A new smartphone again? Rethink unhealthy culture of frequent upgrades
The need for more durable and sustainable digital devices is urgent. Read more at straitstimes.com.
SO. MUCH. THIS.
You're viewing a single thread.
Consumers however are at the heart of an unhealthy culture of frequent device upgrades
Yes, blame it on the consumer and not on the companies that spend an incredible amount of money to first hire marketeers that think all day long of the best way to push 'new' products, and then run costly campaigns to spread the word.
Gotta be honest. Yes blame us. It takes two to tango.
At one point in my life there was this anti consumer movement culturally that got absolutely destroyed and buried. Maybe we're all just sheep without any free will controlled by Steve jobs of the world. But I feel like we refused to keep certain fires lit and now we're all freezing. That's our fault.
Most of it was super obvious too. When ads started invading, some people were pissed. But there was always way more people saying 'who cares'. But things like ads fuel this consumerism to get people buying and idolizing the tech channels or kardashian lifestyle with all the bling and flash of new. Now we have a generation who probably think anti consumption lifestyle is just flat out crazy talk. Like how do we not have any counter culture anymore to the lavish consumerism culture. Almost every culture has an opposition but that one seems like it's non existant in a world consumed by ads products
I think what people are missing here is that although a new phone comes out every year, not every consumer is on the same upgrade schedule.
If I keep my phone for five years then that’s four phones in not getting.
How many people are actually getting a new phone every year? I don't think I'm poor but maybe I am? Everyone I know keeps their phones for at least a few years and then replaces them when they are no longer functional.
Still. Every 3 years feels like too often, but that's around the time things stop working - likely due to planned obsolescence and updates designed to make older phones work worse.
Should we really blame the consumer for replacing something the manufacturer designed to break after a short time? What's something else you pay $1500+ for that is useless 3 years later?
I know a few folks who do, but most of them have a hand-me-down cycle they follow. I get a new phone every 2-3 years and hand the old phone down to a friend or family member with something older.
Same here, but I have teens. Parents get new phones every 2-4 years, teens get “new-ish” phones with new batteries. Apple supports their phones about 6 years, so we have them the full supported life and get a little money back on trade-in. Hardware is pretty obsolete by then, so I wouldn’t want to keep them longer
New batteries have been reasonably priced and easy to get done. We spend a little more for better cases so the phones usually last, however replacing a screen means replacing the phone
Don’t bother with cases and just get AppleCare+.
A glass screen protector is £20-30, replacing the display under AC is £25.
A decent case like a Mous one is £50. Replacing the device under AC is £79.
Plus the phone looks nicer, temps are better, and it’s less cases being manufactured.
You are way overpaying for screen protectors and cases...
I don’t think you understand. I am not paying for them.
I have AC+.
Either you buy high quality screen protectors for your £1000 device or you don’t bother. The same for cases. Mous for instance are extremely durable, but not as good value as AC.
I’m 12 months in and not had a claim but best believe before the two year mark my phone WILL have an incident and for £79 I get a replacement with a new battery and all.
Or I could buy a case that holds no value, my phone can still break and then it’ll cost me more money. Than just having insurance which is guaranteed to make me whole again.
I fully understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you on the value. You are ignoring good value cases and screen protectors, inflating the costs there, then not factoring in the initial $200 (or whatever it is in your local) of buying AC+ and only looking at the deductible.
I'm glad it works for you, but I don't think your numbers are sound or agree with you conclusion.
That’s fair.
Just to add the extra info, I pay £9.99 per month for apple care.
Say I buy a case for £5 and a screen protector for £5 and I break my screen. I’m now out of£10 and the price of a new display, last time I looked it was £189, likely more these day.
So that one break costs more than the whole year of AC plus the excess.
Are you saying that if you have a case then you’re never going to break your phone?
Sure I could have a year without breaking it, but as I said after two I will break it on purpose to get my monies work and have a brand new (refurbished to new standards) handset.
Your original argument was that you'd reduce the amount of cases being manufactured and now you're talking about purposefully breaking your phone to get your money's worth.
You're paying £120 a year plus for something that might happen, plus a deductible if it does. I've never broken a smart phone screen and I've always had a cheap Spigen case, so your numbers make no sense to me and are a waste of money. But that's me, if you're hard on your phones or are constantly breaking screens then maybe it makes sense for you, only you can say.
Again, you do you. I'm just writing this for other people that might see your original comment and think it's the best choice financially.
I'm not saying consumers are not to blame, but i have objections against the phrasing; as if it's primarily blaming consumers. I myself am not quite a minimalist, but do have strong tendencies in that direction. So, i never cared about fashion, or buying the newest gadgets. And i know there are people who are the complete opposite. However, i do feel that companies fuel the greed of consumers big time.
