides information about the expected duration of software support.

That can be relevant to consumers who intend to keep their devices for several years.

It may also help customers compare phones whose immediate features appear relatively similar.

However, the duration of support should not be interpreted as a guarantee that every future feature will be available on every supported device.

Operating system updates, security patches and feature availability remain different aspects of the product experience.

Samsung Galaxy: Long-Term Support Across Multiple Generations

Samsung has also made extended software support part of its flagship smartphone communication.

The company announced seven generations of operating system upgrades and seven years of security updates for the Galaxy S24 series.

In February 2026, Samsung reiterated its long-term security approach with the Galaxy S26 series, promoting seven years of security updates.

These commitments connect technical maintenance with messages about product reliability and continued usefulness.

For consumers comparing premium smartphones, a clear support period can add another consideration alongside cameras, battery life and processing power.

For the brand, the commitment creates an expectation that must be supported through ongoing software development and communication.

It is also important to distinguish between product generations.

Support policies may vary between models, price categories and release dates.

A company’s general reputation for software support should not replace checking the actual commitment for a specific device.

Fairphone: Longevity as Part of Brand Identity

Fairphone offers another example of how software support can become central to a brand’s identity.

The company places particular emphasis on repairability, product longevity and continued device support.

According to its official software support documentation, the Fairphone (Gen. 6) has a software support commitment extending until 2033.

The company also provides information about its planned security update frequency.

For Fairphone, long-term maintenance is not simply an additional technical specification.

It supports the broader message that customers should be able to use their devices for longer.

The approach illustrates how a concrete software policy can reinforce an established brand proposition.

However, a published commitment remains meaningful only when the manufacturer consistently fulfils it.

These examples do not prove that extended support automatically increases customer loyalty or profitability.

They demonstrate that manufacturers have begun treating software longevity as something worth communicating directly to consumers.

The Difference Between a Security Update and a Feature Update

One of the most important responsibilities of technology marketing is avoiding confusion between different forms of software support.

A security update is intended to address vulnerabilities or weaknesses that could compromise a device or its data.

An operating system upgrade introduces a newer version of the underlying software platform.

A feature update may add functionality, improve an existing tool or change the interface.

These updates can overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

A manufacturer might continue providing essential security patches after a device stops receiving major operating system upgrades.

Another product might receive interface improvements without offering the same long-term security commitment.

For customers, this distinction is relevant when evaluating how long a device will remain useful.

For brands, it creates a communication challenge.

Statements such as “supported for years” may sound reassuring, but they provide limited information unless the type and duration of support are explained.

A clearer product description might specify how long security updates are promised, whether major operating system upgrades are included and which commitments depend on device compatibility.

This level of detail may appear less exciting than a general claim about long-lasting technology.

Nevertheless, it helps customers develop more accurate expectations.

The goal is not to overwhelm the purchasing process with technical terminology.

It is to make the essential information understandable without concealing distinctions that could matter later.

Why Support Information Belongs on the Product Page

Many customers encounter a brand’s promises before making a purchase.

The product page is therefore one of the most important places to communicate software support.

Yet support information is not always presented alongside the features used to promote a device.

A customer might see detailed comparisons of camera quality, screen brightness and connectivity while having to search through separate documentation to discover the security support period.

This separation can create an unnecessary information gap.

A more transparent approach would place relevant support commitments near the product’s main specifications.

For example, a manufacturer could clearly explain the expected duration of security maintenance, provide the applicable end date and link to its official security policy.

Where update availability differs by model or region, the information should reflect those differences.

A company should also distinguish between a minimum commitment and an estimated expectation.

The aim is to provide information that the customer can actually use.

There is already a regulatory precedent for this approach outside the European Union.

The United Kingdom’s Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure regime, which came into effect in April 2024, requires manufacturers of relevant consumer connectable products to publish information about their minimum security update periods.

That information must be clear, accessible and understandable without specialist technical knowledge.

The example demonstrates an important shift: information about security maintenance is increasingly being treated as part of the product information that customers should be able to access.

For marketing teams, this creates an opportunity to improve the quality of product communication before regulatory expectations make such transparency more widely established.

Why Security Claims Must Be Specific and Verifiable

Cybersecurity marketing frequently relies on broad expressions such as secure, protected, private or safe.

These words can communicate desirable benefits, but they may become problematic when their meaning is unclear.

A company claiming that a device is secure should consider what evidence supports that statement.

Does the product have appropriate security controls? Is there a vulnerability reporting process? Does the manufacturer provide security updates and communicate relevant support information?

The answers may differ depending on the product and its purpose.

No connected device can realistically be guaranteed to remain free from every vulnerability.

Security is an ongoing process involving design decisions, maintenance, monitoring and incident response.

For that reason, absolute claims can create expectations that are difficult to justify.

