• MiscreantMouse@forum.fail
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Best tech news I’ve heard in a long time, the current phones designed to last only a few years are such a ridiculous waste.

    It’s amazing to me how many people have been convinced that sealed-in batteries are somehow necessary for waterproofing, given the array of electronics, like watches, that have been around for a long time with both waterproofing and replaceable batteries.

    • shoelace@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dunno if that’s exactly comparable. Yes, you’re technically correct…but then we should expect phones to either be thicker or have smaller battery capacity to compensate. That’s probably a fine trade-off for you (and probably for me), but that’s not universally true.

      • MiscreantMouse@forum.fail
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Personally, I think ‘form factor’ is another silly argument.

        Add a few mm in thickness in return for a device that lasts many years longer? That’s an obvious benefit to the consumer (imo) and an easy way to reduce electronic waste.

        Moreover, these paper-thin phones need big, sturdy cases to prevent bending in the pocket, so why not build a sturdier phone, and attach a thinner case, for the same resultant thickness?

        To me, these are flimsy excuses the c-suite uses to justify unjustifiable levels of planned obsolescence, and the accompanying profit margins.