Too Many New Smartphone Models Released Each Year: Survey (livemint.com) 191
An anonymous reader writes: Consumers think smartphone makers are releasing too many new models each year, a survey showed on Tuesday. The survey conducted in six countries, commissioned by the environmental group Greenpeace, showed that more than half of those who responded would prefer to change their phones less frequently. Handset devices are one of the most frequently replaced electronics products. The top cellphone companies, Samsung and Apple, launch new flagship phone models at least once every year, showing off the latest display and mobile processor technologies. Phone makers typically upgrade their cheaper lineups as well. "Over half of respondents across the countries surveyed agree that manufacturers are releasing too many new models, many designed to only last a few years," said Chih An Lee, global IT campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia. "In fact, most users actually want their phones to be more easily dismantled, repaired and recycled."
When I don't want to change my phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Insightful)
When I don't want to play along with the upgrade treadmill... I don't.
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the people who are behind the survey realize this, but just simply object to new smartphones coming out as often as they do.
But this is kind of typical of Greenpeace, actually. They like to distort the truth wherever it suits them. And no, I'm not talking about climate change, I'm talking about deliberately holding back technologies that can solve climate change, such as nuclear energy and GMO, which they oppose at any cost, even when there's overwhelming evidence in favor of these technologies.
Re: (Score:3)
Agree on the nuclear energy being able to mitigate climate change but wondering how GMOs would help. Not a foe of GMOs as I believe GMOs are a net plus and beneficial to the food supply, just trying to figure out how they mitigate climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious argument would be that GMOs allow farmers to grow more food with less effort, which translates into less fossil fuel used to produce the food. Whether that is a significant impact, I don't know. I didn't find much in the way of real data in a quick Googling.
Re: (Score:2)
Making otherwise fairly fragile grains salt and/or drought tolerant, as the most straightforward. Making more food-crops nitrogen-fixing so we don't need fertilizer. Converting annual crops into perennials, which drastically reduces soil erosion and runoff.
Now, you might fairly point out that we can do all that "naturally", no need for GMOs... Which I agree with, but what might take decades or even centuries to breed into a plant naturally, we can do overnight thanks to
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally or via radiation, which both entail shitloads of risk [soylent.com] and have produced toxic results in the past.
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Interesting)
But if you turn annual crops into perennials you lose the advantages of crop rotation. The crop will become more at risk to pests, weeds, and fungus. The point of rotating the crop is if one of these gets into the field one year it won't have anything to feed on for a number of years and dies out (usually rotates on a seven year cycle). By keeping it a perennial crop you will also lose the chance to plant nitrogen-fixing crops that is normal in a crop rotation schedule. Both of these will cause the use of chemicals and fertilizers to be increased.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GMOs increase yield per invested unit of energy. That means less fertilizer run-off, less pesticide use, less manufacture and transport of fertilizer and pesticides, less driving the tractor all over millions of acres of land, and so forth.
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Informative)
GMO's allow for the use of more pesticides, a necessity in monoculture farming but not a boon for the environment.
Actually, GMO crops such as BT corn use less pesticides. "Roundup-Ready" crops allow the use of milder herbicides, since they can be sprayed when weeds are growing, rather than harsher chemicals that can kill seeds. RR crops also encourage "no-till" farming that can greatly reduce erosion and water pollution.
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, sadly, the thought of taste and nutritional value of food is WAAAAAY down the list of important attributes of the industrial food system.
I feel sorry for kids today, not knowing what a REAL tomato is actually supposed to taste like....that it even is supposed to HAVE a taste.
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahhh the no true tomato fallacy. Implying that the taste has something magical to do specifically with pesticides and GMO rather than the fact that there are many different types of tomatoes in the world which taste different and a subset of which are chosen in specific areas due to their ability to grow well in a given location and the environment under which it grew.
Yes there is one REAL tomato which is the only one that tastes good.
Incidentally the last person who told me that about apples never found out that I wasn't even able to finish eating the sour REAL apple that I was supposed to eat and it ended up in the bin while his back was turned. I have equally high hopes for your idea of what a tomato should taste like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel sorry for kids today, not knowing what a REAL tomato is actually supposed to taste like
Nice rant, except there are no GMO tomatoes currently being sold anywhere. The tomatoes in the supermarket are bland because they are picked early, and then artificially ripened with ethylene. It has nothing to do with GMO.
