You know what scares the hell out of corporations? People like me. We replace the wonky rubber harmonic balancers with aluminum ones, we replace phone batteries using a heat gun to remove the screen, we replace capacitors in 90's era Walmart CD players because it still works. We are the anti consumers. We fix what you throw away. We will build our future golden city with the refuse from your broken appliances. We are the future and it terrifies the consumer corporations.
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
575 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
59986 readers
2834 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Big capacitor loves you though
When smartphones first appeared, batteries were always removable.
Glances at Gen 1 iPhone
The iPhone 3g would be the first modern "smartphone" from Apple; before that it didn't allow adding more applications, same as the "dumb phones" before it. It just had a capacitive touchscreen and a better web browser
Even then, the batteries weren't glued in and it was significantly easier to replace
The App Store was there since the first gen. Steve jobs announce already included it and there were dummy apps like pretending to drink a beer from the iPhone. With the iPhone 3G they changed the SDK in a way that either you released apps for the first two gen or for the newer generations that made the fist two generations almost useless (planned obsolescence you said?)
Jobs was specifically against the App Store when the first gen came out
It was added as an update to the first gen after the 3g came out
Give them money reward the behaviour
Because of that I always bought Xiaomi.
I'm on the 9 pro, works perfectly well for everything.
Just hoping they won't enshittify themselves, or be caught in some USA / China gang war.
I refuse. Just got a Pixel 4 off eBay. If the battery's bad, I'll replace it.
My last phone I had for about 6 years before the battery became so bad it couldn't keep charge for more than a few hours and opening the camera had a 50% chance of just powering it off.
I'd have replaced the battery, but all apps and the web had become so bloated by then, that it was struggling to really run anything reliably, even without the battery issues.
That has been a thing for longer than most of us have been alive.
Planned obsolescence isn't even in my top 10. The worst things about Big Tech are existential, like its use for mass espionage and murder by evil regimes.
That's because you're a proud consumer who doesn't realize how maximizing profit is the motivation for everything you've mentioned.
Do you think you're being insightful or something? That's not even true, states sometimes compel and coerce firms for that information even when it may harm the profit incentive through reputational damage.
Right. It can't be that you're a proud consumer, because then you'd have to acknowledge your own contribution to the problem and criticize a culture you're dependent on.
Can't have that.
Planned obsolescence helps those things too, creating many more targets to support for open projects aiming for compatibility with proprietary hardware, or proprietary formats, or even proprietary software (for Wine), or de-facto proprietary Web.
planned obsolescence wastes precious resources and massively contributes to climate change and our enslavement through consumption. its absolutely in my top 10
The biggest existential threat is still ecological destruction. Old growth forest are raised to the ground, the ocean is warming and acidifying as it absorbs CO2, and it's all to make computers and toasters that don't even last a decade.
Exactly. Planned obsolesce is an annoyance to my pocketbook. Violations of my privacy can completely screw me over for life.
We should absolutely solve both, but if I had to pick one, I'd go for privacy every time.
It's connected. When there's no planned obsolescence, one can stop buying electronics until companies or some specific company regains reason. When there is planned obsolescence, you can't easily start ignoring the vendor, usually. Your device quickly becomes both dangerous and kinda useless without support.
This requires sort of an Ulysses' pact from companies. Sun would do such things. Sun would also develop fundamentally important technologies for literally every level of the industry. Unfortunately Sun went down.
And the way many companies went down in late 90s and 00s, I can't blame others for trying to find some way to exist without such unfortunate events. One can't rely on Ulysses' pacts anyway. Those work to a limited extent when supported by other mechanisms.
It's really a case of philosophy being required to find the solution. Not conflicting interests, to which (even in theory, with dialectics on one side's extreme and fascism on another's) both left and right movements reduce reality.
Said philosophy is that property rights are intended to share either finite resources or unique resources, and information is not a finite resource, however it is a unique resource.
The "conflicting interests" point of view means that everything unique should be a property and this is how things are done well, that means that everything has an owner who feeds from it, and a crowd of angry apes who think that fighting IP and copyright is evil theft making hardworking people hungry.
