I've got a modular phone. Fairphone 3. I hesitated before buying it because almost all the reviews said something along the lines of it being heavy and twice as

I've got a modular phone. Fairphone 3. I hesitated before buying it because almost all the reviews said something along the lines of it being heavy and twice as expensive as a non-modular equivalent. In the end I bought it, and I couldn't be more satisfied. There's a discrepancy between the criteria of most people who write reviews about phones (and, of course, hardware in general) and 'regular' users, of which when it comes to phones I very much am one. Technical reviewers - from Arts Technica to The Guardian - care about how speed, camera quality, form factor etc, compare to other such hardware of a similar price. A regular user who buys a phone every few years considers the device in itself, or at most to their old device. This seems fast, it takes nice photos, it fits in my hand. Plus whether they can afford it. This is not only a different set of criteria but a different kind: difference versus in-itself. This problematises the supposed 'objectivity' of conventional technical reviews. It allows other criteria, ones which are difficult to quantify and therefore value, to become more important. For me: the value of never having to go through the stress of trying to pry a battery off the screen it's been glued to. The value of not having to order confusing parts from an ebay seller in China. The value of knowing that if something breaks, it'll be no problem to fix it myself. And also: the value of a supply chain which avoids exploitative practices. I've come to think that tech reviews by speed wonks are inately problematic for this reason.