Slashdot Mirror
Apple Expects Users To Replace Their iPhone, Apple Watch After Three Years
Apple says it expects its users to replace their iPhone and Apple Watch after (more like, every) three years. The company adds that it expects a Mac user to replace their computer after four years. The iPhone maker shared the expectations in a recently released document as part of its latest environmental push. In the document, Apple underscores how much its products contribute to the greenhouse gas lifecycle. The Guardian reports: Within a new question and answer section Apple said: "Years of use, which are based on first owners, are assumed to be four years for OS X and tvOS devices and three years for iOS and watchOS devices." That assessment doesn't take into account the recycling of devices, their reconditioning and their resale, of course, but when you buy a new iPhone 6S for $649 (starting price, off-contract), Apple expects it to last three years, something many suspected. Apple has been accused of intentionally slowing down iPhones every time a new one is released, although there is little evidence to support the theory.Also see: Apple's Recycling Initiatives Recover $40 Million In Gold
Apple doesn't "expect" customers to replace their phones after three years. Apple "assumes" that they do this, which is very different.
How often Apple expects people to keep a device before eating a new one, and how long Apple expects devices to last, are very different things...
And the summary even hints at that by noting the refurbishment program.
I think it's absurd to claim Apple's simply analyzing how long people generally keep things means anything more than understanding the consumer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why?
Unless it breaks, I see no reason to replace my phone.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Marketing will tell you that you want to change the product. Technologically you probably do not need to change it every three years. The product will probably work for ten to twenty years before it fails (excluding batteries) and it will in many cases still function as it does now in ten to twenty years. Software is the limiting factor these days and the majority of walled garden products can and will be disabled by their marketing departments. If you think that this is a scam to screw more money out of the customer then you are right. There is a reason why Goldman Sachs refers to customers as "Mugs".
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Said someone who has never had two same model devices side by side with a full version number difference of 2 or greater.
Just try an ipad 2 on ios 6 then try it on ios 8 or 9.
That old unupdated ipad can run circles around the one that someone has been trying to keep up to date.
There is no question that the newer os's are slower on older hardware. Which makes it all the more of a pita they don't allow you to downgrade the os to versions that were actually designed to run on that hardware.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
of being unusable. It was pretty amazing how much faster iOS got on the 5S with 9.2.1, which came after the uproar from customers and threat of lawsuits.
This may have made sense in previous years, when there were a lot of new and innovative features being added each year, security was dramatically improving, and hardware speeds were climbing rapidly. That's no longer happening. Year to year, there's very little difference between phones except for modest, incremental improvements, and new styles and colors.
You see this happening *right now* with the PC. The market is "stagnating" (I say it's just stabilized) in part because there's absolutely no point to replacing a four year old PC unless you've got some exceptionally demanding requirements. It's probably only reached mid-life, assuming it was half-way decent when you bought it.
I'm pretty sure the trend of replacing phones rapidly will continue for a few years, but I think as people realize the big innovations have already occurred, they'll be less enamored with the notion of paying $400-800 for a smartphone that's only marginally better than the one they currently have. Sure, there will always be the die-hards who trade in their phone each year or two, but I really believe they'll soon be a vanishing minority.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I would LOVE to replace my 17" macbook pro..... BUT YOU FUCKERS dont make a 17" to replace it with. Some of us do need a portable workstation and NEED a 17" screen with more screen real estate as well as a quad i7 at 3+ghz 32gig of ram and over 1tb of storage space... so fucking give me a choice other than holding onto my 6 year old laptop.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
While I have been dismayed that, at least in my experience, the iPad and iPhone seem to have a deliberate degrading of performance after whatever OS update comes out after 2-3 years of use, my macs typically get between 8-10 years of use. Much more than the 3-5 years of use I get from my PC's.
Reduce - Reuse - Recycle
Reduce - Follow practices that reduce the number of new products that must be made in the first place.
Reuse - When possible, reuse old products to reduce the number of new products that must be made in the long term.
Recycle - When all else fails, recycle old products in order to reduce the effect of making new products.
There is a reason they are presented in this order, it is more environmentally friendly to *not* make something than to make something.
Unfortunately, both industry and most people focus only on the third - recycle. It is obviously not in a business' best interests to produce less products and you would find it easier to pull teeth than ask a consumer to moderate their consumption.
