this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
47 points (94.3% liked)

Android

17648 readers
124 users here now

The new home of /r/Android on Lemmy and the Fediverse!

Android news, reviews, tips, and discussions about rooting, tutorials, and apps.

🔗Universal Link: !android@lemdro.id


💡Content Philosophy:

Content which benefits the community (news, rumours, and discussions) is generally allowed and is valued over content which benefits only the individual (technical questions, help buying/selling, rants, self-promotion, etc.) which will be removed if it's in violation of the rules.


Support, technical, or app related questions belong in: !askandroid@lemdro.id

For fresh communities, lemmy apps, and instance updates: !lemdroid@lemdro.id

💬Matrix Chat

💬Telegram channels / chats

📰Our communities below


Rules

  1. Stay on topic: All posts should be related to the Android OS or ecosystem.

  2. No support questions, recommendation requests, rants, or bug reports: Posts must benefit the community rather than the individual. Please post to !askandroid@lemdro.id.

  3. Describe images/videos, no memes: Please include a text description when sharing images or videos. Post memes to !androidmemes@lemdro.id.

  4. No self-promotion spam: Active community members can post their apps if they answer any questions in the comments. Please do not post links to your own website, YouTube, blog content, or communities.

  5. No reposts or rehosted content: Share only the original source of an article, unless it's not available in English or requires logging in (like Twitter). Avoid reposting the same topic from other sources.

  6. No editorializing titles: You can add the author or website's name if helpful, but keep article titles unchanged.

  7. No piracy or unverified APKs: Do not share links or direct people to pirated content or unverified APKs, which may contain malicious code.

  8. No unauthorized polls, bots, or giveaways: Do not create polls, use bots, or organize giveaways without first contacting mods for approval.

  9. No offensive or low-effort content: Don't post offensive or unhelpful content. Keep it civil and friendly!

  10. No affiliate links: Posting affiliate links is not allowed.

Quick Links

Our Communities

Lemmy App List

Chat and More


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

According to a new report, Google's 2025 lineup of Pixel phones unsurprisingly includes five new devices in line with this year's batch.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Why would you make your scenario supply constrained? Your argument is simply if we sold less phones, less would go to e-waste, and duh. That wasn't debate, it was whether releasing new phones every year was wasteful vs new phones being released every 2-3 years.

Your scenario also assuming people buy used or they just don't have a phone. People who buy a used phone generally do so instead of buying a new phone.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Since you're so incapable of thinking for yourself I'll go through it again with everything you mentioned. Same prerequisite except now everyone has a phone and excess phones turn instantly to waste, or do you need a point by point explanation on how excess supply turns into waste?

Scenario 1: Every year 1000 new phones get released.

  • Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 phones just go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
  • Y2: Same thing. End of year waste is 2000 phones.
  • Y3: Same thing. End of year waste is 3000 phones.
  • ...
  • Y10: Still the same thing. End of year waste is 10k phones.

Scenario 2: Every 3 years 1000 new phones get released.

  • Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
  • Y2: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
  • Y3: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
  • Y5: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 2000 old phones
  • Y6: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
  • Y7: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
  • Y8: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 3000 old phones
  • Y0: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones
  • Y10: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones

As you can see. Even with supply meets the demand exactly you generate waste if you release a new phone every year. If the supply exceeds the demand it generated waste. I don't see how it could be made any clearer beyond also going over your comment point by point.

Why would you make your scenario supply constrained?

Because how do you create a secondary market that would buy used phones? I could've gone with "people are poor" but that is much harder to put into an example. The supply constraint itself doesn't matter, but I did my best with the new example.

Your argument is simply if we sold less phones, less would go to e-waste, and duh.

Nope. My argument was that if we made less phones less would go to e-waste. That also covers unsold phones that go straight into waste as evident from my new example.

That wasn’t debate, it was whether releasing new phones every year was wasteful vs new phones being released every 2-3 years.

If you release a new phone every year you manufacture more phones. I guess technically you can manufacture the same amount of the same model for 2-3 years as you would manufacture yearly new phone. But that makes no sense from an enterprising point of view because you reach market saturation and the phones simply don't get sold, you're just manufacturing a loss for the company. Even if you manufacture the same model yearly you're still going to manufacture them less (due to demand dropping) than if you made a new model every year.

Your scenario also assuming people buy used or they just don’t have a phone. People who buy a used phone generally do so instead of buying a new phone.

If you paid attention you would've noticed that in both previous scenarios 800-900 people bought used phones and only 100-200 people bought brand new phones. I did that deliberately because you argued that reselling the phone has an effect when it really doesn't. At the end of the line the person who bought the last used phone throws their current phone away because you can't sell that to anyone. Which means as long as phone is manufactured regardless of whether it gets sold or not or resold or not, eventually it will go in the bin as e-waste. The best way to reduce waste is to not produce excessively like we're doing right now.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I don't know why you are soo hostile. Are you okay?

Your new scenario is still supply constrained. No one gets a new phone for 2 out of 3 years.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How about you make an example where supply actually matters.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was just trying to refute your assertion that, "Trade ins and selling old phones doesn’t really reduce e-waste." Obviously some used phones are going to be bought by people who need a replacement, and if a used phone wasn't an option, they'd buy new.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Refute what exactly? The fact that you keep harping about supply means you don't even understand what I'm saying. The only thing you're refuting is your intelligence.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)