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

  • n2burns@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • yuri@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah but new phones that go unpurchased don’t just magically get unmanufactured. I ONLY buy used phones, but that has literally no impact on the garbage production that comes from companies releasing a new model literally every year.

      The sheer number of old phones that are still new-in-box on the secondhand market should be enough to exemplify that fact. We are WAY overproducing tech, and the “model a year” framework is throwing fuel on that particular fire.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Those aren’t unpurchased new phones though. As you point out, they’re discontinued, discounted and sold.

        I was only trying to refute that, “Trade ins and selling old phones doesn’t really reduce e-waste.” I’m the same as you, buying used phones, and if I didn’t have that option I would be buying new phones instead.

        • yuri@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          yeah, reckon we’ve both been getting a bit semantic lol

          i can’t speak for the original person, but my whole thing is regardless of consumer practices, manufacturerers are gonna keep making more and more phones every year, and they’re already making too many. those NIB phones on ebay were purchased, but not to be used. until they get sold, they’re just closer and closer to trash every day.

          trade ins and buying/selling used DOES make a difference, it’s just hard not to think it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the massive amounts of electronics that end up getting discontinued, discounted, and sold to resellers hahaha

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months 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.