546
A new smartphone again? Rethink unhealthy culture of frequent upgrades
(www.straitstimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
546 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
60373 readers
2707 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
While I agree with you and work on the same timetable I think their point still very much stands.
Look at cars, for example. A model is defined by it’s generation with each model year generally only having small upgrades, if any. With much of our lives if we were to wait that long we’d not miss one generation but instead feel five or more generations behind the curve.
There’s so little of a need for a new phone every year that Apple now sells the iPhone 13, 14, and SE on top of whatever generation is current because they know that the newest tech is just not worth it anymore. Samsung does exactly the same thing and no amount of high-horse whining from Android users will change the fact that those companies are just as bad about it.
We love to throw functional shit in the bin. We love to have overpowered stuff on the off-chance we might need it one day every couple years and we’re too pathetic to either just deal with it or to simply borrow/rent a better thing for that one instance(90% of truck and SUV drivers can absolutely go fuck themselves).
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.
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'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~~ employers, for a shamefully low salary. Edit to replace the word employees
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.
That is not an answer. You'd have credibility if you said, "I'm actually not sure."
I'll stick with Capitalism, then...
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Though i agree with you, i never feel like 'i'm only one person'. For instance, if someone turns off the lights and recycles their trash, they often say; how does it help, i'm only one person after all. But there are so many people thinking the exact same thing and together we can help change the world.
So, yes, companies should be changed and i think this is also about politics and economics, which are usually conservative and greedy. But i never feel like the things i do are in vain; i'm standing with perhaps millions of invisible people who care about the environment and try to do their best and who all might be thinking; i'm only one person. Many people do want to change and try their best, but it's time that all these conglomerates are being forced to change for real, instead of getting subsidized, and just greenwash their products.
Why not both? For example: one of the advantages if Iphones is the long software support. Why then are people buying a new one every year? I‘m still rocking an IPhone XR and while the batterie is down to 80%, I haven‘t encountered an app that brings it to it‘s knees.