3 ms·
> There is no insurmountable physics at play when a phone stops receiving security updates. There is the “insurmountable physics” problem of needing to spend m
by masklinn 3y ago
> There is no insurmountable physics at play when a phone stops receiving security updates.
There is the “insurmountable physics” problem of needing to spend money on something perceived as having no ROI worth speaking about (if it’s even positive).
This is what most “planned obsolescence in the modern day” is about, not spending money you don’t absolutely have to. The precision of modern manufacturing and the progress of material science similarly allows very low tolerances, because you don’t need to account for anywhere near as much manufacturing variance. Therefore you can hew much closer to what you need to provide, and lower your costs as a result.
An other factor is the market cycling, why would you design a phone to last for 10 years when pretty much none of your target market will keep the phone 3, and it will net you no brand loyalty whatsoever?
Finally there’s time to market, pretty much all foldable phones seem to suffer from cracking or delamination, because it’s a super popular idea which commands a huge premium, so as soon as that was an option manufacturers started releasing device with limited real-world durability testing.
- armada651 3y agoYou've perfectly summarized why the only way we'll reduce e-waste is by introducing legislation that requires our electronic products last longer. This is exactly why the issue of planned obsolescence can't be left up to the market: making short-lifespan products presents a better ROI. Some may argue that this would stifle innovation and we would likely not have foldable phones today if such requirements were in place. But in my opinion if such innovations can't be made durable, then the world would be better off without them.
- mikestew 3y agoYou've perfectly summarized why the only way we'll reduce e-waste is by introducing legislation that requires our electronic products last longer. Well, that would be one way to reduce e-waste: make phones so expensive that a lot fewer people buy them. Because whereas before that test matrix had five phones, but legislation increased that to seven, including two that can't run the latest OS so we have to back port the fixes to the previous OS. None of that is free, in fact, it's quite expensive. Beside, how many people do you know that base their phone buying decisions on whether or not their current one is still supported? Of the folks I know, no one does that (granted, I live in Redmond, WA, which has some techy types living in the area). They just buy a new one when they are tired of their old one, or they have New Phone Fever.