6 ms·

> The problem is that smartphones are way too expensive. No. People keeping their phones longer is not a problem. People creating less trash is not a problem.

> The problem is that smartphones are way too expensive. No. People keeping their phones longer is not a problem. People creating less trash is not a problem. People choosing to hold on to their money rather than pumping it into tech companies at a furious rate is not a problem.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Something can be a problem from one person's perspective and not a problem from another person's perspective and/or globally. :) (Full disclosure: I upvoted you, because from a global perspective I agree that it is not a problem.)
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I'm going to go ahead and say that, if you have a perspective where it's that important for you to be figuring out ways to compel people to send you 1/10 of the average person's discretionary income every 1-2 years, then it's that perspective that's the problem.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    Sure, but if your perspective is that you want to design something compel-ling enough that people would send you that money, then maybe it's not so bad.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    There's nothing inherently wrong with that perspective though, as the benefits can easily be worth it to the individual. Consider that in many places smartphones are the only gateway to the Internet, and that having access to the Internet (and all the productivity that entails) can easily be worth more than 10% of discretionary income. As one example: https://foodtank.com/news/2015/01/five-ways-cell-phones-are-changing-agriculture-in-africa/ https://foodtank.com/news/2015/01/five-ways-cell-phones-are-...
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      You're comparing smartphone to no smartphone at all, which is (unintentionally, I realize) a srawman version of what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that people shouldn't get a mobile or smart phone at all. I'm criticizing planned obsolescence, "free replacements" and other consumer-hostile policies that are designed to try and force or trick people into spending vastly more money than they would need to if they were simply after an Internet-equipped mobile device, and were allowed full agency as consumers.
    - Ericson2314 8y ago
      I do way more meaningful things on the internet with my laptop than my phone. Not all internet access is the same opportunity.
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    ok but what is your alternative to the capitalist model?
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Something can be a problem from one person's perspective and not a problem from another person's perspective and/or globally. :) Sure, but also some things (like waste and overconsumption) are objective problems for our societies/environment, and we should not allow companies to profit from them and find ways to make them worse.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    All depends how the discarded device is being used -- i.e. the net emissions of the new device. Apple claims to emit about 80 kg of carbon dioxide (equivalent) per iPhone. This is basically in the noise for the typical consumer.
    - kaybe 8y ago
      Does that include the whole supply chain?
    - coldtea 8y ago
      80kg * 100s of millions adds up soon. Plus this number can sliced and diced in several ways (e.g. does it included total costs for raw materials, transport, and so on, or just the assembly manufacturing?)
DoubleGlazing 8y ago
I was speaking from the manufacturers perspective. As a consumer I can see the difference between a €200 smartphone and a €1,000 smartphone isn't as wide as it used to be. Also worth noting that the wholesale company I worked for made its real money in accessories.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

Something can be a problem from one person's perspective and not a problem from another person's perspective and/or globally. :) (Full disclosure: I upvoted you, because from a global perspective I agree that it is not a problem.)

bunderbunder 8y ago
I'm going to go ahead and say that, if you have a perspective where it's that important for you to be figuring out ways to compel people to send you 1/10 of the average person's discretionary income every 1-2 years, then it's that perspective that's the problem.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Sure, but if your perspective is that you want to design something compel-ling enough that people would send you that money, then maybe it's not so bad.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  There's nothing inherently wrong with that perspective though, as the benefits can easily be worth it to the individual. Consider that in many places smartphones are the only gateway to the Internet, and that having access to the Internet (and all the productivity that entails) can easily be worth more than 10% of discretionary income. As one example: https://foodtank.com/news/2015/01/five-ways-cell-phones-are-changing-agriculture-in-africa/ https://foodtank.com/news/2015/01/five-ways-cell-phones-are-...
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    You're comparing smartphone to no smartphone at all, which is (unintentionally, I realize) a srawman version of what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that people shouldn't get a mobile or smart phone at all. I'm criticizing planned obsolescence, "free replacements" and other consumer-hostile policies that are designed to try and force or trick people into spending vastly more money than they would need to if they were simply after an Internet-equipped mobile device, and were allowed full agency as consumers.
  - Ericson2314 8y ago
    I do way more meaningful things on the internet with my laptop than my phone. Not all internet access is the same opportunity.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  ok but what is your alternative to the capitalist model?
coldtea 8y ago
>Something can be a problem from one person's perspective and not a problem from another person's perspective and/or globally. :) Sure, but also some things (like waste and overconsumption) are objective problems for our societies/environment, and we should not allow companies to profit from them and find ways to make them worse.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  All depends how the discarded device is being used -- i.e. the net emissions of the new device. Apple claims to emit about 80 kg of carbon dioxide (equivalent) per iPhone. This is basically in the noise for the typical consumer.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    Does that include the whole supply chain?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    80kg * 100s of millions adds up soon. Plus this number can sliced and diced in several ways (e.g. does it included total costs for raw materials, transport, and so on, or just the assembly manufacturing?)

DoubleGlazing 8y ago

I was speaking from the manufacturers perspective. As a consumer I can see the difference between a €200 smartphone and a €1,000 smartphone isn't as wide as it used to be. Also worth noting that the wholesale company I worked for made its real money in accessories.