Personal Justifications for different phone life cycles
Catch42@kbin.social to 
Technology@kbin.social – 1 points – Yesterday, I was reading a thread that asked what's the point of buying a new phone as often as as people do. In the comments there were a variety of answers, but what interested me is that there were a wide variety of answers for how long each person liked to go before upgrading. So I've attempted to come up with justifications for a bunch of different intervals. Let me know what you think.
Every….
Year: You spend multiple hours a day on this device, it’s worth having the most up to date. You can sell your old phone for a pretty good price so it’s not as expensive as it seems
2 years: If you like getting your service from one of the major providers then getting a new phone with a new contract can be a cost effective way of getting new tech often.
3 years: With this interval there’s often a noticeable hardware upgrade when you get your new phone and a 3 year old phone still has some resale value.
4 years: Samsung and Google both guarantee 4 years of support, so this is a natural interval for these phones.
For the rest of these, I’m going to focus on iPhones because I use an iPhone and it’s what I’m familiar with. I suspect that a lot of this also applies to android phones. Perhaps push all of these milestones 1 year forward since apple guarantees 5 years of support instead of 4 like Samsung or Google.
5 years: For iPhones this is the interval you’d want if you always want to have the newest iOS. Most phones get compatibility with 6ish iOS’s including the one that comes installed. For example the iPhone X (2017) -> iPhone 14 (2022) since it’s not going to get iOS 17
6 years: For iPhone X again, this is basically the same as 5 years, but you stretch it another year because it’s not a big deal to go without iOS 17 between it’s release and when you buy an iPhone 15 a little while later.
7 years: Let’s continue with the iPhone X example. iOS 15 has continued to get security updates this year so it’s likely that iOS 16 will receive them next year. It’s security, not software features, that are truly important and it's the last year that apple guarantees having parts, so 2024 is the best year to trade in an iPhone X on from an economy/function trade off point of view
8, 9 and 10 years: you dislike change, you are incredibly broke or you only have a smartphone in the first place because it’s basically necessary to function in modern society. Plus you get to be smug about being green. Most major apps to support back to iOS 12, which makes 2023 a good year to upgrade from your iphone 5s before all your apps start to break, and your aunt starts to wonder why she can't contact you on whatsapp.
10 years I’m not sure what you’re doing, but you do you, keep up the good work 🫡
One final note, if your phone is too old to have a resell value worth the hassle, still go through the effort of finding an electronics recycling drop off. The plastics won’t be recycled but the metals, especially the rare earth metals will be!
For me - whenever the battery degrades to a level where it doesn't hold a charge a whole workday - or - the device goes end-of-life. Normally battery dies before the support. This tends to be about 4-ish year cycle for me (My last upgrade was iPhone XR -> iPhone 14).
Once EU forces Apple to replaceable batteries I'll stretch this to "as long as it's supported with security updates".
I want maximally secure phone (since all important things like identity, access to accounts etc are stored on it) that has reasonable battery time.
That's it. Phones have been "feature complete" for a long, long time, I'm not looking for new features and I try to minimize my app usage to bare bone necessities.
I've heard a few people say this and honestly I'm still confused. I got my iPhone XR's battery replaced by apple themselves last year. I think it cost 80USD, which is too much, and EU law will be a welcome change. Hοwever, it's still saves money even if it delays your new phone purchase by only one year.
A decade ago, one phone generation was a significant step up in performance.
Today that increase is marginal at best.
Over that time I think many people's renewal cycle got longer as the utility of upgrading dropped.
We live in a mini valley in a rural spot, and don't get cell reception in our house. Also, I always liked using desktops much more than phones.
I've had a total of four smartphones starting in 2012. The reasons for my three upgrades were, in chronological order: battery degradation, theft and battery degradation. I'm hoping that the next one is battery degradation too.
Regarding your 1-year justification, I do spend all day on my phone. It just happens that it's already more than good enough for my needs. The OLED screen is sharp and doesn't tire the eyes, the size is great for my hands, the storage space is sufficient and the camera is as good as you can expect a camera with a tiny photoreceptor to be.
<rant> I use my phone's camera a lot, but the marketing gimmick of just upping the megapixel count and barely anything else means that smartphone cameras have effectively been the same for years. Which is why this ugly trend of multi-camera phones came around as well. My 24 megapixel Nikon camera delivers much better images than my 64 megapixel phone. The best way to improve picture quality in phone cameras would be to increase the size of the light-sensitive surface, not just to subdivide it into more and smaller pixels. But that would require a larger distance between the photoreceptor and the lens, which means a thicker phone.
And since by some divine decree phones must continue to become thinner and thinner until they can double as razor blades, that's never happening. Thicker phones could also mean larger batteries, a more comfortable grip, better impact resistance, the return of the headphone jack, more easily replaceable components (battery especially), better heat dissipation and more, but who cares about making a product that's actually better when instead you can aim for a paper-thin sheet of overheated components with a transparent battery that lasts twelve minutes and a 128-gigapixel sensor where each pixel is as wide as an anorexic electron and half the processing power is used to reduce noise in the ISO 9000000 setting required for that sensor to actually register a visible amount of light? And then you take your wire-thin phone and put a huge kevlar case on it so that you can actually hold it without cutting your fingers and it doesn't shatter into dust when you drop it. </rant>
better than to be smug about being "anti-green" 🤮
Whenever I meet someone who brags about intentionally doing something bad for the environment anti-green, I look at them with disgust. I had a co-worker tell me that she got around the emissions tests for her pickup by buying one of those devices online, and she had the audacity to look at me like she expected me to be impressed.