A statement describing specific measures is generally more informative than an unsupported promise of complete protection.

For example, a manufacturer can communicate the availability of automatic security updates, supported authentication methods or a documented period of vulnerability handling.

These claims can be checked against published policies and product behaviour.

The distinction is particularly important for products marketed around personal safety or privacy.

A home security camera, connected door lock or baby monitor may be purchased because the customer expects the product to reduce a particular risk.

In these situations, the credibility of security-related claims has consequences beyond ordinary product satisfaction.

When a Security Failure Becomes a Brand Trust Problem

The consequences of weak security practices can extend beyond the immediate technical incident.

In 2023, the United States Federal Trade Commission brought a case against Ring concerning failures in protecting access to customers’ private video recordings and accounts.

According to the FTC’s case summary, the agency alleged that Ring had failed to implement adequate privacy and security protections, exposing customers to unauthorized access.

The case resulted in a settlement requiring, among other things, changes to privacy and security practices.

This was a particular enforcement case, not evidence that every smart camera or home security brand operates in the same way.

Its relevance to branding lies in the nature of the product’s promise.

Customers purchasing home security technology often expect protection and reassurance.

When security weaknesses undermine that expectation, the problem reaches beyond technical performance.

The trust that encouraged the initial purchase may itself be challenged.

This illustrates why marketing messages must remain connected to the organisation’s actual capabilities.

A company cannot reliably compensate for inadequate security practices through more persuasive language or stronger advertising.

The underlying product and operational safeguards must support the promises being made.

Vulnerability Disclosure: The Importance of Communicating Clearly

Even well-designed products can contain vulnerabilities.

The discovery of a security weakness does not automatically mean that a manufacturer has failed to take cybersecurity seriously.

What matters is how the company investigates the issue, addresses the risk and communicates with affected users.

From a customer experience perspective, vulnerability disclosure presents several challenges.

Technical details can be difficult for ordinary users to understand.

An announcement may describe affected software components or vulnerability identifiers without explaining whether the customer needs to take any action.

This can leave people uncertain about the seriousness of the situation.

Effective communication should distinguish between what is known, what remains under investigation and what customers can do immediately.

It should also identify affected product models or software versions when that information is available and appropriate to disclose.

The message needs to be accurate without unnecessarily increasing concern.

For example, telling customers that a vulnerability has been identified but that no evidence of active exploitation has been found is different from reporting confirmed exploitation.

Similarly, a security patch being available does not mean it has already been installed on every affected device.

These distinctions may appear technical, but they determine whether customers receive useful guidance.

The European Union’s reporting requirements under the Cyber Resilience Act strengthen the need for formal vulnerability-handling processes.

However, regulatory reporting and customer communication are not the same activity.

The CRA’s 24-hour and 72-hour reporting deadlines concern specified notifications to the relevant authorities. They should not be misrepresented as a universal legal deadline requiring every customer to receive a complete public explanation within those timeframes.

Companies must manage any applicable user-notification duties according to the relevant legal and technical circumstances.

For brands, the broader principle remains: security communication should provide reliable information rather than rely on vague assurances.

The Tone of a Security Message Matters

The language used during a security incident can affect how customers understand the situation.

An excessively technical announcement may contain accurate information while failing to answer the questions that matter most to users.

At the opposite extreme, a message designed primarily to reassure may minimise uncertainty or leave important facts unexplained.

Neither approach necessarily supports informed decision-making.

A useful security notification should communicate the nature of the issue in plain language.

It should explain whether the customer needs to update software, change a password, review account activity or follow other instructions.

When the company is still investigating, that uncertainty should be stated clearly.

It is also important to distinguish between information that is confirmed and information that remains preliminary.

Companies sometimes face pressure to issue definitive statements before investigations are complete.

However, inaccurate assurances can create additional problems if subsequent findings contradict them.

Consistency across communication channels is equally important.

A security advisory on the manufacturer’s website should not conflict with guidance provided by its customer service team or official social media accounts.

For organisations operating internationally, translations must preserve the meaning of technical warnings and recommended actions.

Trust is supported not only by the decision to communicate but also by the accuracy and usefulness of what is communicated.

Why Ending Software Support Can Become a Customer Experience Failure

Every technology product eventually reaches a stage at which the manufacturer may no longer provide security updates.

This can happen because the hardware is old, the underlying software is no longer maintained or continued support becomes technically impractical.

An end-of-support decision does not automatically mean that the manufacturer has acted improperly.

However, the way the decision is communicated can influence customer expectations.

Imagine a consumer who purchases a smart camera intending to use it for several years.

The device continues recording normally, but the manufacturer announces that security support will end.

If the original product information did not explain the expected support period, the customer may feel that an important limitation became visible only after the purchase.

