4 ms·

>Fashion is unsustainable because the average consumer doesn’t care about the sustainability. Voting with your wallet is a myth propagated by free-market ideol

>Fashion is unsustainable because the average consumer doesn’t care about the sustainability. Voting with your wallet is a myth propagated by free-market ideologues. Same as with swappable batteries in phones or right to repair: I don't know of a single consumer who's happy with the status quo, yet the option to buy a phone with a swappable battery is significantly less attractive and available today than it was 5 years ago.

jdasdf 5y ago
How is it a myth? I heard this type of statement often, but the fact is no convincing evidence is ever provided. The fact is there are in fact options available for phones with swappable batteries, it's just that people don't buy them because they come with tradeoffs they don't want. Of course people say they are unhappy with the status quo, but the fact is, bullshit talks and money walks. If they truly valued swappable batteries that much, they'd make the tradeoffs necessary to have that swappable battery. The fact that they don't make those tradeoffs means that no matter what comes out their mouth, they don't want to pay the price of that feature.
- untitaker_ 5y ago
  You and OP are taking a simple fact (people buy fewer phones with replaceable batteries) and try to guess at people's core values through that. I don't think that makes any sense. But I think this kind of argument leads nowhere. Let's stick to examples. Technically I can only speak for myself and what I value, so: I don't see a choice for myself. I have to choose between a phone that won't last due to its irreplaceable battery, and a phone that is unpopular enough to make me doubt whether it will receive updates after a few years. I have chosen a phone without a replaceable battery. Five+ years ago I would've chosen a phone with one. My values didn't change here at all, the market did. It changed the tradeoffs I have to make to find a phone that suits my needs (overall durability/longevity), and I'm less happy with the options I am provided now than back then. It seems your stance is not to believe me how unhappy I am, as I could have simply spent more money on my phone. If you know where I can find a popular phone with swappable battery, good update policy and significantly large aftermarket (for repairs) let me know.
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > The fact that they don't make those tradeoffs means that no matter what comes out their mouth, they don't want to pay the price of that feature. The feature may be worth it to a large swath of people, but not at a price-point that producers are capable of offering _for whatever reason_. By applying scale, costs can be reduced, and the feature can come to a more friendly price point which might increase demand. There's another angle to this which is reduction of externalities, as well, but it's never as clear cut as: caveman spend sea shells on log rather than spending sea shells on rock.
- car_analogy 5y ago
  > they don't want to pay the price of that feature. Well put - the price, not the cost. Manufacturers can make some options unreasonably difficult/expensive/hard to find (non-smart TVs, CPUs with ECC support, printers not made by Satan..), and then when consumers, only offered a series of products that share the same, usually hidden, defect, buy that product, instead of investing time and money far disproportionate to the actual cost of making a product without that defect, this is hailed as "The consumer has spoken!" Until electronics shops start clearly marking smart TVs with all the ways they spy on you and show you ads, and place right next to them an equivalent model, somewhat more expensive but clearly marked as privacy-friendly, you can't attribute this to "voting with your wallet".

jdasdf 5y ago

How is it a myth? I heard this type of statement often, but the fact is no convincing evidence is ever provided. The fact is there are in fact options available for phones with swappable batteries, it's just that people don't buy them because they come with tradeoffs they don't want. Of course people say they are unhappy with the status quo, but the fact is, bullshit talks and money walks. If they truly valued swappable batteries that much, they'd make the tradeoffs necessary to have that swappable battery. The fact that they don't make those tradeoffs means that no matter what comes out their mouth, they don't want to pay the price of that feature.

untitaker_ 5y ago
You and OP are taking a simple fact (people buy fewer phones with replaceable batteries) and try to guess at people's core values through that. I don't think that makes any sense. But I think this kind of argument leads nowhere. Let's stick to examples. Technically I can only speak for myself and what I value, so: I don't see a choice for myself. I have to choose between a phone that won't last due to its irreplaceable battery, and a phone that is unpopular enough to make me doubt whether it will receive updates after a few years. I have chosen a phone without a replaceable battery. Five+ years ago I would've chosen a phone with one. My values didn't change here at all, the market did. It changed the tradeoffs I have to make to find a phone that suits my needs (overall durability/longevity), and I'm less happy with the options I am provided now than back then. It seems your stance is not to believe me how unhappy I am, as I could have simply spent more money on my phone. If you know where I can find a popular phone with swappable battery, good update policy and significantly large aftermarket (for repairs) let me know.
ianleeclark 5y ago
> The fact that they don't make those tradeoffs means that no matter what comes out their mouth, they don't want to pay the price of that feature. The feature may be worth it to a large swath of people, but not at a price-point that producers are capable of offering _for whatever reason_. By applying scale, costs can be reduced, and the feature can come to a more friendly price point which might increase demand. There's another angle to this which is reduction of externalities, as well, but it's never as clear cut as: caveman spend sea shells on log rather than spending sea shells on rock.
car_analogy 5y ago
> they don't want to pay the price of that feature. Well put - the price, not the cost. Manufacturers can make some options unreasonably difficult/expensive/hard to find (non-smart TVs, CPUs with ECC support, printers not made by Satan..), and then when consumers, only offered a series of products that share the same, usually hidden, defect, buy that product, instead of investing time and money far disproportionate to the actual cost of making a product without that defect, this is hailed as "The consumer has spoken!" Until electronics shops start clearly marking smart TVs with all the ways they spy on you and show you ads, and place right next to them an equivalent model, somewhat more expensive but clearly marked as privacy-friendly, you can't attribute this to "voting with your wallet".