4 ms·

The choice should be up to the consumer, not the EU. We had phones with removable batteries co-exist with phones with non-removable batteries. Most people prefe

by choko 5y ago

The choice should be up to the consumer, not the EU. We had phones with removable batteries co-exist with phones with non-removable batteries. Most people preferred a slimmer, more attractive device and chose that over a removable battery. Ditto with keyboards. I would have preferred a phone with a hardware keyboard and a removable battery, but my tastes are niche. That doesn't mean I want a regulator to force the issue.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago
Except it's never a straight choice to a consumer. If a company asked me do I want 50% more battery life or 1mm thinner, I'm going for the battery. And lots of people would. How many people moan about their battery, and how many say "ooo, I with this phone was just a hair thinner"? But you don't get a choice, because it's all bundled up with other features to make it for you. Want NFC? Ok, you have to have the flagship model with the thinner case. Oh, you want the bigger battery, sorry we don't actually do one because we only had one model called the FailChungus 0.1 with a big battery and no one bought it (never mind that it came only in brown and had a 480x480 screen). Same for the 3.5mm jacks: no one has ever gone out and deliberately bought a phone without them. You just don't get a choice if you want everything else. I specifically got a non-flagship phone to keep that port, but I missed out on a lot of other stuff. While it's nice to think that consumers lead these choices, I don't think that's actually what's happening: the illusion of choice is given but the companies gradually do what they wanted to do anyway.
- archi42 5y ago
  Thanks, I wanted to say something very similar. "Choice by wallet" is a nice theory and even in practice it can work (e.g. buying fairtrade, organic meat alternatives IF you can afford it). But in that case it failed. And the manufacturers have little incentives to make it succeed - after all, buying these high margin products more often is in their shared interest. So even a first mover to offer flagship phones with removable batteries (again) would just cut their profits a little less than the competition. Proof for claim: If phones with replaceable batteries were competitive in the current market, they would be offered. I think it can not be denied that the current smartphone business has a negative ecological impact (waste during the whole life cycle except during usage) and additionally also a negative social impact (manufacturing conditions as well as rare material extraction; not sure if broken phones are shipped to Africa like other e-trash, but would expect that as well). These long-term impacts are not in our interest, but no individual alone can change that in the current market. But that's often the case: If we are not strong enough alone, we work together and bundle our power. Like in a state or even above the state level.
  - Tams80 5y ago
    The more variables any one product as, the less 'choice by wallet' works. Choosing between a battery-farm chicken and a free-range chicken has one variable - the provenance. But then let's say you like KFC for their 'secret' spice blend. But KFC don't care for offering free-range chicken. If you want that spicy chicken: you can sacrifice your preference for free-range chicken, get spicy chicken from somewhere else (not what you wanted), or go without. Smart devices have many more variables. So the likelihood of something you want not being there is much greater. And once a feature has been removed from such products, it partly becomes self-fulfilling.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    "I think it can not be denied that the current smartphone business has a negative ecological impact" Living has a negative ecological impact. How do you measure that? People seem to get more benefit out of the phones than their cost.

by choko 5y ago

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

Except it's never a straight choice to a consumer. If a company asked me do I want 50% more battery life or 1mm thinner, I'm going for the battery. And lots of people would. How many people moan about their battery, and how many say "ooo, I with this phone was just a hair thinner"? But you don't get a choice, because it's all bundled up with other features to make it for you. Want NFC? Ok, you have to have the flagship model with the thinner case. Oh, you want the bigger battery, sorry we don't actually do one because we only had one model called the FailChungus 0.1 with a big battery and no one bought it (never mind that it came only in brown and had a 480x480 screen). Same for the 3.5mm jacks: no one has ever gone out and deliberately bought a phone without them. You just don't get a choice if you want everything else. I specifically got a non-flagship phone to keep that port, but I missed out on a lot of other stuff. While it's nice to think that consumers lead these choices, I don't think that's actually what's happening: the illusion of choice is given but the companies gradually do what they wanted to do anyway.

archi42 5y ago
Thanks, I wanted to say something very similar. "Choice by wallet" is a nice theory and even in practice it can work (e.g. buying fairtrade, organic meat alternatives IF you can afford it). But in that case it failed. And the manufacturers have little incentives to make it succeed - after all, buying these high margin products more often is in their shared interest. So even a first mover to offer flagship phones with removable batteries (again) would just cut their profits a little less than the competition. Proof for claim: If phones with replaceable batteries were competitive in the current market, they would be offered. I think it can not be denied that the current smartphone business has a negative ecological impact (waste during the whole life cycle except during usage) and additionally also a negative social impact (manufacturing conditions as well as rare material extraction; not sure if broken phones are shipped to Africa like other e-trash, but would expect that as well). These long-term impacts are not in our interest, but no individual alone can change that in the current market. But that's often the case: If we are not strong enough alone, we work together and bundle our power. Like in a state or even above the state level.
- Tams80 5y ago
  The more variables any one product as, the less 'choice by wallet' works. Choosing between a battery-farm chicken and a free-range chicken has one variable - the provenance. But then let's say you like KFC for their 'secret' spice blend. But KFC don't care for offering free-range chicken. If you want that spicy chicken: you can sacrifice your preference for free-range chicken, get spicy chicken from somewhere else (not what you wanted), or go without. Smart devices have many more variables. So the likelihood of something you want not being there is much greater. And once a feature has been removed from such products, it partly becomes self-fulfilling.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  "I think it can not be denied that the current smartphone business has a negative ecological impact" Living has a negative ecological impact. How do you measure that? People seem to get more benefit out of the phones than their cost.