So to Apple, if you are really interested in environmentalism, how about making a product that doesn't have to be replaced every 3-4 years and can be repaired (heck, I might settle for being able to replace the internal battery) and I might take your 'push' more seriously. Oops, that might cut into corporate profits - oh well.
To be fair, the OS argument doesn't apply to iOS devices - Apple actually provides OS updates for a few years after the device stops being rolled.
Why?
Because you can replace it with something faster, lighter, with more memory, a better battery, and greater screen resolution. People often use their phones for hours everyday, and for many people their phone is their main computing device. It is silly to use something inferior if you can easily afford to upgrade. Eventually, phone technology will plateau, but the difference between a phone from 2013 and today is still significant.
CPU,GPU,OS, ??? That is not an answer to the question. Sure these things change over time, sometimes improving. Phone features also go backwards from time to time. No removable storage, No replaceable battery. These are part of a trend to planned obsolescence that manufacturers use to force consumers to buy new phones and recycle or discard the old one. Truly a tragedy given the nature of scarce non renewable resources like rare earths from third world countries with broken governments.
But fundamentally this misses the point. As long as a phone, computer or other device continues to serve the need that it was intended to serve I see no need in replacing it.
I have a family member who owns Apple products; she did not upgrade her phone for 5 years, and didn't upgrade her laptop for 7 years.
So it makes sense to get a new phone every three years because they forcibly slow down your old one despite the fact that it always worked just fine.
Makes sense.
My thoughts, exactly. I don't care if there's newer-and-better-and-faster out there. My 6-yo iPhone on the same iOS it came with are more than enough for my mobile computing and communication needs.
'Why spend more energy to replace what I don't need to' is my argument for not upgrading. This applies to myriad items, such as cars, clothes, etc.
MY advice: spend your extra money on excellent-quality food.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Just because one 'can afford to upgrade' does not mean that one should upgrade to the latest and shiniest.
If you have a reason to upgrade do it, but just saying 'shit gets better buy a new one cheap ass' is not an argument.
my PC is 6+ years old (one of the original i7s) and short of a GPU and SSD upgrade it's running fine too when I used to do near 2 year updates on my PC motherboard.
I too used to do rapid updates of technology.
That being said, while it still doesn't make economic sense, consider that your old i7-920 consumes double the power of a modern chip while being half the speed.
You could get a slower i3-6100 and consume 1/3 the power while still being 50% faster.
Of course there is cost in doing that and it takes time for the power savings to add up, but they are there.
Not intentionally slow down as a design though, it is rather feature creep and lack of control over impulse app installs. I use an iPhone 4S, have for the past two years (first smart phone) with minimal apps, and in fact one of the most recent iOS updates added a great feature that doubled my functional battery life (low power mode). I got through a college environment fine with that, but now starting graduate school and full-time work my battery demands (16+ hours) are beyond what the 4S can support without mid-day recharging. That is the only reason I'll have to update in the next year or so, barring any accidents or theft.
Apple doesn't expect it's users to replace devices every 3 years. The users do this. Apple merely provides the product release cycle and uses these figures as a basis of its environmental report.
Why?
Unless it breaks, I see no reason to replace my phone.
I read this data driven: people DO this, not they want people to do this. They WANT people to buy a new one every year. So, for one reason or another people choose to replace their smart phone within 3 years. This seems right to me, by the 2nd year most of my smartphones have either been obsolete by OS (orig Moto Droid) or the battery life has decayed into impossibility (My Samsung Galaxy Something, or my wife's LG Google Nexus). My iPhone is going strong after 2 years, but I will probably replace it when iPhone++ comes out because I suspect there will be enough new features to justify, and the GPU is getting dated.
Why?
Because you can replace it with something faster, lighter, with more memory, a better battery, and greater screen resolution. People often use their phones for hours everyday, and for many people their phone is their main computing device. It is silly to use something inferior if you can easily afford to upgrade. Eventually, phone technology will plateau, but the difference between a phone from 2013 and today is still significant.
Lighter with better battery? That hasn't been happening for some time now, those damn "phones" just keep getting bigger and more power hungry. Why don't we just start calling them PDAs with a phone module as that is what they really are now.
Why in f***'s sake would I even consider replacing it at this point?
If you wanted to play games at 4k, you'd have to, but for 1080p, it will be ok for awhile.
