Let’s leave grandparents and their cell phones alone, on whom they have a strong dependence.
An article published on his Blog by Enrique Dans under the title of “Technology and Durability”, in which he echoes another article published in The New York Times under the title of “A Smartphone That Lasts a Decade? Yes, It’s Possible«, raises in me some doubts and concerns on which I want to give my opinion.
Both Enrique and the New York newspaper raise in their respective articles something that has to do with programmed and technological obsolescence, but that transcends the social sphere, and that especially affects the elderly.
The first question Enrique asks us in his article is: Can a smartphone be designed that lasts a decade?
The answer is not “surely yes”, as Enrique says, the answer is yes, sure, if they even thought about it, of course they would design it. Another thing is that from the point of view of their business, the manufacturer brands are interested, that they are not interested, among other issues because with decisions like this the market is fragmented, reducing the economy of scale
I have a 1st generation iPhone SE, and for what I use the phone for, which is for many things, I have enough. It only gives me problems with some apps for which I no longer have updates, but in general, it works well in what I need from it, for. so I don’t need to spend money on a more modern one, which isn’t necessarily better for me.
Then he asks: Would anyone really have any interest in continuing to use devices with a processor that today we would consider archaic, with a minuscule storage capacity compared to current standards, and that at most can connect to 3G?
The correct answer is that of the Galician: it depends. There is a good percentage of people who do not understand processors. They don’t know if the one on their phone is archaic or ultramodern. They know about its features, that they can make a call, that they can send an email, and they know that when it no longer works for them, either because it is old, or because it fails or has problems, they simply go to the store and buy a new mobile. If they can call, if they have guasap, if the mobile takes photos, if they can see the mail or send an SMS, everything is fine for them. They don’t need more, and they don’t need to pay more money for something they don’t know how to value, nor do they need. In this situation there are millions of users and this should be taken into account.
The 3rd question asks: Would we want to — or could we really — use an iPhone 5 or a Samsung S3 today?
In this case I think the question is already answered. But I want to add something else in this regard: I think that the rights of customers who have had a device of any brand for years should be more respected, and that they should be encouraged to have their smart in good use as far as possible, at least in the basic questions, and in this question, the regulators could force companies to guarantee the service of these basic benefits, such as calls, mails, cameras, recorders, basic software such as calendar, text, agenda, etc. maps, messages, networks, banking services, etc.
It is correct to say that “Each one, depending on their circumstances, their budget and the criticality they give to the technology they carry in their pocket, makes their replacement decisions.”
I have the same opinion. But this possibility must be ensured, and not force someone to be forced to spend 1,500 euros on a mobile phone for a single need. On the other hand, I hope that 4G will last for many years. I do not need 5G at all, recognizing its usefulness for many other things that I do not need.
“Ensuring the return of old devices that work well”, as Enrique explains, seems imperative to me. But not only the return, also the utility.
In one thing I totally disagree with Enrique, when he refers to the »very marginal segments of the technological market that intend to give a device of this type a durability of a decade», well, appreciated Enrique:
You’re not talking about a “recalcitrant consumer who clings to his age-old device like it’s an heirloom and accepts all of its obvious limitations a decade after owning it”, this even seems unfair to me.
You are talking about many consumers and users who have that device because it is the only one they understand. For them, who are not recalcitrant, it is not a relic, nor an antique, it is something that is useful to them, and for that alone it should be respected, and it does have limitations, but it will be for others, not for them.
And if I applaud the last statement by Enrique Dans when he says: “Perhaps what we have to do is simply apply a bit of balance and common sense to the technology markets…”
I hope so. If there is common sense, this type of consumer will not be left at the foot of the horses by depriving them of the use of their devices, for which they paid so much, and that now due to a planned obsolescence that should be regulated, they can lose because they stop working . That is the balance that the market for technological products needs, with special care in technological products for personal use, such as mobile phones, and with very special care for the elderly, who are so needy and dependent on their communication devices.
So I ask: Are we in the transition from a horizontal economy in which buying, using and throwing away prevails, towards a circular economy in which durability, reuse and recycling prevail?
Well, let’s do that, and leave the grandparents’ cell phones alone.
References (In Spanish):
1. What mobile do I give to my grandparents? The best phones for seniors
2. The best cell phones for older people
3. Mobile phones for the elderly with WhatsApp: eight models for all types of grandparents
El artículo original se puede leer en español en este enlace.
Comments