Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by IBM 3102 days ago
iPhones have the longest life of any smartphone and you can verify that yourself by looking at the used market for it (and any Apple product). User replaceable batteries may ironically decrease that and increase waste.
2 comments

What metrics are you looking at in the used market to support your hypothesis? Could they be explained by a different hypothesis?

I'm still enjoying my 3-year-old non-iPhone, and intend to keep using it until it stops working entirely, whereas my spouse with an iPhone was already voicing suspicion before this announcement that Apple was intentionally slowing their old iPhone through updates, just to provoke an upgrade. With the announcement, I can't fault the reasoning.

How much of the used market for iPhones are devices that had been traded in (because slowed by Apple due to old battery), refurbished by the mobile phone company (probably just to replace the battery and reset it to factory settings), and then resold to people whose older model refurbished iPhone now needs yet another new battery? That generates an additional sale of an entire old iPhone, whereas other phones would only generate a sale of a replacement battery at that time.

I think you would probably have to look at what mobile phone customers are actually using, right now.

Refurbished by the mobile phone company? That doesn't occur.

The used market for iPhones on Craigslist is actual users. The market is very strong, and so is the resale value of iPhones. There is one (1) explanation for this: iPhones hold their value better because they are more useful for a longer time.

As an aside, iPhones also remain able to run the latest version of iOS for roughly TWICE as long as Android phones.

There is no competition, here.

The fact that iPhones are updated for the longest time and are built well is directly related to why you can get as much as you can when you sell a used iPhone. Apple actually has an incentive to create the longest lasting iPhone because the economics of the iPhone Upgrade Plan and every carrier upgrade plan depends on it.

That iPhones retain their value over time is a testament to the fact that Apple has not been slowing down old iPhones to make you upgrade (this conspiracy theory predates iOS 10.2.1 by many years).

But I don't intend to sell my non-iPhone, ever. It works as well for me now as it did when I first bought it, so why would I? It's the same reason why I'm never going to sell my 2001 Honda Civic.

Have you examined the reasons why iPhone owners sell their older iPhones, and why people buy refurbished used iPhones?

> That iPhones retain their value over time is a testament to the fact that Apple has not been slowing down old iPhones

Not at all. It's a testament that there is a market for old iPhones, that is all. People are possibly buying used iPhones despite them being slowed down.

> Apple actually has an incentive to create the longest lasting iPhone because the economics of the iPhone Upgrade Plan and every carrier upgrade plan depends on it.

Then why don't they? <5 years for an electronic device that hasn't seen any significant upgrades in later models is absurdly short.

The lower depreciation of an iPhone compared to any comparable smartphone is directly correlated to the quality of the iPhone. This isn't new, anyone who buys used cars understands this. More importantly, it's an independent (of Apple) market that is constantly repricing this. And the results have been clear: iPhones retain their value much better than anything else.

Just as we can use the price of iOS zero-day exploits in the black market as a proxy for how secure iOS has become over the years, we can also look at the resale market for iPhones.

> The lower depreciation of an iPhone compared to any comparable smartphone is directly correlated to the quality of the iPhone

That is not true, nor has it ever been for phones or cars. People buy each for all kinds of reasons: status symbols, ideals, etc. iPhones demonstrably do not retain their value as demonstrated by this battery fiasco.

After-Market value != quality

How would replaceable batteries decrease the life of the smartphone?
It wouldn't. It would obviously increase the lifespan of it.

The spinsters are deliberately confusing "lifespan" with "resale value".

>The spinsters are deliberately confusing "lifespan" with "resale value".

I realize I'm responding to someone arguing in bad faith. But lifespan directly influences the resale value.

Replaceable batteries increase lifespan.

The iPhone is a well-made phone which would have greater lifespan if the batteries were replaceable.

As it is, users who bought an older iPhone now have to pay middle-men to replace the battery or face degraded performance.

The iPhone already has replaceable batteries. Making them user-replaceable just reduces battery capacity, increases size/weight, all so in 2-3 years you can save about 5% of your purchase cost by replacing the battery yourself.

iPhone users buy iPhones because they wanted the best in class functionality, if they wanted to save money they'd buy a phone with a replaceable battery.

It is replaceable (by Apple, authorized and unauthorized third parties). User replaceable batteries could increase waste by being less reliable overall. I know every TV remote I've owned with a battery door eventually ends up with a rubber band around it, and I think that's pretty much a universal experience.

Also we've had this debate for years already when Apple went to unibody Macbooks. The reliability and battery life only increased because of the better structural integrity and increased room for battery cells.

It is not easily replaceable as with any other phone.

The issue is not creating waste, but wasting one's money on middle-men for replacing one's phone batteries.

>I know every TV remote I've owned with a battery door eventually ends up with a rubber band around it, and I think that's pretty much a universal experience.

You're relating a supposedly personal story to make your spin claims more relatable. Maybe you're like the people in late-night TV commercials who seemingly can't open a can of tomatoes without massive bleeding? ;)

> The issue is not creating waste, but wasting one's money on middle-men for replacing one's phone batteries.

Well I could say I'm spending that money on having a nicer phone that's sealed and seamless, rather than wasting it.

Sealed, seamless, performance-degraded, costly to service, with planned obsolescence.

It's quite obvious that it's a waste of money to pay middle-men to perform basic service on it for stuff a user can do at home with any other phone.

Right... but the point was I get something, in return for having to pay middle-men to service it. It's a trade I'm happy with. Maybe you aren't, but it works for me.