The CPUs haven't changed much in the past 5 years, everything from Sandy Bridge to Skylake is just minor jumps. What Intel has pushed is power efficency, the modern chips use a lot less power than first-gen Core CPUs.
GPUs have still been going up, but at 1080p a 4 year old GPU is likely still fine.
I have to wonder how Apple viewed this turnover/replacement rate earlier in their lifetime as a company. My current G5 DP PowerMacs have been run HARD since they were new in 2004; they were made well, were *meant* to last, and they still perform like champs, considering their age.
The problem is that I'm brickwalled. My OS version, Pro-level apps (Adobe Suite, Logic, Final Cut, and browsers, plus ancillary apps & utilities) are all as updated as far as the hardware will possibly allow.
The HW is still great, but I'm choking on the dust of all the upgrades that Intel architecture has forced, or demands. And it's not just the hardware that's the problem...coders are creating features and functionalities online that my browsers used to be able to deal with, but they put in so much proprietary "cutting edge" scripting—which my browsers refuse to deal with—without providing any fall-back functionality. Cripes, I can't even access my own damned Soundcloud page, because of all the "improvements" which have been made. The engineers say their pages and features should all work after I have dutifully reported all my system specs and have vehemently promised them that I have followed all suggested troubleshooting procedures. I tell them it doesn't. They got tired of fielding my questions and won't reply anymore. F***K them with fire.
Getting new hardware would only be half of the expense for me...updating all the software I use on a daily basis would cost more than a mid-level fully-tricked iMac...a system that would run circles around my G5s.
My Human Gets Me Blues.
well for me the last opgrade (iphone 5 to iphone 6) was about getting lte on frequencies acctualy used for wide deployment here in Norway iirc the Iphone5 only sopported one band (used by the most exspencime mno here)
Macbook Pro is 8 years old and still going strong. Sorry, no upgrade for me.
My PC is 6. I put a "higher" end CPU ($300'ish) and "plenty" of RAM in it when I built it. I'm on my third video card upgrade. Its still good for videos games. Not the best, won't win the "pissing contests", but it still offers fun gaming experiences with current games.
Try out that new Doom Beta on a four old GPU. Trust me, you'll want to upgrade.
That's about how long I would expect the BATTERY to last, thanks. Replacing the whole device? Forget about it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Both personal and on campus. 3 years on Applecare, 2 years fingers crossed. I ditched the last two MacBooks only after they were about to go on the obsolete list, they still worked fine. Resold for about $300 each, so net $700 on a laptop over 5 years. Price premium? Not if you do it this way. The phones I do every two years with whichever one is free, to keep the coverage. The rebate on the old one helps pay for the Applecare.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
My 2009 iMac 27" is still going strong.
The new iMacs look the same, but "may" have better screens and processors. Mine screen and processor are good enough. I can pass on the new models.
What isn't good is Apple Software. It is seriously behind Windows 10 IMHO.
El Capitan introduced problems with USB and the SDHC card reader, problems only slightly improved with release 10.11.4.
It is not just the El Capitan update, OS X has lost its appeal. The only changes have been slight improvements, improvements that often come with new problems and limitations. iPhoto to Photos is one example.
My iPhone, though I do update about every three years. My 1st generation phone lacked GPS, my previous iPhone lacked LTE. My iPhone 6 should keep me for another 2 or maybe three years.
In my experience with iPhone updates, many of the new features added by iOS updates can be disabled, this enables the new OS to run well on older iPhones. At least my previous iPhone 4S runs fine with OS 9 and makes a good iPod device.
Maybe Satya Nadella will port Office to Linux and make a new market for his products. Then OS X would be superfluous.
It was world-beating when it was new, but now has less processor power than a bargain bin handset. Nevertheless, it's been dutifully in service for 15 years, and for the past 7 or so has been working well as a file server with 9TB of disk. The 5 disks are due for replacement soon, but I still see no reason to replace the system itself. Next year it will be eligible for a driver's license in the US.
Other people find reasons. They want a faster CPU, new OS features, a better camera, more storage, access to new LTE channels, a better screen, longer battery life, maybe even a new color. These are reasons to upgrade. You don't have to if you don't want to. Other people do want to. Ok?
Posts on this topic are very strange.
Do you (and the rest of the "no upgrades, yuck!" crowd) experience physical pain when other people get a new phone because they want new features? No? So ... what's the problem?