While consumers need to educate themselves/be educated by their caretakers and schools, i feel the heart of the matter is the marketing culture and the tendency of companies of hiding shady practices, like profiting from child slaves who have to mine precious metals, or women slaving away in factories for long hours, while risking their lives and bodies due to unsafe machinery, buildings and being bullied by their employees, for a shamefully low salary.
Yeah I think it’s very strongly both. I manage to resist consumption quite frequently and prefer to fix stuff up when I can. But also I’m not immune to propaganda.
The systems at play require us to mindlessly consume. When a significant portion of people took to repairing our stuff they blocked us from doing it. They promoted these ideas and did their best so that both culture and counterculture were ones of consumption. Hell they promoted the idea of bundling phone purchasing into your phone contract so it became an every 2 year upgrade. I wound up being the weird one for not since I buy my phone outright when the old one doesn’t work anymore. Fuck, I’ve had to argue with internet providers’ sales people that I own my own equipment and only want what I want, and sometimes they ignore my demands and throw such things in anyways. And they start in on it when you’re a kid.
But we keep doing it. The fact is these nice things are nice. Upgrading feels good. And when it’s easier to upgrade than to not it can take dedication to consume less. They set this culture up, but we perpetuate it. New is nice. Better is nice. We like these things. It’s a hell of a lot easier to show off a new phone than to brag about refurbishing yours. Just consume and dispose.
I don't think there were ever that many of us who read Adbusters every month, but it's likely even fewer now.
I think that reality TV and social media influencers have had as much to do with people embracing conspicuous consumption as a culture as much as advertisers have.
I think along this line of reasoning when it comes to evaluating myself. It’s how I keep myself in check and “sharpen” myself as a person. I like to remind myself of how often I fall short of it though. I also like to remind myself of the things that I have going for me that others might not have had.
When I play the more charitable viewpoint of other people’s life experiences out in my head, it’s usually pretty easy to see them getting where they are. There’s a lot of suffering in this world, and large, effectively international companies are finding ways to exacerbate that in order to keep their businesses growing. It’s nice to sit down after a long day and veg out to short little videos, where each gives you a little chuckle or smile. It’s not that hard to get caught in the trap.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I agree completely that the path we’re going down is concerning and scary, and individuals can absolutely put the work in to make their lives better and elevate above the mainstream, but for any given person, that can be very difficult for any multitude of reasons, and we can’t forget compassion for them.
While these sorts of practices are legal, consumers need to be educated.
I have another idea - get rid of capitalism.
Great idea, what are we replacing it with?
Yeah, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet. Capitalism is an incredible engine, but it needs guard rails.
The whole infinite growth mentality caused by companies being public on the stock market is the real poison I think. So lets just axe the whole thing. No more stock market, every company is private again.
Which means no more stock speculators, or stock buybacks, or market manipulation schemes. Just companies selling their products to consumers based on their own metrics.
Well, for starters, this obliterates most people's retirement plans, so that's a bit of a hurdle.
That aside, what would happen is private equity firms and investment banks simply buying up most public companies, so I don't really see the grand improvement here.
I hate so much this talking point:
the system has captured the retirements, so we can't abolish it.
Like if we need this load of bull to support retirement, we should rethink everything from the ground up.
The point is that, whether you like it or not, abolishing something that most people are very strongly relying on for the last third of their life is something that's going to be incredibly complicated and met with a lot of opposition.
By all means, re-think away as you like, but don't be surprised when a lot of people aren't exactly a fan of what you come up with.
Provide food and shelter as a human right first, then dismantle everything else, and let people do what they enjoy.
To be honest, you cannot achieve capitalism with guard rails.
Rich individuals will accumulate money then bribe or donate to politicians to earn more money thus more bribes then more influence and so on.
Take USA as an example, big corporations have monopoly on almost everything and you as a citizen cannot do anything about it. Sure you can vote but either way, donations to politicians always win.
EU is better but not much. After GDPR, every website would interrupt you to say how they will sell your data and tell you to leave if don’t like it.
I agree, I don't think any one system is the answer, they all have their strengths and weaknesses... a combination of them would be a better idea.
With humanity.
That's a vague platitude.
Capitalism works becuase we live in a transactional reality. Food could not grow on trees of the tree didn't take capital (I.e. resources such as nutrients from the soil, light and heat from the sun) to grow that apple. If farmers did not account for the resources the tree needs the tree would simply die.
The issue with capitalism today is that we over apply it and forget to help people who truly need help, and thanks lobbying by sociopathic business owners, we have created a system where we much engage with learned sociopathy to survive and function. We look down at the homeless sick and needy and invent backstories to justify their suffering. They must be drug abuses, violent, lazy, etc cetra.
