this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024

45 points (94.1% liked)

Android

17727 readers

74 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.

💡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: [email protected]

For fresh communities, lemmy apps, and instance updates: [email protected]

💬Matrix Chat

💬Telegram channels / chats

📰Our communities below

Rules

Stay on topic: All posts should be related to the Android OS or ecosystem.
No support questions, recommendation requests, rants, or bug reports: Posts must benefit the community rather than the individual. Please post to [email protected].
Describe images/videos, no memes: Please include a text description when sharing images or videos. Post memes to [email protected].
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.
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.
No editorializing titles: You can add the author or website's name if helpful, but keep article titles unchanged.
No piracy or unverified APKs: Do not share links or direct people to pirated content or unverified APKs, which may contain malicious code.
No unauthorized polls, bots, or giveaways: Do not create polls, use bots, or organize giveaways without first contacting mods for approval.
No offensive or low-effort content: Don't post offensive or unhelpful content. Keep it civil and friendly!
No affiliate links: Posting affiliate links is not allowed.

Quick Links

Our Communities

Lemmy App List

See thread

Chat and More

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Leaked codenames unsurprisingly suggest Pixel 9a and four Pixel 10 phones in 2025 (9to5google.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's empirically untrue. If people are selling their used phones and not keeping more than one phone (which definitely happens, but is unrelated to this point), then the exact same number of phones would be produced as if everyone bought new and only put them in e-waste when they were broken/obsolete.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Are you stupid? Let's say we have 1000 people and they all want the latest phone, all manufactured phones get bought and everyone sells their old phones. And phones don't break.

Scenario 1: Every year 200 new phones get released.

Year 1. 200 most willing to pay the highest price buy a new phone, 800 are without a phone
Year 2. The same 200 buy the latest model and sell their old one. The next 200 get the "new" used phone. 600 are without phones.
Year 3, 4 and 5 I imagine are self-explanatory. By the end of year 5 everyone has phone.
Year 6. The most willing buy the 200 new phones and sell their old phone. The next group buy the previous group phones and sell their current phone. The last group has nobody to sell to because nobody wants their phone. 200 phones go into e-waste.
Year 7. Goes like year 6 except now there's a total of 400 phones in e-waste.
Year 8, 9 and 10 follow the same pattern. By the end of year 10 there 1000 phones in e-waste.
Year 20. By the end of the year there will be 3000 phones in e-waste.

Scenario 2: 100 phones get released (to better stimulate the real world because someone is going release a phone anyway, but you can also imagine 200 phones releasing every 2 years as the numbers will the same for every even year).

Year 1. 100 people get a phone.
Year 2. 100 people buy the new phone and sell the old one. 100 people buy the old phone.
Years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the same pattern. By the end of year 10 everyone has a phone
Year 11 the first year phones go into e-waste because nobody wants them. Total 100 phones in e-waste.
Year 12 the next 100 phones go into waste. Total 200 phones in e-waste.
Years 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are the same pattern.
Year 20. By the end of the year 1000 phones are e-waste.
Year 40. By the end of the year 3000 phones are e-waste.

It literally cannot be empirically untrue because what I said is mathematically true. Let's say that in both scenario 1 and scenario 2 at the end of year 50 they decide to throw away all phones and never create another phone again. In scenario 1 there would be 10 000 e-waste phones. In scenario 2 there would be 5000 e-waste phones. The more you create the more waste will come down the line. If you want less waste, make less phones.

And before you go "but recycling?" only about 20% of e-waste gets recycled and the recycling process doesn't recycle all the waste.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

It’s like people really think “reduce reuse recycle” is LITERALLY ALL IT’S GONNA TAKE. 1 year upgrade cycles are just as bad as fast fashion for how quickly they produce GARBAGE.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How about you make an example where supply actually matters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

E-waste isn't the only problem associated with smartphone manufacturing.

While the energy required to power our devices remains significant, for devices like smartphones, tablets, and PCs, the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions now comes from the manufacturing phase. Devices have become more energy-efficient due in part to the shift to mobile platforms, as well as more complex, which increases the amount of energy required to produce each one. Life-cycle assessments of smartphones, tablets and PCs have consistently found that the production phase, including resource extraction and processing, component manufacturing, and assembly, contributes the most to total greenhouse gas emissions, in some cases as much as 80%.

Smartphones and other electronic devices are among the most resource intensive by weight on the planet–miners must dig through more than 30 kilos of rock to obtain the 100 or so grams of minerals used in a smartphone. Industrial mining scars the Earth permanently, leaving behind toxic wastewater and soil, and rehabilitation of mining areas is uncommon.

From Greenpeace's 2017 Guide to Greener Electronics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I completely agree with your comment. I was only responding to the claim, "Trade ins and selling old phones doesn’t really reduce e-waste."