The AMOLED on my Nexus One still works perfectly and it's over 6 years old**, still boots up and still functions.
**If not for cell tower incompatibility I'd still be using it; a phone is a phone. My newer phone works fine all around and has an IPS LCD screen that looks great from most angles, but I miss the true blacks and absolute viewing angle of my AMOLED -- which has a lower brightness setting and looks better in low-light than any of my LCD displays.
Cpu, gpu, ram do you not realize how much smartphone processors have changed in the last 5 years?
Now I change my iPhone about every 3.5 years. I do that because the battery wears down, the screen starts losing pixels, I probably deopped it a couple of dozens times etc.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
iOS 9.3.1 still runs "OK-ish" on my iPhone 4S.
My 2008 iMac is still supported in OS X El Capitan. After reinstalling El Capitan (wiping the disk) it actually performs remarkably well.
It would benefit from an SSD, but for far the HD hasn't given in and I'm afraid ruining it, so I let it as it is ;-)
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
>> Apple says it expects its users to replace their iPhone and Apple Watch after (more like, every) three years. ...and by not making the batteries user-replaceable they are ensuring you have to.
It's technological obsolescence. After about 3 years, any computer, tablet or phone will be outclassed by some manufacturer's newest model. And I have heard the "they're intentionally slowing the old ones down with OS updates" argument used against every manufacturer in the market.
As long as a phone, computer or other device continues to serve the need that it was intended to serve I see no need in replacing it.
Most of the time it's not needs being served, but desires. As such, if a newer device does that better, then it's more desirable. We find new things to do with our devices over time, and new devices are better for doing some of those things.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm on a mid-2012 MacBook Air that was customized w/ the best hardware available at the time. It's not so different than the current MacBook Air.
Mid-2012:
2.0ghz Intel Core i7
Intel HD Graphics 4000
8 GB DDR3 RAM
512 GB SSD
13.3" 1440 x 900 LED back-lit display
802.11n wireless
OS X 10.11.4
April 2016:
2.2ghz Intel Core i7
Intel HD Graphics 6000
8 GB DDR3 RAM
512 GB SSD
13.3" 1440 x 900 LED back-lit display
802.11ac wireless
OS X 10.11.4
The CPU is a newer generation so is marginally faster. Maybe 20%. Graphics are 20-30% faster. The SSD has a better interface and is no doubt somewhat faster. Newer wireless standard. Same OS support (so far). Kind of amazing after 4 years.
This is exactly the problem. I still use a first gen iPad and have had 2 iPhones over the course of the last 5 years as well. They don't "slow down" when using the Apple apps and other well-designed apps although some of the apps (especially games) simply "update" their games by putting in things like bigger textures without (the well documented feature) gracefully downgrading textures for older devices causing the older devices to slow down while playing the 'same' game. Same goes for online stuff, the websites are getting heavier by the day, even this site is guilty of it. There used to be just a single self-hosted tracker, now there are ~10 of them and libraries loaded from a dozen or so CDN's, an older device is not quite as fast as parsing JS to byte code when it takes ~500ms simply in network time to load everything.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I bought my Rolex in 1982. Worn it every day since. I expect to keep doing so until they finally plant me in the ground. And I can guarantee you, it's made a lot better impression at meetings and on bosses/clients/coworkers than any Apple watch ever did...
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
I expect Apple to use their collective lips to kiss unmentionable parts of my anatomy.
There, now we are even (considering how I've been figuratively and financially bent over every time I've bought an Apple product). My Mac Mini from 2008 is still chugging along after 8 years...I expect nothing less from my other technology. Guess my next phone/watch purchase will not be an Apple product.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I congratulate you on not being mugged for 34 years.
Table-ized A.I.
I wish I could go back to my old Nokia. The sound quality was better than any new phone, and the battery could last more than a week before recharging. It only died because they changed the protocols. New phones don't have any useful features beyond what a feature phone or tablet could have, and the features I do want have been degraded and don't work as well.
Newer is not better.
"Apple has been accused of intentionally slowing down iPhones every time a new one is released, although there is little evidence to support the theory."
Come over here. I've got an original untouched iPhone 4S (4.2.1,) and I have one with iOS8 and one with iOS9.
