Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Hardware

Too Many New Smartphone Models Released Each Year: Survey (livemint.com) 191

Posted by msmash from the what's-enough dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Too Many New Smartphone Models Released Each Year: Survey More

Too Many New Smartphone Models Released Each Year: Survey

Comments Filter:

  • When I don't want to change my phone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @10:42AM (#52712087)
    I don't change my phone.

    • Re:When I don't want to change my phone (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @10:51AM (#52712193) Journal
      Odd, I had the same thought when I read this - I've had the same smartphone for a bit over three years now, and it still works just fine. I fully expect I'll keep it at least another two or three years.

      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)

        by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @11:07AM (#52712361)

        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.

        • 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.

          • 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)

            by pla ( 258480 )
            wondering how GMOs would help.

            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

            • 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)

              by CanadianMacFan ( 1900244 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @12:47PM (#52713339)

              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)

                by dargaud ( 518470 )
                But a perennial plant has much deeper roots and is usually more resistant to drought and pests because of this. Anyway, although there's plenty of research on that, no annual crop has been converted to perennial yet with success, GMO or not.

          • 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.

        • To be fair, smartphone makers could put more emphasis on making the phones last longer as opposed to developing more models. But then that is a failing of capitalism in general, because the whole system encourages companies to sell more.

          • Re: When I don't want to change my phone (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @12:10PM (#52712915)

            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.

            • The point is, I believe that is the real comment that Greenpeace is trying to make; that people who always buy the latest shiny shiny are destroying the planet-- as if we didn't already know that. And again, I understand that no one will buy it because that's how capitalism works and it's quite sad. People don't buy the things the planet needs them to.

            • 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)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              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

              • 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.
                 

            • 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)

            • 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)

          • 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)

          by swb ( 14022 )

          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.

        • 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?

      • 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)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @01:29PM (#52713871) Journal

        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)

          by pla ( 258480 )
          My 3YO iPhone runs iOS 9.3.4 just fine. By all accounts, even though Apple is upping the base memory going forward, 10 will still need to support 16GB models, so I should have no problem there, either. I fully expect at least another two years before I can't upgrade it anymore, and should safely have a year or two past that before it becomes dangerously insecure due to lack of patching.

          As for Androids, end of "support" has more to do with vendor lock-in than anything else - But fortunately, Androids are

    • 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.

    • I don't change my phone.

      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...."

      • are people really that stupid?

        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)

      by xystren ( 522982 )

      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)

    by Desler ( 1608317 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @10:43AM (#52712101)

    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...

    • 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

      • So I wonder how much of a sales boost a phone manufacturer would get for a model advertised as having an easy to replace battery and an easily repair screen? Lets say that meant the phone was a bit thicker and had a bit wider bezel. I would buy it, but what about the masses?

        • 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)

        by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @12:17PM (#52712977) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by dj245 ( 732906 )

          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

      • > 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)

      by ranton ( 36917 )

      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.

  • Prefer to change? (Score:5, Funny)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @10:44AM (#52712117) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:Prefer to change? (Score:5, Funny)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @11:19AM (#52712465)

      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.

      • Oh, you hipsters with your fancy telephones and telegraphs. I write letters! I carve them into stone tablets and ship them using the USPS. None of that fancy UPS for me.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      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)

    by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @10:50AM (#52712171)

    "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)

      by MitchDev ( 2526834 )

      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)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @11:07AM (#52712351)

      "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"...

      • "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:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @11:08AM (#52712375)

      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.

    • 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.

      • 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)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @11:26AM (#52712529) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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.

    • 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

      • "Hipster: Baaaaaaaaaaa...... "

        That's how you post reads...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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)

      by nnull ( 1148259 )
      Many carriers offer trade ins for old phones where the price can be equal or below a $100. So there's quite a bit of incentive to switch to a newer phone, especially when many phone models become obsolete and unsupported the moment the manufacturer ships them.
  • It isn't the number of products, it's the quality. For instance, look at how Samsung responded to the camera glass issue with their S7. So all these new versions coming out, and if you happen to have purchased one that works, why spend money on a gamble?

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @10:59AM (#52712273)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I always like that Nokia 5190 I had years ago. That was the best cell phone I ever had as far as reliability and durability went. Although th LG flip phone I have for work is also surprisingly reliable and has held up to abuse quite well.
  • I mean, there's just too many cars, too! I mean, you have to buy them, but there's a new one every year! What is this? Call of Duty!?

  • Stupid consumers... (Score:3)

    by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @11:00AM (#52712287)
    What the fuck does new device availability have to do with "having to buy a new phone"? My phone is over two years old and I plan on getting 4+ years out of it. It does what I need it to do. It's a tool, you replace it when it needs replacement/updating based on functionality not just because there is a newer one. Everyone wonders why people are broke, have no retirement savings, etc. This is why, abysmal money management skills.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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.

  • 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.

  • . . . 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)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

      . . . 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)

        by Salgak1 ( 20136 )

        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.

  • 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

  • People lie now in survey. They say what is PC, but always think and do the contrary. If they'd really think there are too many smartphones released every year, they'd stop changing phone every 6 months. I'm sure Samsung would stop releasing 35 versions of it's Galaxy line if people would simply, you know, stop buying them when their previous phone is still as good.

    • 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)

    by green1 ( 322787 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @11:43AM (#52712661)

    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.

  • I had a Droid and a Droid 3. It felt like after a year of use it would start running slower and the battery wouldn't hold a fraction of a charge that it used to. After 18 months they were almost unusable (coincidentally that was about the time Verizon would offer me an upgrade). Now I have a OnePlus phone that I purchased two years ago. As far as I can tell it runs as well as day one. I'm not sure if the Motorola phones were crap or if it is a matter of forced obsolescence, but I have almost no desire
  • The market reality is that mobile tech is still advancing quickly enough that if a company doesn't release a new model every year, people shopping for a new device will simply not buy their 1.5 year old model. So a 1 year release interval is going to remain the norm until the rate of technological advancement slows down. That's what happened with Intel. In the early 1990s, after 1.5 years your CPU was 2x slower than the newest and you felt compelled to upgrade. By the 2000s this interval had stretched t

  • 1st world problems (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Artem S. Tashkinov ( 764309 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2016 @12:09PM (#52712901) Homepage

    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.

  • Too many deodorants! Government needs to step in and put a stop to this waste! Let's wreck the economy... for humanity! /Bernie Sanders

  • 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

  • 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)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      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.

  • 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)

    by piojo ( 995934 )

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close