TL;DW: Fast charging over 2 years only degraded the battery an extra 0.5%, even on extremely fast charging Android phones using 120W.

And with that, hopefully we can put this argument to rest.

  • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Planned obsolescence happens but it’s not as common as most people think it is.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The planned obsolescence is most likely a deliberate trade off rather than actual planned obsolescence.

      If fast charging did do significant damage to battery life and this was known at the time of implementation, the decision would have been “users want fast charging phones” Vs “users want devices that last a long time”.
      In this instance, the convenience of fast charging absolutely would have won.

      “Users want a clear and easy to use device” Vs “users want a robust device”. Which is why we all have glass screens, and the glass technology had to catch up to further expectations.

      “Users want easy wireless connectivity” Vs “users want fast and reliable network speeds”. WiFi wins, and has to catch up to further expectations.

    • mark@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      And probably not as intentional as most people think it is vs just laziness and maybe a lack of planning.

        • Electricd@lemmybefree.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          Well, if they realize the problem and do nothing to fix it and don’t advertise this problem, it ends up being a less worse type of planned obsolescence, but it’s still planned obsolescence imo

          More like unplanned obsolescence but it’s a convenient problem so we plan on it happening

      • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It’s always bulbs or Apple. Bulbs industry switched into LED like 15 years ago, which has 20x lifespan than “durable” filaments; and iPhones average life is 6 years whereas competitors usually went into bin in 3 years.

        • golli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          With iPhones i think it’s less about durability (and especially in the software department they were always great in terms of longevity), but more about repairability in case something does happen.

          As far as lightbulbs go the issue with potential planned obsolescence doesn’t go way just because of the swap to LEDs. First there are a type of bulb even today that use some form of filament and second the part that gets damaged is usually some kind of capacitor or other electronic part that gets run with too much voltage and too hot. Don’t have time to watch it again, but i remember finding this video from a few years ago interesting.

          • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Back when people made a big deal about iPhone planned obsolescence, they were actually easier to repair than most competitors. Nowadays it’s about the same.

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      its exactly as common as people think, when most people’s phones are lasting 3 years tops.