Capitalism has nothing to do with resources. I think insurance is a great example of that.
We sell nebulous ideas all the time.
If anything our economy is based off of services now.
I would argue ability to provide a service is in it's self an abstract form of capital.
Time, energy and willpower can also be viewed as a capital. There's a reason business owners will pay people to be doing work they could easily do themselves. And I think it's important that we as a society recognise that any time or energy spent transactionally should be properly compensated.
Of course we shouldn't fall for the trap of trying to maximise and optimise every last ounce of capital in our lives, its important to learn to let go of our posessive human nature. But we should appreciate when we are giving and taking things to and from other people.
I'll stick with Capitalism, then...
That is not an answer. You'd have credibility if you said, "I'm actually not sure."
Why am I suddenly seeing so much discussion about capitalism these days? This is way above the usual background level of how often this topic gets brought up in various circumstances.
It's a convenient abstract entity that can be used as a general boogeyman and blamed for all things.
For sure, some things are indeed a direct consequence of capitalism, but lots of other problems come from the simple existence of things having costs, scarcity existing, and humans not being completely selfless. No amount of economic re-arrangement is going to get you away from those things, but it's nice to imagine so.
I need security updates not education.
I don't really like this trend of absolving consumers of literally all agency in how they spend their money. Outside of practices that intentionally try to make older products obsolete like purposeful throttling - which should absolutely be shamed and made illegal - no one is holding a gun to your head and telling you to buy the new phone or else. If someone decides that a product is a worthy use of their money and decides to purchase it, then so be it. People aren't children and can decide how they'd like to spend their money, and I really don't see what's wrong with a company trying to convince you to do so. People can make their own choices, and that includes financially poor ones. They can also choose to prioritize different things than you or I might.
Ultimately, if you don't want to buy a new phone, don't. They're really quite good nowadays and tend to last a while. There will of course continue to be shiny new things, and if having the newest thing is truly important to you, you can decide to spend your money on it. Or, you can also not. But to say that consumers have essentially no choice and are simply the poor victims of marketing with no real agency at all is reductive to the point of being almost patronizing.
Consumers have very little choice when it comes to things like cars, electricity company, cable company, etc. In that case it is appropriate to put blame on the companies who have a captive customer base. But with other products like phones, there is nothing compelling consumers to buy the latest except FOMO and greed.
Absolutely, and for products and markets that are essentially necessary to life, there's a much stronger case to be made for strong regulation since the potential for exploitation is much higher (the nightmare that is the entire healthcare industry exemplifies this perfectly, since market forces don't work well when you're unconscious or will otherwise die).
But for luxury items, which high-end smartphones undoubtedly are? Yeah, consumers can take a little bit of accountability.
Ultimately, if you don't want to buy a new phone, don't.
Could you have made a more vacuous comment? Obviously people shouldn't buy every new toy that comes out, that doesn't change the fact that 90% of the blame—and 90% is a hard floor—belongs to the people who waste the Earth's resources pinching it off in the first place and then waste even more in protectionism and generally making sure there are as few viable alternatives as possible.
The fundamental truth is that companies would not make a bunch of new phones if there were not people that wanted to buy them, for one reason or another.
And it's not as if the smartphone market isn't littered with failed products and ideas. Marketing can do a lot, but it's not able to generate demand for a product that consumers simply do not want. You might remember the pushes for 3D displays, WiMAX, modular phones, styluses, the recent push for foldable devices, etc etc. These failed because consumers simply did not want them. Motorola, HTC, LG, etc failed because consumer did not want their products and they were generally inferior.
Again, you do not need to buy a new phone every year. There are people who do voluntarily want to do that though, and so companies will provide products to meet that desire. I simply do not understand this compulsion to insert yourself into a blatantly voluntary transaction, with the customer wanting a new phone, the company providing one, and you stating "Actually, you're being exploited."
This meme comes to mind.
"One reason or another"
Given that one big reason is "Planned obsolescence", you're still pointing the finger entirely in the wrong direction.
You can't scroll Facebook for five minutes without seeing people complain that "They don't build stuff like they used to anymore" or "All this Chinese junk just falls apart in 5 minutes."
Consumers want reliable, long lasting products that they don't have to replace all the time. They just have no way of reasonably obtaining them.
If consumers were actually as hungry for constant upgrades as you claim, phone manufacturers wouldn't put so much effort into making their products impossible to repair.
Consumers want reliable, long lasting products that they don’t have to replace all the time.