The untouched iPhone is light years faster than the ones with iOS8/9.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You'll need to show me where you're getting your info about the 6100 being 50% faster than a 920, because even at the base clock of 2.66 Ghz for the i7, the i3 isn't showing that kind of gain.
The 920 slightly overclocked to the same range as a 950 ( so just over 3 Ghz ) is faster and more powerful than the i3 6100 from what I'm gathering, with all of the many advantages of being an i7. But power-wise it's certainly a pig compared to an i3.
The PC I moved to the front room has a 920 running at 4Ghz. I replaced it with an i7 5820k which is slightly overclocked to 4 Ghz -- I needed more cores for rendering and greater memory support.
Just because we can't prove they are sabotaging older equipment, doesn't mean they aren't. In this business, just like in politics, it is best to assume the worst to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm writing this on an HP PC I got in 2012. Still works fine. No need to replace it for the foreseeable future.
Exactly. I have a 7 year old Mac, and it still works great. Apple has done nothing to force me to buy a new one. I'm sure they would like it if I did, but they're continuing to support it with OS upgrades and the like. Contrast that with my 3 year old Android phone that already has been abandoned for OS upgrades.
It's probably true that on average, their customers buy a new computer every four years and a new phone every three. But that's usually because they want the newest technology, not because their old device has stopped working.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
"there's a sucker born every minute ... and reincarnated every three years""
A Galaxy S4 released in April 2013 with a quad core CPU, 2GB RAM and a 1080 screen is still a perfectly capable device, even if you say the latest flagship has a nicer screen and double the RAM.
Power users will always fuel upgrades but I think we're already in the era where 3 year old technology is *adequate*. Yes a new phone will naturally perform better but for many users, replacements need only happen when the device breaks.
Why?, My 5 yr old andriod phone is still functional with better than avergae voice quality, (replaced the battery naturally.)..
It assumed the duties of handling my old home phone #(~25 years).. I.E. Tracfone's BYOD program, they have plans for Iphones (as low as ~8$/mo).
For addiotional future proofing, I use a bluetooth gateway(Xlink BTTN) to coonect all my cell phones, (while they're at hone recharging), to my home's cordless phones. Reusing my still functioning higher end cell phones sure beats being on the always overpriiced bleeding edge.
.
Not quite true. I bought a mid-line PC in 2012. I replaced it 2 weeks ago with a high end laptop. The PC had an i3, 8 GB ram, and 1 TB raid magnetic disks. The new one has an i7, 64GB ram, and a 1TB SSD. It is screaming fast. Loading games and apps takes under 10% of the time it did on the 4 year old PC.
Now the 4 year old was still usable. But it was by no means a good experience. Anyone who uses the PC for work will make up the cost of a desktop in productivity in a few months easily. Now if you just use it to surf the web and write an email a few times a week, yeah the old one is good enough.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I read in Consumer Reports that appliance makes are moving to a three year planned obsolescence model.
Isn't the future just shiny!?
:T:R:A:N:S:
I replaced Apple years ago and haven't looked back.
The 920 slightly overclocked
If you're overclocked, that changes things. Most people don't do that, I'm comparing stock clock to stock clock.
The i3-6100 can be overclocked as well, with the right ASRock motherboard and BIOS version, but I don't count that as reasonable.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compa...
The i3-6100 is 64% faster in single (and dual) threaded applications. Only applications that can properly use all 4 cores and all 8 threads of the i7-920 will show that gap close. But even in those cases the i3-6100 is still just as fast as the i7-920.
However, most of what people do with computers (including playing games) only uses 1 or 2 cores anyway, making the i3-6100 far and away faster.
It also does it with a TDP of 51 watts vs TDP of 130 watts for the i7. It also comes with the benefit of a much newer motherboard that has modern features from newer/faster PCI-E slots to better DMI speeds and better USB support.
I needed more cores for rendering and greater memory support.
For that type of workload, clearly an i3 would be a silly choice. But that isn't what most people do. :)
Yes, the Haswell-E CPU is the right choice for that. For gaming, the i3-6100 is actually a shockingly good choice. If concerns over future quad core needs are there, the i5-6500 would be the next choice above that one.
Well put. My last macbook made it 8 years (and 3 batteries). Switching to a Windows laptop still meant an inferior trackpad, even after hunting for better drivers.