All you wrote is just an ad to purchase more stuff and to give zero thought about the consequences.
Your whole thing is about money. If you think that all this technology, energy, CO2, minerals come for free then you are in for a very bad surprise.
You are paying the price as we speak, through the inflation of all the other products you pay for every day. You will pay all your life for your privilege of falling for an ad campaign. Less crops, lower quality of crops? -> You will pay good money because of it. Less irrigation water? Same effect. Insurance companies in general will increase their premium non-stop because the risks will be everywhere. All this money comes out of your pocket.
A phone is not a necessity to function in a modern society, and green people are not smug. You talk as if you were out of the game, as if you were not impacted. Are you from the northern hemisphere? Don't you feel the heat these days?
Of course not, it all comes at great cost to the planet. We obviously disagree on the necessity of a phone for modern society. In my frame of thinking where it is a necessity, I write from the point of view that obviously keeping your phone longer is better. It doesn't even warrant mentioning. So my motivation for making this list was to encourage people to consider keeping their phones one year longer. To do that I have to list every single interval so that I can reach the people who most need the convincing: those who upgrade constantly.
Is being smug bad? It's a feeling I enjoy so I listed it as a genuine benefit.
I'm not sure if you know this, but dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as having fallen for an ad campaign isn't a particularly persuasive rhetorical tactic.
But that aside, a smartphone someone buys every few years is a drop in the bucket for someone's individual contribution to climate change compared to driving, flying, living in inefficient low-density environments, eating pork or beef, or a host of other disproportionate activities. This just comes off as moralizing for its own sake.
Reminder that this dude wrote this in his essay:
Well, you get the greetings of smug people. Also I don't care about rhetorical. Better speakers than me already talked to you all before and they failed to convince you of anything. So you can imagine how much I don't care about being persuasive or rhetorical. I care about facts.
Liar, the digital emits more CO2 than aviation.
You are a bloody liar or ignorant. It took you like 30 sec to write your rant and spread some lies. But it took me way more time to find the source to debunk your crap. Well, I guess that's what it is to be a green smug.
I don't post the sources, you won't read them anyway.
Perhaps not, but you do need a computer of some kind to function in modern society. You get nothing done without one.
You need to pay bills, taxes and conduct other government business over e-services. You need 2-factor auth to identify yourself (both officially to govt. services, banks etc and your own services like e-mail). We live in a cashless society - sure, you can use cards, but it's increasingly popular to just put your cards into your mobile. People want to contact you - more often through text messages than actually calling you.
Maybe you don't need a phone. But a portable communication device is quite essential is modern society.
Having said that - perhaps we need to separate the "portable computing device" from "seasonal fashion accessories"
You take these luxury items for granted. It's a luxury. It's the same than saying that you cannot function without Ubereats in a modern society. Might be true in San Francisco but not anywhere else.
Anyway we cannot mass produce those phones forever, who is seriously denying it? The end of this phone era will be forced upon us.
People paid their taxes before the iPhone. Their bills too.
I live in Sweden mate.
Device with Internet access is not "luxury". It's basic human right.
Yes sure you can. But it's massively inconvenient. You basically need to take a day off work to pay your bills because bank offices are generally only open between 10am - 3pm. Even my 85 year old mom pays her bills online.
You don't need an iPhone. But you need a some kind of computing device with Internet access. Cheapo Android from last Xmas sale will do.
Fantastic, but it's gonna end because of a lack of resources. And by indulging into this technology now you are making sure that you won't have a pension. You are walking into a dead end. Also once we remove oil from the economy all the consumer products will become extra expensive. The north won't be rich for long, because eating will get more and more expensive. The day when eating was cheap are already counted.
About banks, we won't sacrifice our climate because the banks refuse to accommodate their opening hours.
I went to Sweden and it was ridiculously difficult to use money. Completely ridiculous. I was waving a bank note and no one wanted to take it. I had no battery in my phone and I couldn't purchase a train ticket, no internet means no ticket, ri-di-cu-lous. Also Stockholm can do without individual cars. I saw it, I was there. Many countries will tell you that cars are mandatory, they are not.
Again, we cannot maintain this level of high tech production. It's the laws of physics, it's not politics, it's not morality, it's energy production and lack of minerals.
Eh. I understand you want to turn back the clock to pre-industrial revolution, but unfortunately the laws of physics don't allow time-travel to the past. We are here because we've arrived here.
Wanting to change the society to a more sustainable future is commendable, and we all should think about our environmental footprints, but I very much doubt "removing access to the Internet" is part of that. I think this thread is a good one, reminding people we don't need new phones every year. But saving the planet? There are larger issues at hand. Like CO2 emissions from Chinese industry and the global manufacturing supply-chain that leans heavily on those emissions.
Yes, as I said above, we're a cashless society. It's hard to pay with cash anywhere or interact with banks/government without Internet. Cards work, and many people use contactless payments on their phones, because it's convenient to have everything in one place. We also have digital ID's that work in phones. Hence the need for phones and the Internet.
Yes, I'm 50+ and I've raised two kids not owned a car in 20 years. You can bicycle everywhere in the city and we have functioning public transport. I'd like it to be tax funded so using it would be free, but we're not there yet. I'm all in for car-free cities. But that's well off-topic for this thread.
Having a phone, access to Internet - these things are essential. Changing your phone like underwear is not. EU is doing a lot of good with mandating common chargers, right to repair and replaceable batteries so let's continue on that path and demand better phones with renewable materials.