This is the thing that I'm genuinely not entirely convinced of. More than anything, I think a lot people want shiny new stuff as cheaply as they can get it, and that most consumers will generally opt for that over a more expensive but more durable alternative, even if that's not what they'll actually tell themselves. "Chinese junk" succeeded because masses of people preferred a cheaper product over a more expensive domestic one. Plenty of people raged against removing headphone jacks, for instance, but ultimately, those phones still sold very well. If there was really a huge demand for phones with headphone jacks, why would Samsung etc. not plop one in there and capture that demand? I would speculate it's because it doesn't actually exist to a super significant degree. Plenty of Android phones had removable batteries for long while, but as they started to go away, you didn't see a huge group of people flock to the phones that kept them. Ultimately, consumers generally showed that they would opt for better waterproofing and slimmer design with a more annoying battery replacement procedure than a bulkier phone with easily removable batteries (though I am intrigued to see if the EU will actually be able to successfully mandate them).
So, while I do agree that consumers do want reliable and long-lasting products, they also want maximally cheap products, and products that feel new and sleek and luxurious. These are contradictory aims, and it seems to me that consumers' revealed preferences are towards novelty and price, not durability, though I'd also say that I think this is shifting somewhat. Each new generation of phones is offering fewer genuine innovations and improvements, and at least in my experience, consumers are noticing more and more that even mid-range phones are perfectly adequate and that any phone can last several years. As I understand, this has been reflected in declining sales over the last several years.
What, like there's some kind of ethical standard of consumerism that people are failing to live up to? Take the corporate dick out of your throat and take your L with dignity instead of grasping at straws to be Right and "win" an online argument. Why even try? You really think you're gonna be the guy who changes people's hearts and minds and has them say "yes, it's actually the changing whims of the market that drive corporations to produce waste, they definitely don't forcibly create their own market through manipulation and abuse"? Are you really trying to be the Rosa Parks of convincing people that there is ever even one case where a corporation isn't automatically to blame for the existence of their own fucking product? You think consumers should just "not buy", yet you don't say that companies should just ignore the market and release new products less frequently? "Oh well that's not realistic because they're just not gonna do that" you're going to say, willfully uncomprehending that you're reinforcing my point and pretending you just got a gotcha. Get real.
It's comically bold to talk about dignified discourse while casually throwing out homophobic phrases like "take the dick out of your throat".
At any rate, your true colors are showing brightly enough that I, empowered consumer that I am, will see myself out of this conversation. Enjoy your iPhone 15 Pro Max that you just had to buy. Truly, it must be hard.
"Oh shit that was embarrassing, better pretend to be smugly aloof and then 'abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past'."
Literally every time. Do you people get a phrasebook or something?
Whelp, your point can still be made without the first sentence. The fediverse has this reputation of being unfriendly which push newcomers away, so we'll have to do something about it ourselves. Something as simple as not being snarky unless it's absolutely necessary would help the fediverse community a lot. Cool template btw, I'm going to save for later.
Imagine how shocked I was to discover that our friend pimento64 also casually revealed themselves to be a homophobe.
Care to explain what the fuck you're talking about?
I don't.
Imagine how shocked I was to discover that our friend BraveSirZaphod casually revealed themselves to be a maniac who butchers teenage runaways in his basement. No, I don't care to explain it.
Edit: oh of course you're the same fucking dude. Get a real hobby.
the fediverse has this reputation of being unfriendly which push (sic) newcomers away
What I was doing was being generous. I'm not going to shed any tears if people who spend all day on Facebook and Instagram think the fediverse is too hard to figure out and too unfriendly. Barriers to entry are a good thing when you have barbarians at the gate. That mostly means the drooling masses from corporate social media who ruin everything they touch, but it also means le epic wholesome keanu chungus morons from reddit and beard-stroking corporatist pontificators from slashdot and hacker news. The dweeb I was responding to is from the latter camp, and I really don't feel any obligation to help make the fediverse into a place where people like him can expect a positive reception for pinching off loafs like his opinion.
And that make their phones expensive enough to repair that buying a new one is a logical fiscal decision.
I always say this. You're one person. Facebook was once a trillion dollar company that hired teams of engineers, phds, and marketers to device the most abusive ways to keep your attention. There are literal studies showing how insta promotes depression in young girls and yet they're still allowed to operate.
Social media's marketing schemes are the new generations tobacco industry.
blame it on the consumer
Yeah. Blame it on the consumers indeed. Are you a adult or not? Put the tendies down and put your big boy pants on and realize that you need to take responsibility for at least some of your actions.
Same goes for all those dopes that pre-order every game that gets released and then we all wonder why the industry releases so many unfinished games that need patches and updates. That's because consumers are rewarding these game developers for releasing shitty software.
