Slashdot Mirror
Too Many New Smartphone Models Released Each Year: Survey (livemint.com)
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."
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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 modem speeds and 8GB of memory and a mobile OS which is no longer supported (which also means being locked out of revisions to the applications I run), I have this year's latest and greatest, with a pen to take notes on the screen, enough space to hold everything I need, two options for biometric authentication (if I should choose to use them), a camera which is as good or better than my last point-and-shoot, significantly more secure storage, and internet that is faster than all but one of the land-line providers to my house.
I would love to have a phone that never needed upgrading, sure. But I'll bet Greenpeace didn't ask if you wanted a phone that was insecure, limited in usability, and had poor performance on current generation software.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.