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Informative)
Roundup-ready corn is off patent now, so no need for Monsanto. That said, there is a Roundup Ready 2 from Monsanto, but they original is available from several companies. Roundup's patent has expired too.
Re: (Score:2)
Corn is old-hat. RR Soy is what everyone wants now. RR-Bt corn is probably great stuff, though; especially since Bt is a great source of essential amino acids (the Bt protein doesn't make it past the stomach in tact; if it did, the pancreatic juice would destroy what's left anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
RR Soy is what everyone wants now.
RR-soy went off patent in 2011. You can grow all you want, save the seed, etc. RR-canola is still patented until 2022.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, smartphone makers could put more emphasis on making the phones last longer as opposed to developing more models.
Customers want their phones to be thin and inexpensive. Almost nobody is going to buy an expensive, rugged phone. Likewise it is silly to say that customers "want" phones that are "easy to repair". The real question is how much they are willing to pay for that. Answer: almost nothing.
We don't have rugged repairable phones because those phones failed in the marketplace and are no longer available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is screaming for the phones to be thinner anymore? What I see on the comments when new phones are announced and they are thinner is that people want them to be the same thickness or even a bit thicker and have longer batter life.
Re: (Score:2)
I am guessing retailers since the shipping costs are lower for smaller and lighter products...
Re: (Score:2)
Customers want their phones to be thin and inexpensive.
High end, expensive phones are still quite popular though. Even the cheapest iPhone is expensive and still sells well, and is rather fragile. People clearly do want a robust phone though, which is why they buy bumpers and cases to protect them, and consider things like the latest Gorilla Glass a desirable feature. Waterproofing is popular too. It just gas to look good too.
I'm surprised no phone manufacturer has released a high end phone that simply comes with a case. That's clearly what people want, shiny o
Re: (Score:2)
The current generation of high end iPhones pretty mandates you get a case. They come with smooth, slippery, rounded sides, making it easy to lose grip of when juggling a bag, a latte and the phone. I necessarily need a phone that can survive a drop, if I'm not going to drop it.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have rugged repairable phones because those phones failed in the marketplace and are no longer available./quote.
I see the theory behind your post and in an ideal world, maybe that would be true. But the reality is that the same drive for profit that, in theory, should motivate the seller to make the best product by their customers also drives them to cut costs and a raft of other things that are not in the interest of the consumer.
Let's take Apple's move to discontinue the analog headphone jack. It could be argued that nobody is asking for this. It will certainly obsolete a lot of existing peripherals for no real benefit to the end user... so why would Apple do it? The product is arguably one of the most desired products on the market. Why tamper with a good thing? It certainly doesn't seem as though they have the customer in mind when making this change.
That is one example. Another is the supply channel. If Amazon (for example), decides to not carry a particular product... how likely is it that the product will be bought? So, really, Amazon is the customer that counts more than you do in a company's product calculations. The company will design their product to make Amazon happy (make it smaller and lighter so the shipping costs are lower, etc.) and not really care about what you need/want.
Now, obviously, if people don't buy the product, then that is ultimately what will determine whether or not the company makes the product. But that is after all the other calculations are made. At the end of the day a company is only motivated to make a product that is "good enough" so that it appeals to the largest number of people possible while maintaining all of the other criteria (ie. lowest common denominator)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have rugged repairable phones because those phones failed in the marketplace and are no longer available.
I see someone doesn't actually watch the market place. There's more rugged phones out now than ever before. Even in the standard phone lineup there's emphasis on water resistance and material design that is targeting maximum durability for a given design (see bend gate)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they used higher-speed chips on current technologies, then the phone battery life would be lower. The phone would run hotter. The chips cost more outright.
You're talking about "the technology actually doesn't exist" and "the technology is clunky, power-hungry, and expensive." Many of these new phones are at the leading-edge of high technology, using low-power processes and the highest feasible execution rates, along with heterogeneous processing (slow and fast cores at the same time, rather th
Re: (Score:3)
And no, I'm not talking about climate change, I'm talking about deliberately holding back technologies that can solve climate change, such as nuclear energy and GMO, which they oppose at any cost, even when there's overwhelming evidence in favor of these technologies.
