[skaevola]

The problem is that most consumers' revealed preference is for better performance rather than replaceability or device longevity (I know some people here will express a different preference, but you are a minority of consumers). Consumers don't factor device longevity into their purchase decisions, so companies don't prioritize it during the design process. And it needs to be prioritized because design decisions for longevity involve tradeoffs with other device performance metrics like size, weight, battery life (you can improve battery longevity by decreasing the depth of discharge of the battery before a recharge is required), processor performance, price.

Unfortunately this article clearly demonstrates the problems companies face when they try to improve longevity at the cost of performance. Apple implemented processor throttling based on measured battery condition to improve the longevity of their devices, but even in this article, seemingly focused on device longevity, they still receive criticism for this decision:

"But even consumers who hang onto their old iPhones for as long as possible learned in 2017 that Apple released a software update that slows down old phones to counteract aging lithium-ion battery problems."

[deogeo]

> most consumers' revealed preference is for better performance rather than replaceability or device longevity

Because replaceability and longevity are hidden and obfuscated by the manufacturer. How can you talk about 'preference' when consumers don't have the information in the first place, or, in many cases, even any alternatives?

[jonfw]

Throttling CPU in a non-transparent and non-configurable manner is not an acceptable means to increase longevity.Maybe it works for your grandmother who just wants to continue to send text messages, but most people want to use their smartphones for running actual applications.

Particularly when iphone batteries have honestly not shown to be that difficult to replace batteries of. But when you start throttling perceived performance, you're not willing to replace battery for something that as far as you know has lost it's ability to perform at it's original capacity.

I agree with your first point, but it's frankly absurd to imply that secret CPU throttling is a remotely acceptable manner of extending longevity.

[photojosh]

Do you think upfront transparency about CPU throttling is an acceptable manner of extending longevity?

[frosted-flakes]

If it's paired with the option to disable throttling, absolutely.

[dragonsngoblins]

You say consumers have expressed that but I'm not actually sure that is true. Sure people often buy things that are less durable but it is hard to tell the longevity of many products in advance, especially of tech for non techy people.

I used to do computer repair and the number of people who were furious to discover, years after they bought it, just how uneconomical it was to repair certain Apple products due to how unmodular those products were.

Plus say I'm buying headphones, obviously (to technologically aware people) wireless ones will break more often because they have more parts that can break and have batteries that will eventually go out. But after that I'm kind of stuck with buying a brand that has a good history, people don't write reviews of currently available products saying "I've owned these for 6 years now and they still work". And even if those reviews exist the company may have changed the internals of the product by now so that review is no longer valid.

Sure consumer purchase patterns don't reward building for longevity and I agree with that, but I disagree that consumers have necessarily expressed they don't care very much about it.

[stiglitz]

Skaevola didn’t say “expressed preference.” He/she said “revealed preference.” I.e. revealed by actual purchases. This is more meaningful than any other “expression.”

[dragonsngoblins]

I misused the word "expressed" as opposed to "revealed" but I was meaning to use it the same way Skevola used "revealed". Sorry for the confusion