5 ms·
I understand why some people don't want to pay this amount of money upfront based on the specs alone. From a "per year" cost I still think it's competitive If
by Scandiravian 3y ago
I understand why some people don't want to pay this amount of money upfront based on the specs alone. From a "per year" cost I still think it's competitive
If they really manage to support this device for 10 years, that's $75 per year, which I think is relatively cheap
My use-case for a phone does not need a lot of processing power. I use it for messaging, checking emails, watch a bit of YouTube, and catch up on the news. I feel reasonably confident that it will be able to perform those tasks 8-10 years down the line
On top of that I also appreciate that I can buy a device that is sourced with consideration for workers and the environment. It's never good for the environment to produce new devices, but the option to limit the impact is important to me
- queuebert 3y agoIt would be even cheaper comparatively if we were properly taxed for the downstream effects of our waste.
- Scandiravian 3y agoAgreed. Though I'm personally more in favour of adding the cost at the other end. I think companies should be taxed for the cost of restoring the damage their products cause to the environment, as this would encourage competition towards more sustainable practices
- freedomben 3y agoPhilosophically, I agree with you completely. But practically, how would we measure that let alone enforce it?
- Scandiravian 3y agoI think it's still hard to say which policies would be effective. I think CO2-equivalent emission taxes are a good starting point It might also be possible to put a recycling fee on each produced device based on the retail price and the amount of damage it would cause to the environment if the device was dumped in the environment When a device is then handed in for recycling the company is refunded the fee minus the cost of to handle it at the recycling facility On the downside that could also encourage companies to create products that are replaced before they are no longer usable, though honestly we already have that problem. It could maybe be prevented by lowering the fee based on how long the company commit to supporting the model with software and replacement parts
- queuebert 3y agoIf we can measure the near infinitesimal gravitational waves from black holes colliding across the universe, surely we can at least get close to measuring this.
- wolverine876 3y agoNobody loses money when you measure infinitesimal gravitational waves from black holes colliding across the universe. If it affected climate change, it would be a different story - the conspiracy of astrophysicists who also traffic baby goats, Einstein was a hoax, black holes aren't settled science, why don't we measure gravity waves in America/UK rather than foreign gravity waves, etc.
- charcircuit 3y ago>that's $75 per year, I still think it's competitive It's more than what it would be for an iphone
- Scandiravian 3y agoThe lowest cost iPhone SE 3rd gen I can find on Apple's website is €549 with 7 years of software updates The fp5 on Fairphones website is €529 with at least 8 years of software updates Even if iPhones were marginally cheaper, they carry with them vendor lock-in, poor repairability, and a track record of horrendous working conditions for the workers assembling them To me it would still be worth a small premium to avoid those drawbacks even if the fp5 was more expensive per year
- nailuj 3y agoThe FP5 costs 699€ on the Fairphone website, so the premium is not that small
- Scandiravian 3y agoFor that price you also get 4x the storage of the cheapest iPhone SE. For comparable storage the iPhone is €749 Comparing the cheapest iPhone with the FP5, the latter is still cheaper per year, even if I never have to replace anything (such as the battery) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37756346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37756346
- TylerE 3y agoIt only makes sense to treat it as "10 years" if it's actually useable for 10. For me, the specs make it a non-starter on day 1.
- Scandiravian 3y agoSure, if your use-case requires a lot of computational power it might be a bad fit, but as I also wrote in my post, my requirements are pretty light, in which case this phone is closer to perfect than any other I've come across
- TylerE 3y agoIf your needs are that light, how do justify spending that much on a phone? Why not just get whatever shitty android is on sale for $free.50?
- Scandiravian 3y ago- Price wise it's still competitive if looking at the cost per year - I don't want to spend time and energy having to figure out which phone I should replace it with when the shitty phone dies after 12 months - I care about the working conditions for the people actually assembling my phone - I care about the impact my consumption has on the environment
- rakoo 3y agoGiving Fairphone money has a much higher chance of turning the whole industry than supporting shitty companies. If it's shit you're probably going to buy another one next year anyway, and in the end spend a similar amount over 10 years
- truculent 3y agoHow does that compare with a used/refurbished iPhone?