Their solution to every problem is to have everyone cold and hungry, huddling in the dark.
And it does solve all the problems, except for the ones involving being cold and hungry and in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the people who are behind the survey realize this, but just simply object to new smartphones coming out as often as they do.
I can imagine the questions:
1.) Would you like to have a phone that does everything you want it to and never needs to be replaced?
2.) Do you think that your phone should be easy to be repaired and recycled?
Re: (Score:2)
I just upgraded my mobile computer Galaxy Note 4 (From a Note 3) buying used on Amazon. While it looks shiny I see no reason for a Note7 (or what ever they're up to now).
My phone is a Kyocera DuraPlus [amazon.com] and have no reason to replace it.
Re:When I don't want to change my phone (Score:5, Informative)
That's a nice idea, but where can you buy a smartphone that gets security updates for 3-6+ years? Most Android phones get them for a year if you're very lucky, iPhones seem to get 3 years of support (counting from initial release date for that model - less if you buy them after that). Given the kinds of vulnerabilities that we're seeing on Android, I'd be as nervous about connecting one to WiFi without the latest security updates as I would of connecting a Windows PC directly to the Internet in the late '90s.
I'd love to see manufacturers made liable for providing new phones for customers if they don't provide fixes for fix security holes for 4-6 years.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Androids, end of "support" has more to do with vendor lock-in than anything else - But fortunately, Androids are
Re: (Score:2)
I used a Qualcomm QCP-1900 from the spring of 1998 until the summer of 2015 -- at $10/month $.10/min, which I only used very occasionally -- until nTelos (originally PrimeCo) sold their spectrum in our area to Sprint and they didn't support my phone. I got a Kyocera Hydro Vibe with Ting and imagine this combination will be fine for my use cases for the foreseeable future.
I still have my (and my wife's) QCP-1900 phones if anyone wants them :-) Or, let me know if there's somewhere I can donate them.
Re: (Score:3)
This. When I read the summary and it mentioned that people don't like upgrading their phones so often, my first thought was "I've been using the same phone for years, what does the introduction of new phones have to do with when people get new phones?".
My second thought was "are people really that stupid???"
And my third was "why did I have that thought? Of course people are that stupid...."
Re: (Score:2)
maybe
However, I think you are interpreting this in an over-intelligent manner. The average numbskull probably supposes that if the manufacturer went on making a "Smart-doodad 2" for 3 years instead of one, then the software would get more iterations, and hopefully, more debugging. You and I know that the scumbags would happily sell the same bug-infested bloatware for three years. Unfortunately, the reviewers go bleating on about how "the competitor's one is better cos its 0.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't change my phone.
How true...I'm still on my Blackberry Q10, and before that, was on a Palm Treo, and before that, Samsung N400 and that's my life history of my cell phone usage. Of course I'm leaving out employment provided/on-call cell phones.
This whole planned obsolesce marketing strategy is becoming overkill when it comes to cell phones, especially with the frequency of new models being upgraded. I find it completely fascinating how the "sheep" fall into line with this marketing ploy.
I have been saying for years, that I
I'm a consumer whore! And how!! (Score:4, Insightful)
peace, showed that more than half of those who responded would prefer to change their phones less frequently
Then simply don't replace your phone as often? Just because a new phone is released doesn't mean you have to rush out and buy it...
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent job on reading the entire first half of the summary. I'm sure you were close to reading the second half before you posted.
The summary actually says:
"In fact, most users actually want their phones to be more easily dismantled, repaired and recycled."
ie. Manufacturers only seem interested in releasing new models, not in making models that will last a long time.
It doesn't say anywhere that people feel like they're being forced to upgrade.
Me? Count me in. I just need something that lasts a long time. Changing phones is a pain in the ass, megapixels (or whatever) are completely unimportant to me in a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The masses don't replace their own screens, so how difficult it is doesn't matter, just how much it costs to get someone else to do it; price seems to vary more by shop than by model as far as I can tell (corrections welcome). And judging by the number of people who walk around staring at the screen oblivious to all else, I'd say forethought and disaster preparedness isn't the selling point you might think.
When it comes to batteries I'm of two minds: now the battery in my phone is dying I'd like to be able
Re:I'm a consumer whore! And how!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it depends.