The "philosophy" point of view means that only finite resources should have owners, because ownership is a way for those who need a resource to have it, nothing more. Ownership and markets are a distribution mechanism, where those applying more energy to get a resource get more of it. It's superficial for things which are not finite, and superficial means "bad".
However work to develop new things and creation are finite resources. But those can actually be commodified. Trade secrets are the way it was called for all of history.
Patents allow rapid modernization and scale, which is an advantage over trade secrets, but patents can be issued for practical time periods, instead of practically indefinite, as it is now.
But I think for a decade or so the Western world can exist without patents at all, before reintroducing them in that improved form. It's not hard to notice that in the current global economy IP and patents are one of the most powerful assets of the West, so it may seem a leap of faith. But it has to be done. Patents in such a situation are derived from human work, so the "designing" countries won't lose strength compared to the "manufacturing" countries. The power is not in the patents. It's roughly similar to the way decolonization in the XX century counterintuitively revitalized old empires when and where done softly and hurt them when and where done harshly.
This has almost nothing to do with privacy and misses the point behind planned obsolescence. The goal behind both are the same: maximize recurring revenue. The goal behind patents is different: obstruct competition. Fixing one has almost no impact on the others.
patents can be issued for practical time periods, instead of practically indefinite, as it is now.
Patents aren't "practically indefinite," they're 20 years (15 for design patents). I don't think that's egregious, but I do think it's a little too long, especially since there's no requirement to actually produce the thing.
My preference is 5 years, with renewal if they can prove they're building the thing and need more time, or have built the thing but need an extension to recoup R&D (i.e. renew from date of release). If they're not building the thing or intentionally delaying, renewal should be denied.
That doesn't help planned obsolescence or privacy at all, because neither is particularly related to patents.
The goal behind both are the same: maximize recurring revenue. The goal behind patents is different: obstruct competition. Fixing one has almost no impact on the others.
Obstructing competition has impact on every agreed policy, first. Second, it obviously has direct impact in maximizing revenue.
but I do think it’s a little too long, especially since there’s no requirement to actually produce the thing.
20 years ago some people in developing countries still used DOS.
My preference is 5 years, with renewal if they can prove they’re building the thing and need more time, or have built the thing but need an extension to recoup R&D (i.e. renew from date of release). If they’re not building the thing or intentionally delaying, renewal should be denied.
My preference would be just 5 years with no conditionals. Simpler things are harder to abuse.
That doesn’t help planned obsolescence or privacy at all, because neither is particularly related to patents.
That's stupid, sorry. Like saying tanks are not related to air force. They are components of the same system.
20 years ago some people in developing countries still used DOS.
I don't see your point. I've seen DOS used in inventory systems in developed countries, and any patents related to DOS expired 25 years ago. Patents aren't why developing countries use old tech, in fact most don't enforce or even recognise US patents (or any IP law, for that matter).
What you seem to be talking about is copyright law, which is a completely different topic.
Simpler things are harder to abuse.
If patents are too simple, they'll be ineffective at actually solving valid business concerns and companies will just lobby for longer protections. Pharmaceuticals, for example, often need longer than 5 years to get a product to market, and creating a generic drug from a patent can take much less time and can piggyback off the studies the original company went through and get fast-tracked through the regulatory process. If they're able to reset the clock when they go to market, they may be okay with a shorter duration.
Any policy change needs to balance the very real concerns of all interested parties.
They are components of the same system.
Only in the very abstract sense of trying to sell more stuff.
But patents have nothing to do with the main areas of planned obsolescence people are annoyed at, like TVs, laptops/phones, software, etc. Nor do they have anything to do with privacy issues people are concerned about, like Microsoft Recall, data breaches, or data brokers. It's a completely separate system from any of those concerns.
I mean normal people for daily stuff still used DOS sometimes. As an idea of how long 20 years is. OK. 20 years ago people were renting VHS tapes. 20 years ago Revenge of the Sith came out.