The issue is not simply whether the hardware still functions.

It is whether the product can continue to be used with an appropriate understanding of its security risks.

A clear end-of-support communication should ideally explain when maintenance will end, what the change means and which options are available.

Depending on the circumstances, customers might be advised to update their device before the deadline, review its network exposure or consider a supported replacement.

Companies should avoid implying that unsupported products are automatically compromised.

They should also avoid suggesting that a functioning device is necessarily secure simply because no problem has yet been observed.

This is an area where responsible communication and commercial incentives can come into tension.

Replacing an older product may create a new sale, but encouraging replacement without transparent information risks undermining the credibility of the recommendation.

A more sustainable customer relationship depends on providing enough information for users to make an informed decision.

Customer Retention and the Value of Keeping a Device Useful

A brand may benefit when customers choose to remain within its product ecosystem.

However, customer retention in connected technology is more complicated than encouraging frequent hardware upgrades.

Some customers want the latest features. Others prefer to maintain a familiar device for as long as it remains useful.

A company offering credible long-term security maintenance may appeal to the second group without necessarily losing the opportunity to introduce new products.

The commercial effect will depend on the product category, margins, service model and purchasing behaviour.

It would therefore be misleading to claim that longer support always leads to greater revenue.

Nevertheless, software longevity can influence the perceived value of ownership.

A customer assessing two similarly priced products may consider how much useful life each manufacturer promises to support.

That consideration is particularly relevant when the product is expensive or intended for long-term use.

For marketers, the important opportunity is to expand the definition of customer value beyond the initial feature set.

A device’s value can include continued compatibility, accessible support information and the ability to address relevant security issues over time.

These qualities may not be as immediately visible as a larger display or a faster processor.

However, they contribute to the experience customers have after the excitement of the purchase has passed.

How Brands Can Demonstrate Security Without Turning It Into Fear-Based Marketing

Cybersecurity is an emotionally sensitive topic.

Consumers may worry about stolen information, unauthorized access or the exposure of personal devices.

Brands can be tempted to use these concerns in advertising.

Yet communicating security primarily through fear can create expectations that are difficult to manage and may encourage exaggerated claims.

A more constructive approach is to explain what the company actually does to protect its products.

This may involve describing its update policy, providing clear security advisories and publishing information about how vulnerabilities can be reported.

Another useful approach is to demonstrate practical product features that help users maintain security.

For example, a manufacturer can explain how automatic updates work or where customers can find security notifications.

The focus should remain on understandable information, rather than technical terminology used simply to create an impression of sophistication.

Transparency also requires acknowledging limitations.

A company that provides five, seven or eight years of support should explain which products are covered, when the period begins and what kind of maintenance is included.

A claim about automatic security updates should accurately reflect the circumstances in which those updates are delivered.

This approach may not produce the most dramatic advertising message.

It can, however, create a more credible relationship between the product’s actual capabilities and the brand’s public promises.

How Can Marketing Teams Evaluate Their Security Communication?

Brands already use different indicators to understand customer satisfaction and the effectiveness of their communication.

Security-related support introduces additional questions worth examining.

One is whether customers can easily find the information they need before purchasing a product.

If users regularly contact customer service simply to discover how long a device will receive updates, important information may not be sufficiently visible.

Another is whether customers understand what they have been told.

A support policy can be technically accurate but still difficult to interpret.

Testing the clarity of product pages, support notices and security emails can help identify confusing language.

Companies can also examine recurring customer questions after a security notification.

If many users misunderstand whether they are affected or what action they need to take, the communication may need improvement.

The effectiveness of notification delivery is another relevant consideration.

A technically correct message provides limited practical value if affected users never receive it or cannot identify it as legitimate.

However, these indicators should not be presented as direct measurements of trust.

Open rates, clicks and support tickets are behavioural measures influenced by multiple factors.

They can help reveal problems in the communication process, but they do not establish on their own whether consumers trust the brand more or less.

Where appropriate, customer research can provide additional insight into perceptions of reliability, clarity and confidence.

The objective should be to evaluate whether security information helps people make better decisions, rather than simply whether a notification generates engagement.

From Connected Devices to the Wider Digital Economy

The relationship between cybersecurity and customer trust extends beyond smartphones and consumer electronics.

Software applications, connected appliances and other products with digital elements create ongoing relationships between users and providers.

The Cyber Resilience Act addresses many of these products through a common regulatory framework, although the exact scope and obligations depend on the category and circumstances.

The broader technological implications have already been examined by Athens Pulse, in “The Cyber Resilience Act: Why Europe Is Changing the Rules for Connected Devices”

That analysis explains how European cybersecurity requirements affect hardware and software development, vulnerability management and security support.

