14 ms·

A desktop from a decade ago can still run productivity software, especially if you run Linux or another operating system that doesn't cut off support for non-te

A desktop from a decade ago can still run productivity software, especially if you run Linux or another operating system that doesn't cut off support for non-technical reasons. It is true that some physical resources are going to be required e.g. electricity - but in general we are wasting tons of precious resources building "disposable" devices like cell phones that are used for only 2 years to do tasks that have little economic value. If we actually used hardware for more of its usable lifetime, we could greatly reduce long-term environmental costs.

magduf 7y ago
>but in general we are wasting tons of precious resources building "disposable" devices like cell phones that are used for only 2 years to do tasks that have little economic value. This is wrong in two ways. 1) Cellphones don't just last 2 years; lots of people have older models. Sure, a bunch of people get rid of theirs after 2 years, but then they go to the secondhand market, where people like me buy them for a small fraction of their original price and keep them for another year or two before reselling them. Frequently, older phones eventually find their way to developing nations where people can't afford the latest iPhone. Your argument sounds like someone whining about people leasing a car for "only" 3 years; what do you think happens to cars after the original owner trades it in? As for "little economic value", that's just plain ridiculous. Smartphones have enabled all kinds of things that just weren't possible or easy before: managing your bank account remotely, sending money to people (e.g. Venmo), GPS navigation, communicating without playing telephone tag, etc. And they do it with much less energy than any PC uses.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > 1) Cellphones don't just last 2 years; lots of people have older models. Sure, a bunch of people get rid of theirs after 2 years, but then they go to the secondhand market, Increasingly less so. On one side, you have cheap subscription plans that bundle usable (not too decent) phones, on the other hand, phone life is shortened by a combination of planned obsolescence, software bloat, and lack of security updates. Short sales cycles is what manufacturers plan for and actively work towards. > Frequently, older phones eventually find their way to developing nations where people can't afford the latest iPhone. I might be wrong, but I'm not convinced. Shipping costs money, phones are cheap, and both battery and flash memory have pretty short lifetimes now. A good chunk of phones are barely operational after 2-3 years. RE benefits of smartphones, it's all true, but you can't run economic growth on it forever. Smartphone transformation happened. It's mostly done. Itself it won't fuel further growth. Production of hardware and software might, but that is not free in terms of energy/resources.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    I have a stable of Android devices for compatibility testing. All of the handsets are still working, even the 2014 ones. But I don't expect you to treat my anecdotes as data! Report: "Strategy Analytics: Average U.S. Smartphone Upgrade Cycle Now 33 Months" https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/23/strategy-analytics-average-us-smartphone-upgrade-c.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/23/strategy-analytics... Smartphone upgrade cycles have been steadily lengthening for years, which has important implications for smartphone vendors and wireless carriers alike. Slowing unit sales have led companies like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) to pivot toward subscription services in an effort to better monetize all of the devices that are already out there. ... The slowing replacement cycle makes sense to me, for basically the same reasons that I don't upgrade my PCs nearly as fast as I did in the 1990s. The improvements aren't as dramatic from model to model or year to year. I'll keep using my current phone as long as it works, which looks to easily be 4+ years. If phone manufacturers are deliberately trying to drive shorter replacement cycles, it's not working, at least not in the American market.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I have anecdotes to your anecdotes. Seen or used lots of Android devices that "wear down" under day-to-day use. The battery goes first, but flash degradation seems to be a thing too. And of course software bloat. The report looks interesting, and switching to service model seems like a plausible explanation.

magduf 7y ago

>but in general we are wasting tons of precious resources building "disposable" devices like cell phones that are used for only 2 years to do tasks that have little economic value. This is wrong in two ways. 1) Cellphones don't just last 2 years; lots of people have older models. Sure, a bunch of people get rid of theirs after 2 years, but then they go to the secondhand market, where people like me buy them for a small fraction of their original price and keep them for another year or two before reselling them. Frequently, older phones eventually find their way to developing nations where people can't afford the latest iPhone. Your argument sounds like someone whining about people leasing a car for "only" 3 years; what do you think happens to cars after the original owner trades it in? As for "little economic value", that's just plain ridiculous. Smartphones have enabled all kinds of things that just weren't possible or easy before: managing your bank account remotely, sending money to people (e.g. Venmo), GPS navigation, communicating without playing telephone tag, etc. And they do it with much less energy than any PC uses.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> 1) Cellphones don't just last 2 years; lots of people have older models. Sure, a bunch of people get rid of theirs after 2 years, but then they go to the secondhand market, Increasingly less so. On one side, you have cheap subscription plans that bundle usable (not too decent) phones, on the other hand, phone life is shortened by a combination of planned obsolescence, software bloat, and lack of security updates. Short sales cycles is what manufacturers plan for and actively work towards. > Frequently, older phones eventually find their way to developing nations where people can't afford the latest iPhone. I might be wrong, but I'm not convinced. Shipping costs money, phones are cheap, and both battery and flash memory have pretty short lifetimes now. A good chunk of phones are barely operational after 2-3 years. RE benefits of smartphones, it's all true, but you can't run economic growth on it forever. Smartphone transformation happened. It's mostly done. Itself it won't fuel further growth. Production of hardware and software might, but that is not free in terms of energy/resources.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  I have a stable of Android devices for compatibility testing. All of the handsets are still working, even the 2014 ones. But I don't expect you to treat my anecdotes as data! Report: "Strategy Analytics: Average U.S. Smartphone Upgrade Cycle Now 33 Months" https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/23/strategy-analytics-average-us-smartphone-upgrade-c.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/23/strategy-analytics... Smartphone upgrade cycles have been steadily lengthening for years, which has important implications for smartphone vendors and wireless carriers alike. Slowing unit sales have led companies like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) to pivot toward subscription services in an effort to better monetize all of the devices that are already out there. ... The slowing replacement cycle makes sense to me, for basically the same reasons that I don't upgrade my PCs nearly as fast as I did in the 1990s. The improvements aren't as dramatic from model to model or year to year. I'll keep using my current phone as long as it works, which looks to easily be 4+ years. If phone manufacturers are deliberately trying to drive shorter replacement cycles, it's not working, at least not in the American market.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I have anecdotes to your anecdotes. Seen or used lots of Android devices that "wear down" under day-to-day use. The battery goes first, but flash degradation seems to be a thing too. And of course software bloat. The report looks interesting, and switching to service model seems like a plausible explanation.