It's not a different topic, it's about patents expiring fast enough to not allow an entrenched oligopoly, but not fast enough to make innovation not worth it.
5 years after market entry, OK.
Yes and no, balance of concerns leads to something like politics, with no principle at all, just power games. It's what we have now.
Reducing competitiveness is pretty directly connected to planned obsolescence. It's possible because of oligopoly and because of a few companies making the fashion of what one can use in year 2024 and what is from year 2004 and isn't normal.
Planned obsolescence is a symptom of something which is, or aught to be, in your top 10 issues with big tech.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Marketers manage to convince tech-savvy people that their device is almost unusable by manipulating percentages. For example, "50% brighter screen, 30% more energy efficient". It even worked for me when I didn't want to buy a previous phone model just because the latest generation had a 50% brighter screen. But then I realized that I was perfectly happy with the screen of my 4 year-old phone.
Seriously. People need to realize they should have a need before a product, not the other way around.
Lol brighter screen would be against my preference, who uses at 5-15% brightness in any screen.
I agree. I want the best possible experience with the least possible light when doom scrolling at 2 AM.
The fun part is that „brighter screen“ is just a tool of planned obsolescence to decrease battery health long term to counter the larger batteries
load more comments
(4 replies)
One day we’ll wake up from this absolute nonsense. A star, long worshipped, will burn in the red. Disused and empty shell: icon of an old world.
Conscience awakened, we’ll take it from there.
The pessimist in me asks "will we ever have the chance?".
By the time we "wake up" would we even have the opportunity to do anything about it? Or just accept it like other rising costs like, rent and food, because let's be honest, technology is a necessity.
My interpretation of the closing lyrics of this song are “by the time we’ve fully understood the destruction we’re causing, the Sun will be about as close to death as it can be. Once the Earth is a husk, then we’ll start to make a change.”
My one and only request : operating system security fixes, updates for years
Yes! I think part of the right to repair is the ability to install your own software on devices you own, when the vendor stops fixing it.
Not even when the vendor stops fixing it. Anytime you want.
If vendors are either forced by law to keep every device they produce up to date with security fixes, until is patents and copyright expires, or have to allow end users to install any alternative software, without loosing any features advertised and provided by the hardware. I would be fine with that compromise.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Planned Obsolescence is a problem across all consumer electronics that depend on the software being updated. It’s not limited to Big Tech.
The only way I see to solve it is to force vendors to release hardware specs and unlock bootloaders so you can install your own software on it.
An even better solution would be to force vendors to release their software when the hardware is end of life via their planned obsolescence.
It’s great to see small advances in right to repair for hardware, such as replacing the battery or access to new parts, but those don’t help when you are stuck on an outdated OS version.
The only way I see to solve it is to force vendors to release hardware specs and unlock bootloaders so you can install your own software on it.
Nah. Legislation to make it planned obsolescence illegal would be much more effective.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The "upside" of planned obsolescence is that devices are markedly cheaper if you're willing to not live on the bleeding edge (which is itself just marketing fomo bs..)
Case in point.. recently had to replace my phone. Since I now feel like a liability carrying around newish £500 one I took a look at some 2-3 years old. I eventually picked one I sort-of wished I'd gone for last time around except now I was spending 20% of what it would have cost me back then. So it's a little closer to the point of being obsolete than what it's replacing. But seriously. The amount of money people spend desperate to stay at the pinnacle of camera technology (that they can't really tell the difference on) or for Apple "AI" (I mean.. god.. really.. you're a smart independent person. How has Apples marketing team gotten this far into your brain?) is crazy. But the massively cheaper deals for what are, objectively, still amazing devices is something that only happens because of technology churn and "planned obsolescence".
That's not true. Businesses charge the most people are willing to pay.
I'm sorry you've been convinced that lowering your standards resulted in cheaper prices. It did not. It only resulted in worse products for us and higher profits for businesses.
I'm sorry you've been convinced that lowering your standards resulted in cheaper prices.
It literally resulted in a cheaper price
load more comments
(10 replies)
view more: next ›