For Targeted.gr, the marketing question is different: how should companies communicate these responsibilities in ways that support informed purchasing decisions and credible brand promises?

The financial implications will be explored by Market Insiders, in “The Economics of Secure-by-Design: What Europe’s Cyber Resilience Act Means for Businesses”

That article will examine the costs and business considerations associated with secure software development, compliance and long-term vulnerability management.

A practical guide from Techrow.gr, “How to Check a Smart Device’s Security Support Before You Buy It” will focus on the consumer’s perspective, including how to find official firmware policies, update commitments and relevant security information before purchasing a device.

These approaches address different dimensions of a shared change.

Cybersecurity is no longer confined to the technical department. It increasingly influences product expectations, commercial decisions and the experience customers have throughout the life of connected technology.

Why Security Must Become a Promise Brands Can Keep

The growing importance of software maintenance is changing what consumers may reasonably expect from technology companies.

A connected device is not defined only by the hardware shipped on launch day.

Its future usefulness can depend on the continued availability of security updates, the management of vulnerabilities and the reliability of services connected to it.

The Cyber Resilience Act gives these responsibilities greater regulatory significance in Europe.

However, the marketing implications extend beyond compliance.

When brands communicate support commitments clearly, customers gain a better understanding of the products they are purchasing.

When manufacturers respond responsibly to vulnerabilities, they demonstrate how seriously they take obligations that continue after the sale.

And when a product eventually reaches the end of its support period, transparent communication can help customers understand what that decision means.

None of these actions guarantees loyalty or removes the possibility of dissatisfaction.

They do, however, create opportunities to align the promises made before purchase with the experience delivered afterward.

For technology brands, that alignment is becoming increasingly important.

A sophisticated advertising campaign can attract attention, but it cannot replace the support needed to maintain a connected product securely.

Ultimately, security becomes a meaningful brand promise not when a company calls its products trustworthy, but when its actions give customers credible reasons to believe it.

Frequently Asked Questions About Software Support and Brand Trust

Why is software support important for brand trust?

Software support influences how customers experience connected products after purchase. Security updates, reliable maintenance and clear communication can help users understand whether a manufacturer is fulfilling its commitments. Trust depends on these practices alongside other aspects of product quality and customer service.

How does the Cyber Resilience Act affect technology brands?

The Cyber Resilience Act establishes cybersecurity obligations for covered products with digital elements sold in the EU. Reporting obligations have applied since September 2026, while broader product requirements will apply from December 2027. The regulation also creates greater expectations around vulnerability handling and information about security support.

Can longer software support improve customer loyalty?

Longer support can contribute to the perceived value of a product, particularly for customers who want to keep devices for several years. However, it does not automatically increase loyalty. Customer satisfaction also depends on reliability, price, features, service quality and whether manufacturers fulfil their promises.

What is the difference between security updates and operating system upgrades?

Security updates address vulnerabilities and other relevant security weaknesses. Operating system upgrades introduce newer versions of the underlying software. A device may continue receiving security updates without receiving every new feature or major operating system version.

How long must manufacturers provide security updates under the Cyber Resilience Act?

The CRA generally requires a vulnerability-handling support period of at least five years. A shorter period may be justified when the product is reasonably expected to be used for less than five years. Products expected to remain in use longer may require a longer support period. The main requirements will apply from December 2027.

Should brands publish an end date for security support?

Clear support information helps customers understand how long maintenance is expected to continue. The EU’s CRA introduces relevant information requirements, while the UK’s existing consumer connectable product security regime already requires manufacturers of covered products to publish minimum security update periods. The applicable obligations depend on the market and product category.

Do seven years of security updates mean seven years of new features?

Not necessarily. Security maintenance, operating system upgrades and feature updates are different commitments. A manufacturer may promise an extended security support period without guaranteeing every new feature during that time. Consumers should check the specific policy for their device.

How should a brand communicate a security vulnerability?

A useful notification should explain the affected products, what is known about the issue, whether immediate action is necessary and how customers can obtain relevant updates. Information should be accurate, understandable and consistent with the company’s official security guidance.

Does reporting a vulnerability mean a company has failed?

Not automatically. Vulnerabilities can be discovered even in carefully developed products. What matters is how effectively the manufacturer investigates, addresses and communicates the issue, alongside whether its overall security practices meet applicable obligations.

Can a company continue selling a connected product after announcing an end-of-support date?

The answer depends on the product, applicable legal requirements, contractual commitments and circumstances. An end-of-support announcement does not automatically establish whether continued sales are lawful. Companies should evaluate their legal obligations and communicate material limitations accurately.

How can software support become part of a brand’s competitive positioning?

A manufacturer can differentiate its products through credible commitments concerning update duration, transparent security policies and accessible customer information. Such commitments are most valuable when they reflect actual product capabilities and can be verified over time.