Re:Plan Ahead for Phase Out of 3G Cellular Networks and Service
by xwdv on Friday December 10, 2021 @02:46PM
(#29514624)
I see a very strong reason. It’s not lifespan that matters, it’s attention span.
You could build a device with a 1000 year lifespan, but it’s a waste of effort if the consumer wants a new one after 5 years. It’s optimal to build a device with a lifespan that will only be as long as a consumer’s interest in it.
Re:Plan Ahead for Phase Out of 3G Cellular Networks and Service
by usrbin on Sunday December 12, 2021 @07:37PM
(#29535269)
Fair. Keeping in mind real-world consumer behavior matters to the equation.
That said I don't know that we should assume that "build for longevity" and "build for effective disposal" are mutually exclusive.
I agree with your second point, but I want to push back on this first point a bit. While it seems like manufacturers benefit from devices being disposable, I don't see a strong reason why they should be.
The reality is that extending the lifespan of devices is one of the best ways to lower consumption. When it comes to changes like retiring 3G, we also have to weigh that against the environmental cost of maintaining the 3G network. Given the maintenance impact, it may end up being a net positive to retire these devices, but it's still an important cost to consider.
To be clear, we should also improve disposal and recycling, but that shouldn't be to the exclusion of reducing and reusing.