I guess I'd consider gaming or development work as "exceptionally demanding requirements", although given that the typical slashdot reader is likely a developer and/or gamer, I probably should have phrased that better. PC gaming in particular tends to demand cutting-edge hardware, so a four-year old machine probably won't be able to play today's cutting-edge titles. And developers are often running multiple VMs, driving multiple monitors, compiling lots of code, and that means money spent on fast processors, big SSDs, and lots of RAM pays off.
To be fair, your four year old machine sounds sort of mediocre even for when it was new. In particular, I'd bet the SSD is a huge factor in the massive performance boost you're now seeing. My four year old machine is an i7 960 (quad core) @ 3.2GHz, 12GB RAM, and has a 250GB primary SSD with a 2TB bulk storage drive. It was a good machine when new, but wasn't top of the line either. So, sure, if you buy a less powerful machine, you'll certainly have to replace it sooner.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
My 2006 MBP still works just fine from a hardware perspective - I replaced the HDD when I got it in 2010 with a hybrid drive (Seagate XT) and replaced the battery once. Unfortunately, it's usefulness is limited by what the hardware can do - 2GB of RAM gets eaten up pretty fast, and the video card (ATI Radeon X1600) cannot handle modern codecs, so modern video is out of the question. And the Intel Core Duo CPU feels pretty slow compared to its successors too I suppose, but there are still quite a lot of things the laptop is still fine with (outside of a browser the main place I find myself is at a terminal using SSH into a server or RDP into a Windows server. Plus with Steam's streaming service I can use my much more powerful desktop to do the heavy lifting for games if I so choose) I bought this January a refurbished 2012 MBP (the last one with replaceable parts) and expect it to be fairly usable for quite a while (having 16GB of RAM in a laptop is pretty nice, and I'll probably opt for an SSD one of these days).
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Umm... You know, you can offload compute cycles and just use it as a dumb terminal, right?
*sighs*
Watching two ACs fight is like watching two retarded fat kids fight over the donut hole.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I really doubt you built it yourself. On the other hand, I do imagine you have the requisite skills to assemble a computer. Most anyone with opposable thumbs can put a computer together. Very few of us, including myself, have the ability to build a computer worth a damn. Well, I can make a pretty mean abacus.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You have to almost admire their approach. They're about the only company in the world that can make a three-year turnover cycle for phones sound good and environmental-friendly. Remember when Google committed to a two-year major update cycle for Nexus and some people were like "WHAT!! Just two years?? But that's nowhere near enough for a Nexus!!". I'm betting Apple's customers are actually happy with this bit of news. Four years for a computer though!! Are you kidding me??
My iPhone 4 is not broken, but aging, so I replaced it with an iPhone SE now (no way I was going to get a 6, I don't live in the Bronx, I don't have baggy pants). Touch ID was a main thing I wanted, and a better camera.
Sometimes, upgrading is a reason for replacement, the same way you sometimes get a new car even though your old one still works - better safety, more efficient fuel consumption, etc.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You have to hold it the right way.
Quad core needs have already been a concern, with some games even not launching on dual cores. Fortunately the i3 is a 4-thread CPU, with huge gains next to the dual core dual thread version of the same. In most games it's about the best CPU.
The issue now is that a slow dual core is mostly good for everything, but games need a really fast CPU and preferably a recent version of Windows. A slow quad core will be barely usable.
Those who say it's only about the GPU are wrong. That's a bummer if you otherwise don't need to upgrade your PC
But it's a beta. Version 1.1 of the final game plus latest graphics driver will likely run well
While computing power in PCs have sort of hit a peak, the mobile CPU are still advancing. There still is some optimization to be done with power/power consumption.
Yes, and most of them have a lot to do with the shitty software ecosystem we have to work with. Replacing it is unlikely to require you to throw away your phone.
Ezekiel 23:20
By this logic, you should be using the newest iPhone with the oldest software. The newest iPhone because it has the most efficient hardware, and the oldest OS because it doesn't take that efficiency away.
Ezekiel 23:20
3 months is ideal due to pressure from stock markets :)
Casteism
For example, I'm pretty sure they stopped supporting my old iPhone4 (OS updates) after 2 years. Same for my old iPad.
Why?
Unless it breaks, I see no reason to replace my phone.
Planned obsolescence, non replaceable batteries die in the 4th year. Give me me back a device with an easily replaceable battery. With that model, I could get 10 years or more from suca a device
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada