I don’t really like this trend of absolving consumers of literally all agency in how they spend their money. Outside of practices that intentionally try to make older products obsolete like purposeful throttling - which should absolutely be shamed and made illegal - no one is holding a gun to your head and telling you to buy the new phone or else. If someone decides that a product is a worthy use of their money and decides to purchase it, then so be it. People aren’t children and can decide how they’d like to spend their money, and I really don’t see what’s wrong with a company trying to convince you to do so. People can make their own choices, and that includes financially poor ones. They can also choose to prioritize different things than you or I might.
Ultimately, if you don’t want to buy a new phone, don’t. They’re really quite good nowadays and tend to last a while. There will of course continue to be shiny new things, and if having the newest thing is truly important to you, you can decide to spend your money on it. Or, you can also not. But to say that consumers have essentially no choice and are simply the poor victims of marketing with no real agency at all is reductive to the point of being almost patronizing.
Absolutely, and for products and markets that are essentially necessary to life, there’s a much stronger case to be made for strong regulation since the potential for exploitation is much higher (the nightmare that is the entire healthcare industry exemplifies this perfectly, since market forces don’t work well when you’re unconscious or will otherwise die).
But for luxury items, which high-end smartphones undoubtedly are? Yeah, consumers can take a little bit of accountability.
Ultimately, if you don’t want to buy a new phone, don’t.
Could you have made a more vacuous comment? Obviously people shouldn’t buy every new toy that comes out, that doesn’t change the fact that 90% of the blame—and 90% is a hard floor—belongs to the people who waste the Earth’s resources pinching it off in the first place and then waste even more in protectionism and generally making sure there are as few viable alternatives as possible.
Whelp, your point can still be made without the first sentence. The fediverse has this reputation of being unfriendly which push newcomers away, so we’ll have to do something about it ourselves. Something as simple as not being snarky unless it’s absolutely necessary would help the fediverse community a lot. Cool template btw, I’m going to save for later.
Imagine how shocked I was to discover that our friend BraveSirZaphod casually revealed themselves to be a maniac who butchers teenage runaways in his basement. No, I don’t care to explain it.
Edit: oh of course you’re the same fucking dude. Get a real hobby.
the fediverse has this reputation of being unfriendly which push (sic) newcomers away
What I was doing was being generous. I’m not going to shed any tears if people who spend all day on Facebook and Instagram think the fediverse is too hard to figure out and too unfriendly. Barriers to entry are a good thing when you have barbarians at the gate. That mostly means the drooling masses from corporate social media who ruin everything they touch, but it also means le epic wholesome keanu chungus morons from reddit and beard-stroking corporatist pontificators from slashdot and hacker news. The dweeb I was responding to is from the latter camp, and I really don’t feel any obligation to help make the fediverse into a place where people like him can expect a positive reception for pinching off loafs like his opinion.
The fundamental truth is that companies would not make a bunch of new phones if there were not people that wanted to buy them, for one reason or another.
And it’s not as if the smartphone market isn’t littered with failed products and ideas. Marketing can do a lot, but it’s not able to generate demand for a product that consumers simply do not want. You might remember the pushes for 3D displays, WiMAX, modular phones, styluses, the recent push for foldable devices, etc etc. These failed because consumers simply did not want them. Motorola, HTC, LG, etc failed because consumer did not want their products and they were generally inferior.
Again, you do not need to buy a new phone every year. There are people who do voluntarily want to do that though, and so companies will provide products to meet that desire. I simply do not understand this compulsion to insert yourself into a blatantly voluntary transaction, with the customer wanting a new phone, the company providing one, and you stating “Actually, you’re being exploited.”
Given that one big reason is “Planned obsolescence”, you’re still pointing the finger entirely in the wrong direction.
You can’t scroll Facebook for five minutes without seeing people complain that “They don’t build stuff like they used to anymore” or “All this Chinese junk just falls apart in 5 minutes.”
Consumers want reliable, long lasting products that they don’t have to replace all the time. They just have no way of reasonably obtaining them.
If consumers were actually as hungry for constant upgrades as you claim, phone manufacturers wouldn’t put so much effort into making their products impossible to repair.
Consumers want reliable, long lasting products that they don’t have to replace all the time.
This is the thing that I’m genuinely not entirely convinced of. More than anything, I think a lot people want shiny new stuff as cheaply as they can get it, and that most consumers will generally opt for that over a more expensive but more durable alternative, even if that’s not what they’ll actually tell themselves. “Chinese junk” succeeded because masses of people preferred a cheaper product over a more expensive domestic one. Plenty of people raged against removing headphone jacks, for instance, but ultimately, those phones still sold very well. If there was really a huge demand for phones with headphone jacks, why would Samsung etc. not plop one in there and capture that demand? I would speculate it’s because it doesn’t actually exist to a super significant degree. Plenty of Android phones had removable batteries for long while, but as they started to go away, you didn’t see a huge group of people flock to the phones that kept them. Ultimately, consumers generally showed that they would opt for better waterproofing and slimmer design with a more annoying battery replacement procedure than a bulkier phone with easily removable batteries (though I am intrigued to see if the EU will actually be able to successfully mandate them).
So, while I do agree that consumers do want reliable and long-lasting products, they also want maximally cheap products, and products that feel new and sleek and luxurious. These are contradictory aims, and it seems to me that consumers’ revealed preferences are towards novelty and price, not durability, though I’d also say that I think this is shifting somewhat. Each new generation of phones is offering fewer genuine innovations and improvements, and at least in my experience, consumers are noticing more and more that even mid-range phones are perfectly adequate and that any phone can last several years. As I understand, this has been reflected in declining sales over the last several years.
What, like there’s some kind of ethical standard of consumerism that people are failing to live up to? Take the corporate dick out of your throat and take your L with dignity instead of grasping at straws to be Right and “win” an online argument. Why even try? You really think you’re gonna be the guy who changes people’s hearts and minds and has them say “yes, it’s actually the changing whims of the market that drive corporations to produce waste, they definitely don’t forcibly create their own market through manipulation and abuse”? Are you really trying to be the Rosa Parks of convincing people that there is ever even one case where a corporation isn’t automatically to blame for the existence of their own fucking product? You think consumers should just “not buy”, yet you don’t say that companies should just ignore the market and release new products less frequently? “Oh well that’s not realistic because they’re just not gonna do that” you’re going to say, willfully uncomprehending that you’re reinforcing my point and pretending you just got a gotcha. Get real.
It’s comically bold to talk about dignified discourse while casually throwing out homophobic phrases like “take the dick out of your throat”.
At any rate, your true colors are showing brightly enough that I, empowered consumer that I am, will see myself out of this conversation. Enjoy your iPhone 15 Pro Max that you just had to buy. Truly, it must be hard.
“Oh shit that was embarrassing, better pretend to be smugly aloof and then ‘abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past’.”
Literally every time. Do you people get a phrasebook or something?
I don’t really like this trend of absolving consumers of literally all agency in how they spend their money. Outside of practices that intentionally try to make older products obsolete like purposeful throttling - which should absolutely be shamed and made illegal - no one is holding a gun to your head and telling you to buy the new phone or else. If someone decides that a product is a worthy use of their money and decides to purchase it, then so be it. People aren’t children and can decide how they’d like to spend their money, and I really don’t see what’s wrong with a company trying to convince you to do so. People can make their own choices, and that includes financially poor ones. They can also choose to prioritize different things than you or I might.
Ultimately, if you don’t want to buy a new phone, don’t. They’re really quite good nowadays and tend to last a while. There will of course continue to be shiny new things, and if having the newest thing is truly important to you, you can decide to spend your money on it. Or, you can also not. But to say that consumers have essentially no choice and are simply the poor victims of marketing with no real agency at all is reductive to the point of being almost patronizing.
deleted by creator
Absolutely, and for products and markets that are essentially necessary to life, there’s a much stronger case to be made for strong regulation since the potential for exploitation is much higher (the nightmare that is the entire healthcare industry exemplifies this perfectly, since market forces don’t work well when you’re unconscious or will otherwise die).
But for luxury items, which high-end smartphones undoubtedly are? Yeah, consumers can take a little bit of accountability.
Could you have made a more vacuous comment? Obviously people shouldn’t buy every new toy that comes out, that doesn’t change the fact that 90% of the blame—and 90% is a hard floor—belongs to the people who waste the Earth’s resources pinching it off in the first place and then waste even more in protectionism and generally making sure there are as few viable alternatives as possible.
Whelp, your point can still be made without the first sentence. The fediverse has this reputation of being unfriendly which push newcomers away, so we’ll have to do something about it ourselves. Something as simple as not being snarky unless it’s absolutely necessary would help the fediverse community a lot. Cool template btw, I’m going to save for later.
Imagine how shocked I was to discover that our friend pimento64 also casually revealed themselves to be a homophobe.
Care to explain what the fuck you’re talking about?
I don’t.
Imagine how shocked I was to discover that our friend BraveSirZaphod casually revealed themselves to be a maniac who butchers teenage runaways in his basement. No, I don’t care to explain it.
Edit: oh of course you’re the same fucking dude. Get a real hobby.
