This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.

Title

Incentives prefer consumerism over parsimony

Description

I mean, obviously. From the post <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/xcbn7z/iphone_14_plus_preorders_worse_than_iphone_13/" source="Reddit">iPhone 14 Plus Pre-Orders Worse Than iPhone 13 Mini, Product Strategy 'Fails'</a>, the following chain of comments, We start off with the voice of reason. <bq>Older phones are simply faring better than they used to as well. Used to be a phone two models old was getting super slow and battery life was shit. Or there was a major new feature. That’s not as much the case anymore, my 12 pro works flawlessly and I see no good reason to upgrade. A slightly better camera isn’t worth a thousand bucks.</bq> Followed by two comments that consider only personal gain and not e-waste: <bq>Also, have a 12 pro but decided to upgrade. The trade-in value gives the new phone for basically free. I have no intention of switching carriers anytime soon so there’s basically no downside. Especially considering I was starting to see some battery degradation.</bq> <iq>There's basically no downside</iq> only because the owner doesn't recognize e-waste as a downside. <bq>Same boat. Going from 12 Pro to 14 Pro is costing me like $56 (taxes on $999 plus one month of the financing charge before the credits kick in). The piece that people who aren’t taking advantage of this are forgetting is future trade-in value. The 12 Pro won’t be worth the same as a 14 Pro in 2 years.</bq> They sound reasonable, and they might even be convincing, but their argument is based on them having externalized the cost of throwing away a perfectly good electronics device. There is no guarantee that anyone else will be using that device, nor are they incentivized to care or even think about it.