Many new-model phones are based on the latest reasonable tech. That $400 OnePlus Three uses a state-of-the-art Qualcomm processor with six cores operating in heterogeneous mode--slow and fast cores run at the same time, allowing for power scaling without scaling the whole system down. You can get eight-core or eight-and-eight core phones, if you want to pay $1,000 for them, too.
Packing more cores into the phone doesn't necessarily improve performance. Down the line, your 4-core phone might not be outperformed by an 8-core phone of the same speed; yet the new phones have 4-core processors running at 1.5 the clock rate, with more-efficient processors, consuming less battery and executing at 3x the computational speed. New applications and the sheer load of the stuff you're already running increase, and your phone doesn't work so well anymore.
So a phone that's "Made to last" might require technology that costs 4x as much, eats battery at 6x the rate, and halves the replacement rate. Overall, that phone will cost you twice as much (costs x 4, lifetime x 2). A phone that's made on the state-of-the-art might last 2-3 years, at a stretch.
Then someone releases a new graphics standard, and your phone is incapable of using certain things. Not really important on a phone; it's not like you need the latest OpenGL/Vulcan to run Android.
People think the manufacturers are purposely making phones to wear out after 1-2 years. They don't want to pony up $1,400 for a phone that'll still run well in 6 years, all the while running nearly hot enough to burn a hole in your pocket, with a 4-hour battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it depends.
Many new-model phones are based on the latest reasonable tech. That $400 OnePlus Three uses a state-of-the-art Qualcomm processor with six cores operating in heterogeneous mode--slow and fast cores run at the same time, allowing for power scaling without scaling the whole system down. You can get eight-core or eight-and-eight core phones, if you want to pay $1,000 for them, too.
Packing more cores into the phone doesn't necessarily improve performance. Down the line, your 4-core phone might not be outperformed by an 8-core phone of the same speed; yet the new phones have 4-core processors running at 1.5 the clock rate, with more-efficient processors, consuming less battery and executing at 3x the computational speed. New applications and the sheer load of the stuff you're already running increase, and your phone doesn't work so well anymore.
So a phone that's "Made to last" might require technology that costs 4x as much, eats battery at 6x the rate, and halves the replacement rate. Overall, that phone will cost you twice as much (costs x 4, lifetime x 2). A phone that's made on the state-of-the-art might last 2-3 years, at a stretch.
Then someone releases a new graphics standard, and your phone is incapable of using certain things. Not really important on a phone; it's not like you need the latest OpenGL/Vulcan to run Android.
People think the manufacturers are purposely making phones to wear out after 1-2 years. They don't want to pony up $1,400 for a phone that'll still run well in 6 years, all the while running nearly hot enough to burn a hole in your pocket, with a 4-hour battery life.
You could have made all the same points (minus the multicore discussion) in the 1990s/early 2000s about desktop PCs. Nowadays, the notion of upgrading or replacing a PC or laptop every 2-3 years seems somewhat archaic. Any powerful PC/laptop today generally remains so for 3-5 years now. The lack of major desktop/laptop processor advancements has been going on so long now that people don't even talk about it, because it is irrelevant for most people. SSDs were the last upgrade worth having, and those ar
Re: (Score:2)
> Manufacturers only seem interested in releasing new
> models, not in making models that will last a long
> time.
Really? A buddy of mine didn't upgrade from his 4S until earlier this year when Apple released the SE (Basically the body of the 5s, but with much of the guts of the 6s inside.) That comes out to a lifetime of about 4.5 years. And while that's not as long as those old-school Nokia candybars; it's not bad for something that gets the use and abuse of a phone. How long do you *expect* a
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I would say there aren't enough smartphone models, or at least enough variety in them. I'm still waiting for a 6"-6.2" 1440 x 2560 smartphone with a flagship processor and 4500+ mAh battery but don't see any hope on the horizon. Any fantasies that the increased Galaxy S7 Edge screen size would push up the Note series size were fruitless so I'll be sticking with my Note 4 for some time now. I'm in no rush to buy the Note 7 just because my phone is two years old, since it is basically the same phone.
Re: I'm a consumer whore! And how!! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you care about sw availability after 3 years:
* Buy from a manufacturer already known for supporting their stuff that long. Skip the slackers, no matter how cool their current short-lived model is.