What I was doing was being generous. I’m not going to shed any tears if people who spend all day on Facebook and Instagram think the fediverse is too hard to figure out and too unfriendly. Barriers to entry are a good thing when you have barbarians at the gate. That mostly means the drooling masses from corporate social media who ruin everything they touch, but it also means le epic wholesome keanu chungus morons from reddit and beard-stroking corporatist pontificators from slashdot and hacker news. The dweeb I was responding to is from the latter camp, and I really don’t feel any obligation to help make the fediverse into a place where people like him can expect a positive reception for pinching off loafs like his opinion.
The fundamental truth is that companies would not make a bunch of new phones if there were not people that wanted to buy them, for one reason or another.
And it’s not as if the smartphone market isn’t littered with failed products and ideas. Marketing can do a lot, but it’s not able to generate demand for a product that consumers simply do not want. You might remember the pushes for 3D displays, WiMAX, modular phones, styluses, the recent push for foldable devices, etc etc. These failed because consumers simply did not want them. Motorola, HTC, LG, etc failed because consumer did not want their products and they were generally inferior.
Again, you do not need to buy a new phone every year. There are people who do voluntarily want to do that though, and so companies will provide products to meet that desire. I simply do not understand this compulsion to insert yourself into a blatantly voluntary transaction, with the customer wanting a new phone, the company providing one, and you stating “Actually, you’re being exploited.”
This meme comes to mind.
Given that one big reason is “Planned obsolescence”, you’re still pointing the finger entirely in the wrong direction.
You can’t scroll Facebook for five minutes without seeing people complain that “They don’t build stuff like they used to anymore” or “All this Chinese junk just falls apart in 5 minutes.”
Consumers want reliable, long lasting products that they don’t have to replace all the time. They just have no way of reasonably obtaining them.
If consumers were actually as hungry for constant upgrades as you claim, phone manufacturers wouldn’t put so much effort into making their products impossible to repair.
This is the thing that I’m genuinely not entirely convinced of. More than anything, I think a lot people want shiny new stuff as cheaply as they can get it, and that most consumers will generally opt for that over a more expensive but more durable alternative, even if that’s not what they’ll actually tell themselves. “Chinese junk” succeeded because masses of people preferred a cheaper product over a more expensive domestic one. Plenty of people raged against removing headphone jacks, for instance, but ultimately, those phones still sold very well. If there was really a huge demand for phones with headphone jacks, why would Samsung etc. not plop one in there and capture that demand? I would speculate it’s because it doesn’t actually exist to a super significant degree. Plenty of Android phones had removable batteries for long while, but as they started to go away, you didn’t see a huge group of people flock to the phones that kept them. Ultimately, consumers generally showed that they would opt for better waterproofing and slimmer design with a more annoying battery replacement procedure than a bulkier phone with easily removable batteries (though I am intrigued to see if the EU will actually be able to successfully mandate them).
So, while I do agree that consumers do want reliable and long-lasting products, they also want maximally cheap products, and products that feel new and sleek and luxurious. These are contradictory aims, and it seems to me that consumers’ revealed preferences are towards novelty and price, not durability, though I’d also say that I think this is shifting somewhat. Each new generation of phones is offering fewer genuine innovations and improvements, and at least in my experience, consumers are noticing more and more that even mid-range phones are perfectly adequate and that any phone can last several years. As I understand, this has been reflected in declining sales over the last several years.
What, like there’s some kind of ethical standard of consumerism that people are failing to live up to? Take the corporate dick out of your throat and take your L with dignity instead of grasping at straws to be Right and “win” an online argument. Why even try? You really think you’re gonna be the guy who changes people’s hearts and minds and has them say “yes, it’s actually the changing whims of the market that drive corporations to produce waste, they definitely don’t forcibly create their own market through manipulation and abuse”? Are you really trying to be the Rosa Parks of convincing people that there is ever even one case where a corporation isn’t automatically to blame for the existence of their own fucking product? You think consumers should just “not buy”, yet you don’t say that companies should just ignore the market and release new products less frequently? “Oh well that’s not realistic because they’re just not gonna do that” you’re going to say, willfully uncomprehending that you’re reinforcing my point and pretending you just got a gotcha. Get real.
It’s comically bold to talk about dignified discourse while casually throwing out homophobic phrases like “take the dick out of your throat”.
At any rate, your true colors are showing brightly enough that I, empowered consumer that I am, will see myself out of this conversation. Enjoy your iPhone 15 Pro Max that you just had to buy. Truly, it must be hard.
“Oh shit that was embarrassing, better pretend to be smugly aloof and then ‘abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past’.”
Literally every time. Do you people get a phrasebook or something?