5 ms·

It's a shame that smart phones are so hard to repair these days. Ben Evans from a16z even argued that "selling smartphones is a subscription business" and that

by devy 9y ago

It's a shame that smart phones are so hard to repair these days. Ben Evans from a16z even argued that "selling smartphones is a subscription business" and that "You pay an average of $700 or so every two years (i.e. $30/month) and Apple gives you a new phone." [1] I think the car industry is probably similar in that so many parts become more electronic and less mechanic and if a sensor is gone, the entire part has to be replaced. (Not a car geek, but the ones who are, please feel free to chime in here!). And with the EV revolution, that trend is going to be accelerated. [1]: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/7/13/content-isnt-king http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/7/13/content-isnt-ki...

scottLobster 9y ago
I'm not sure the analogy is all that apt. Sensors can fail all the time for reasons beyond the company's intention or control. Phones on the other hand should be an easy-battery swap away from future usefulness. And that's just from the hardware perspective. There is no functional reason my Nexus 5X should stop receiving security updates next year, other than the fact that Google wants to sell more Pixels (which I will probably buy because going without security updates is cutting off my nose to spite my face).
- digi_owl 9y ago
  The updates thing may change once Android 8 becomes more common, as they have now taken a clue from their ChromeOS experience and decoupled the UI/app layer from the core OS layer. Thus getting updates out there for the UI layer will not be hampered by having Qualcomm etc drop support for their SOCs 12 months after initial introduction (meaning 6 months before they start showing up in the first devices). And frankly i don't see how much difference there really is between Apple and Google here. Google offer a bunch of compatibility tools etc that allow new APIs to function (up to a point) on older devices. Similarly Apple will regularly leave out big ticket items on their updates for older devices, meaning that if it is something the app dev wants to make use of they can only support the newest Apple is shipping. Never mind that i hear again and again that getting the latest iOS on an older device makes said device slow as a slug.
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    I can understand limiting feature updates to newer models, particularly if they demand increased resources, but if the core OS remains more or less the same I don't see an undue burden in supporting security updates for more than 2-4 years, particularly for a company with Google's capital.
topspin 9y ago
""$700 or so every two years"" I don't think most people are doing that. They're buying much less costly phones. You can get a new, unlocked Nokia 6 (3GB/32GB LTE) with Android 7 from Amazon, Walmart and others for about $230. If you wish you can suffer lock screen ads and Amazon will sell it for $180. And they aren't replacing them every 24 months either. I know the folks that frequent HN don't hesitate to spend $900-ish every 18 months, but this is not representative of most people. When you get to $200 for something that lasts 3-4 years it approaches disposable. Most people will replace it rather than try to get it repaired. This isn't me advocating manufacturer's behavior. It's just the reality of the phone market; most people aren't going to care about this.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  The price the customer sees, and the one they pay are two different things. In large part because of carrier subsidies. One thing i love about living where i do is that stores are mandated to list the total cost of the device once the contract duration have been accounted for. Quite often the sticker price would be as close to zero as they could get away with, but the total after contract is often 1.5x or higher than just paying for the device up front.
  - topspin 9y ago
    Those aren't contract phones.
- devy 9y ago
  To Ben's point, what you described here is exactly a hardware subscription business where average consumer shell out a few hundred bucks every few years. The amount may vary but it's still is a hardware subscription business.

by devy 9y ago

scottLobster 9y ago

I'm not sure the analogy is all that apt. Sensors can fail all the time for reasons beyond the company's intention or control. Phones on the other hand should be an easy-battery swap away from future usefulness. And that's just from the hardware perspective. There is no functional reason my Nexus 5X should stop receiving security updates next year, other than the fact that Google wants to sell more Pixels (which I will probably buy because going without security updates is cutting off my nose to spite my face).

digi_owl 9y ago
The updates thing may change once Android 8 becomes more common, as they have now taken a clue from their ChromeOS experience and decoupled the UI/app layer from the core OS layer. Thus getting updates out there for the UI layer will not be hampered by having Qualcomm etc drop support for their SOCs 12 months after initial introduction (meaning 6 months before they start showing up in the first devices). And frankly i don't see how much difference there really is between Apple and Google here. Google offer a bunch of compatibility tools etc that allow new APIs to function (up to a point) on older devices. Similarly Apple will regularly leave out big ticket items on their updates for older devices, meaning that if it is something the app dev wants to make use of they can only support the newest Apple is shipping. Never mind that i hear again and again that getting the latest iOS on an older device makes said device slow as a slug.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  I can understand limiting feature updates to newer models, particularly if they demand increased resources, but if the core OS remains more or less the same I don't see an undue burden in supporting security updates for more than 2-4 years, particularly for a company with Google's capital.

topspin 9y ago

""$700 or so every two years"" I don't think most people are doing that. They're buying much less costly phones. You can get a new, unlocked Nokia 6 (3GB/32GB LTE) with Android 7 from Amazon, Walmart and others for about $230. If you wish you can suffer lock screen ads and Amazon will sell it for $180. And they aren't replacing them every 24 months either. I know the folks that frequent HN don't hesitate to spend $900-ish every 18 months, but this is not representative of most people. When you get to $200 for something that lasts 3-4 years it approaches disposable. Most people will replace it rather than try to get it repaired. This isn't me advocating manufacturer's behavior. It's just the reality of the phone market; most people aren't going to care about this.

digi_owl 9y ago
The price the customer sees, and the one they pay are two different things. In large part because of carrier subsidies. One thing i love about living where i do is that stores are mandated to list the total cost of the device once the contract duration have been accounted for. Quite often the sticker price would be as close to zero as they could get away with, but the total after contract is often 1.5x or higher than just paying for the device up front.
- topspin 9y ago
  Those aren't contract phones.
devy 9y ago
To Ben's point, what you described here is exactly a hardware subscription business where average consumer shell out a few hundred bucks every few years. The amount may vary but it's still is a hardware subscription business.