* Cyanogen support many old phones, so consider manufacturers who makes it easy to do that. Then, upgrade to cyanogen sw when the manufacturer end their support.
Re: (Score:2)
A manufacturer might have different policies for high end and low end/midrange? Changes over time?
e.g. I think something at least half-way good was said about LG phones, but I know of an about 3-year-old LG, cheap midrange, that has absolutely nothing to update it with.
Carrier-branded, or semi-branded phones can be all over the place, depending on carriers and country I guess. No Cyanogen support whatsoever. unless there are exceptions.
The one bad thing is when you only have unsupported phones to play with,
Prefer to change? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prefer to change? (Score:5, Funny)
If you prefer to change your device less frequently, then don't change it. I have an iPhone 4s and it runs the latest iOS. I think the going rate for one is about $60 unlocked. I only get laughed at by hipsters with the 6+ gigantic iPhones in huge otterbox cases. But then I let the air out of their fixie bike tires and they aren't laughing any more.
That's rich .. I'm still using an original 10 year old RAZR flip phone. From my point of view *you* are the hipster, what with all your fancy Apps .. which (dare I say) are for cows.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But then I let the air out of their fixie bike tires and they aren't laughing any more.
Posers. A real hipster uses tires made of wood. And wears a bowler and has a handlebar mustache.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The survey conducted in six countries, commissioned by the environmental group Greenpeace, showed that more than half of those who responded would prefer to change their phones less frequently. "
I'm sorry, is there some law that says just because a new phone comes out you HAVE to throw the old one away and change to it?
Fucking sheep...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and the fact that this is a "study" from the nutjobs at Greenpeace lends Sooooooooooooooooooo much credence to it as well...
Re: (Score:2)
Ad-hominem, good one. That kind of argument really lends Sooooooooooooooooooo much credence to it...
I bothered to check the actual source material from here [greenpeace.org], which includes links to spreadsheets of the raw data.
The "too many new models" thing is just a small part of the questionnaire, which is asking it in the context of it creating pressure to upgrade. If there was no new iPhone this year, how many people would simply keep their older iPhone for another year? How many parents wouldn't be pestered by their
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The survey conducted in six countries, commissioned by the environmental group Greenpeace, showed that more than half of those who responded would prefer to change their phones less frequently. "
I'm sorry, is there some law that says just because a new phone comes out you HAVE to throw the old one away and change to it?
Fucking sheep...
I think the law is "security updates don't come to old Android devices"...
Re: (Score:2)
"The survey conducted in six countries, commissioned by the environmental group Greenpeace, showed that more than half of those who responded would prefer to change their phones less frequently. "
I'm sorry, is there some law that says just because a new phone comes out you HAVE to throw the old one away and change to it?
Fucking sheep...
I think the law is "security updates don't come to old Android devices"...
That is a law that can be rather safely ignored given the list of wild exploits of security flaws making the rounds currently stands at zero despite the very large number of flaws that exist. It's just not worth the effort when social engineering is both more portable and cross platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever your do, Just don't every download ANYTHING from an illegal Chinese porn site.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sorry, is there some law that says just because a new phone comes out you HAVE to throw the old one away and change to it?
Fucking sheep...
No, but there is a law against fucking sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
Just walk away slowly, walk backwards keeping your eye on him....
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, is there some law that says just because a new phone comes out you HAVE to throw the old one away and change to it?
Not exactly. But because the devices are difficult and thus unnecessarily expensive to repair, they often get thrown away when they could reasonably be repaired if they weren't designed specifically to discourage that.
Re: (Score:2)
Reliability of the device is a different issue entirely than just "Wahhhhh, there's a new device, I won't be cool without it!" stupidity espoused in the story...
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since manufacturers tend to abandon most of their products the moment they ship, failing to provide software security updates, there can be good reasons to upgrade cheap phones often. The more expensive ones that most people do keep for 2+ years tend to get updates.
It's becoming less of a problem as companies like OnePlus release cheap but fairly well supported and powerful phones, but if you walk into the average phone shop most of the crap they have on the shelves has been abandoned already.
Re: (Score:2)
So the companies should be rewarded by people buying their "we'll force it to be outdated in less than six months anyway" process?
