zlacker

>>alphab+(OP)
It's starting to feel silly, having a yearly release cycle for smartphones. So much of this product page is focused on new software functions that may have some vague relationship with the slightly upgraded hardware, but that could mostly be released to existing phones. Every new iPhone, Pixel, or Samsung phone basically claims the camera is marginally better and hey, look at these software features that have very little to do with the hardware and should not fundamentally be a reason to upgrade to this phone.

There is so much time, effort, and physical waste that is generated by slightly redesigning phones every year purely for the sake of making sales (as opposed to meaningful improvement upon the existing design or introduction of a new hardware feature). Think not only of people upgrading for the sake of it, but all of the cases, screen protectors, and other assorted accessories cast in plastic for previous models that are garbage now.

It would be nice if we could just space these things out to 5 years or so now, because that's probably how long it takes for anything to change enough to justify a new model.

>>kimber+T71
It's funny because if they did not release a new phone every year, the old phones would be useful for longer. I recently had to replace my iPhone 7s plus because it was getting so slow I sometimes could not get the camera to open as it loaded the system down too much. This was despite the fact that the system said my battery was not degraded (it had been replaced with Apple Care a couple of times).

Of course when it was new the camera opened quickly. And then Apple made their OS more heavy weight every year until my phone slowed to a crawl.

And faster phones are nice, but I think it is worth considering how valuable that really is to us as users and a society, especially if the process involves making loads and loads of ewaste and consuming tons of new resources, and all the emissions their mining and transport involves, when we could simply keep our software slim and our old devices functional.

And the big companies will never do this. Do we need to force them to allow open software to run on these devices, so that clean builds can be patched and maintained when the company over bloats them or abandons them?

>>Taylor+qa1
I wonder how much of that is the software demands increasing and the flash storage itself wearing out over time. As flash storage wears it'll often go slower and slower as the error correction needs to process more to actually get you the uncorrupted bits. This is why a lot of cheap devices tend to just become unbearably slow after a while, their storage just gets to be way too slow.

Flash storage doesn't last forever, and it's got a whole gradient of failure and wear experiences.

>>vel0ci+jt1
> I wonder how much of that is the software demands increasing and the flash storage itself wearing out over time. As flash storage wears it'll often go slower and slower as the error correction needs to process more to actually get you the uncorrupted bits. This is why a lot of cheap devices tend to just become unbearably slow after a while, their storage just gets to be way too slow.

Too bad no flagship phones have removable storage anymore, because that would be a really easy fix to this problem.

>>chimer+5y1
If we're looking at older phones with removable storage, it usually limited what could be put on the SD card. And in the end the OS and system libraries were still on the on-board storage which would wear out over the years.

And there's good reason for the OS not being on a microSD card. Run a Raspberry Pi without locking the storage and see how fast it'll corrupt itself. Most SD cards have pretty miserable reliability compared to the storage on-board. Imagine if you had to re-image your device every few weeks after your storage device corrupted itself again. Not really a great experience.

>>vel0ci+2z1
With cloud backup... this isn't as defensible as it used to be.

Today, Apple/Google could design a phone with (a) a user-replacable battery & (b) no flash, only RAM + removable SD storage + long-life EEPROM.

Boot loader, SD validator, and minimal image retrieval goes in EEPROM. Storage contents continually backed up, encrypted, to cloud with delta updates. Customer prompted to replace SD card and device reimagined whenever there's an issue.

Apple/Google sell cloud storage subscriptions.

Aka the cockroach phone.

That they aren't even interested in that model is because they're in a Faustian bargain with cellular carriers to drive device renewals and post-paid plans.

And integrated batteries and flash memory happen to be a convenient "Oh well, we can't possibly design it any other way" excuse.

>>ethbr1+8N1
That's honestly not a good user experience. Having to buy a new sd card routinely, and better hope you system can detect impending as card failures accurately.

Compared to 5 years of good on board storage performance, with no little bits to accidentally lose. And a gradually degradation of performance after that.

They could possibly design a phone the way you outlined, but people won't buy it.

>>admax8+qS1
Not to mention what it’ll do the waterproof rating.

>>TylerE+eT1
Do that many people need their phone to be waterproof rated?

I realize it's mandatory from a marketing perspective, but how often is it used?

Accidentally jumping in the pool/ocean/lake with your phone. But past that, I'm not often in submerged situations.

>>ethbr1+032
You really don’t think people accidentally jump in pool, drop their phone in a puddle, in the sink, in the toilet etc?

>>scarfa+b92
They do, but they were also doing it before the phones were routinely designed to be waterproof, and I don't recall an epidemic of water-related phone-killing incidents.

>>inejge+ge2
you don't mind so much when it is a 50$ phone, a bit more on a 1100$ one. Not that I understand why anyone would pay more than 250$ in a smartphone really.

>>prmous+lw2
Well since even the average Android phone’s selling price is $285 the last time I checked, maybe it says more about your lack of insight than anything else?

>>scarfa+dL2
I don't know, I have had company issued high end phones and apart from better camera quality[1] these devices weren't doing things significantly better than my personal 240$ smartphone.

Also, generally people spend an awful lot of money on things out of vanity and social pressure, regardless of their needs and if it is a good decision. Look at new cars prices and how most vehicles purchases are usually overkill for everyone. The most sold car in the US are the Ford F series , Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram trucks before a number of high end SUV. Sure people are free to buy whatever they want but a Honda Fit would be enough for large majority of them and be a smarter financial decision[2]. They mostly do it because they can, not because they need.

[1] which has become fairly decent for anyone accross all ranges in the last few years.

[2] I am not sure it is still sold in the US but I could have chosen another example of a smaller and more affordable vehicle.

>>prmous+kQ2
Yes I’m sure 60% of Americans care about “social pressure” enough to buy a different phone. Trust me, my 80 year old mother doesn’t care about what TikTok influencers think.

Low end Android phones just plain suck when it comes to performance and battery life. Not to mention they rarely get operating system updates.

If you did force me to buy an Android phone, it would be the Pixel.