Right, sounds liek you are a sheep for supporting those practices.
Did they ask how many people wanted old tech? (Score:3, Interesting)
I get a brand new phone every 2 years for free. I paid into the system once about 6 years ago, and now the sales price (or trade in value) of my 2 year old phone is equal to or higher than the brand-spanking-newest phone on the market. Now when I say "free" what I mean is that I don't pay any more to have a new phone than I would pay for identical service if I were to keep my phone forever. My plan rate is basically fixed no matter what device I use.
So instead of having a CDMA locked phone with dial-up mode
Re: (Score:2)
"Hipster: Baaaaaaaaaaa...... "
That's how you post reads...
Re: (Score:3)
If the major manufacturers only released new flagship phones every two years, they would support them for longer, and you could keep using them for longer. If the current lifespan is two years with yearly new models, then it should go to three or four years if they release new models half as fast.
It sounds like US carriers could do something about it too. In the UK and Japan it's much, much cheaper to pay for a SIM only contract and use a phone you already own than to get a phone on contract. A contract pho
Re: (Score:2)
Stand By Your Products (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars, too! (Score:2)
Stupid consumers... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because a typical 4 year old phone, even one that was a high end flagship at the time, won't run Pokemon Go and Snapchat and all the other bloated apps that people like these days. In other words, you are not a typical consumer of smartphones.
Every second core model (Score:2)
The rate of smartphone release and the myriad of options is incredible. On a typical life of a smartphone I will skip an entire generation. Then within each generation even if you limit to flagship models only and even if you have a preference for a single vendor there's still an incredible choice. So now I'm sitting here wondering if I should get a Galaxy S7, S7 active, S7 edge, S7 edge plus, and that's before looking at other manufacturers or daring to pick a cheaper phone, or consider a phablet.
I COUNT on people paying the bleeding-edge tax (Score:2)
. . . and selling their perfectly-good, last-year's new-hotness phone for a small percentage of their purchase price.
. . .and people like me buy them, and have a solid, reliable, stable phone without paying the premium price for the extra 12 square millimeters of display space.
Heck, my family of 4 has 4 perfectly good Galaxy S3's, in good protective cases and with add-on Gorilla Glass protectors. . . for half of the retail price of a Galaxy S6. . .
Re: (Score:2)
. . . and selling their perfectly-good, last-year's new-hotness phone for a small percentage of their purchase price.
. . .and people like me buy them, and have a solid, reliable, stable phone without paying the premium price for the extra 12 square millimeters of display space.
Heck, my family of 4 has 4 perfectly good Galaxy S3's, in good protective cases and with add-on Gorilla Glass protectors. . . for half of the retail price of a Galaxy S6. . .
Enjoying those security vulnerabilities?
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that it's the carrier that determines which version of Android they support, I live with the risk, am careful of the few apps I run, and keep antimalware on the phone.
Roll out the new models... (Score:2)
I'm perfectly happy with them rolling out new models in a non-stop stream. I have a 3 year old phone and it works fine for me. Thanks to the never-ending roll out of new phones a 1 year old model (which is also going to be just fine to me) is going to be heavily discounted because they're pushing "this-year's model".
When I do chose to update, I'll buy a new phone that is a model or two out of date and save $100s. Constantly spewing out slightly better phones is good news for the smart consumer who unders
Newsflash (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People DON'T want to have to change their phones, it's true - it's a pain in the ass. What they didn't ask is if people preferred to have phones that are no longer supported or have significantly inferior components. There's nothing wrong with an iPhone 3Gs. Personally, I think it was the most ergonomic model. But it's no linger supported, doesn't get OS security patches, most apps won't run on it any more and the camera, let's face it, sucks ass compared to today's phones. Just go back 2-3 years and you s
too often? or too many? (Score:5, Insightful)
They could release an updated model every day for all I care, I'll replace my phone when I need a new phone, not because they released something new.
Where I think the real problem comes in is that many manufacturers have a dozen different models of phone, all of which are almost the same thing with little to differentiate them, and names and descriptions that make it hard to tell which one is supposed to be better than which.
When it does come time for a new phone it's very difficult to figure out which of a couple dozen phones from a dozen manufacturers is supposed to be better than which other one.
Sure I know that a Galaxy S7 is supposed to be better than the S6 which is better than the S5, but where does the S5 neo fit in? it's newer than the S5 so it should be between the S5 and the S6 right? except it turns out they used a cheaper processor than the S5 so it's actually bellow the S5. And where do the J1 and J3 fit in? and how about the A5? and what about the "grand prime"? These are all listed by Samsung as current devices, about the only ones that are easy to understand are the Note and Edge devices because they're relatively clear about what they have that differentiate them from the others.
Their website gives all sorts of superlatives for each device, but you have to dig to find specs, and then trying to compare the specs is often difficult as they use different terminology or focus on different aspects.
Manufacturers need to do a better job of communicating what makes their phone different from the dozens of others, and they should probably stick to a much smaller lineup unless they can find some real differentiators to separate their offerings.
The phone made me buy a new one (Score:2)
Surveys vs. market reality (Score:2)
1st world problems (Score:3, Insightful)
I can only say, fuck you.
If bringing in the car analogy, it's like people bemoaning the fact that automobile companies often refresh their cars ... every fucking year. Well, the truth is they really do, and no one forces you to update your car every 12 months.
So, moar stupid polls, more 1st world problems.
also... (Score:2)
Too many deodorants! Government needs to step in and put a stop to this waste! Let's wreck the economy... for humanity! /Bernie Sanders
"a better solution" (Score:2)
Leela: Granted, we later learned some positive things about recycling. But
a better solution is to use our electronics as long as possible, instead
of throwing them out in the first place. I'm gonna start by keeping my
old cell phone, even if it is outdated.
Announcer: With the new eyePhone, you can watch, listen, ignore your
friends, stalk your ex, download porno on a crowded bus, even check your
E-mail while getting hit by a train. All with the new eyePhone.
Mom (v.o.): From Mom.
Leela: A new eyePhone? Forget th
Less crippled (Score:2)
I want the cheap phones to not be crippled with inadequately small storage, non-removable bloatware, and to be finally killed by pushed updates that cripple it to the point of not being able to make calls (i.e. with the bloatware updates and uses of the few remaining megabytes of storage).
Both our previous phones were through Virgin Mobile, and within about 9 months, with almost no additional apps, they became frustratingly slow and useless. So 2 years ago I plunked down way too much for an unlocked iphone
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks that you have to overpay for overkill hardware to avoid getting an unsupported bloated POS.
Buy an unlocked dumbphone and put it on your Ting plan. The phone OS is so simple and no apps -- so little way to compromise it. I'd just use a tablet for mobile browsing. It isn't a smartphone OS so it wont require much in the way of resources and will keep its responsiveness for the life the handset. The battery will likely be replaceable for cheap on eBay. And it will get shitloads more battery time verses a smartphone.
Would also complain that there are no new phones (Score:2)
These same people complaining that new phones are coming out too often are the same people that would be complaining if they brought out model less often that the models are too old when they individually decide to upgrade.
People just like to complain.
Junk (Score:2)
I've got high standards and a big mouth. Is there any way I could participate in focus groups or alpha-testing to tell companies what's wrong with their devices before they launch? I've had most of the flagship phones (one from each manufacturer) and while I love them, I've had serious complaints about each. I don't know who they have doing the testing!
Are there testing programs I could apply to join? I'm not interested in a full time job, but I'm a heavy user and find multiple problems per week when I have
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Greenpeace is WORSE than anything you can imagine.
That's not true. I just imagined Greenwar, which is almost exactly like Greenpeace but much more violent. That's worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than the French (foreign intelligence services) - who sunk the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior [wikipedia.org] in 1985?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I finished reading TFS at the words "paid for by Greenpeace.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than Trump?
Perhaps, but Greenpeace isn't running for President with a captive audience of roughly half the US voting population who will probably give him their votes just because they won't vote for the other candidate. So, while one might be worse, one certainly has the potential to cause much more damage.
Re: (Score:2)
FRAGILE thousand-dollar accessories. So they become disposable, whether you want to, or not.
But a rugged, shock-and-shatterproof phone would run counter to the tendency for ever-thinner, ever-lighter phones.
Re: (Score:3)
Hah, busted!
Everyone knows Millennials can't get credit!
/ Well, aside from hundreds of thousands of dollars in federally-backed student loans...
Re: (Score:2)