Will Nokia survive as an independent company?

[Al B. Sure!]

What's wrong with buying a new phone every 3 years? Phones are not that expensive.

You can't be this stupid.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's not about how expensive something is.

If we as consumers are given the option to decide to upgrade or continue using the product we purchased, that's great. How the hell is planned obsolescence going to be intrinsically good for the consumer, particularly the consumer who does not want advanced features? More choices are better. If I want a new phone every 3 years, I make that decision; I don't want it forced on me by a mechanical flaw designed into the phone!

Now, there are second-order benefits to planned obsolescence for the consumer, but, generally-speaking, it's not in the consumers' best interests to be forced to purchase a new version of a product every few years because the previous version no longer operates.

To be clear, I don't think phones conk out after a few years. I had a really old phone that continued to work and if I were to power it up and put in a simcard in it, it probably still would work. The batteries do get progressively weaker and a replacement battery for an old phone might not be possible to purchase. I don't think phones exhibit planned obsolescence, though, except in the case of proprietary batteries, in the sense that they stop working after a while because cellphone technology advances so fast and the market, for the most part, seems willing to turn-over phones very quickly. There's no need for cellphones to exhibit planned obsolescence. It's just the example, I think, Cockney gave, so we're running with it.

[giblets]

You can't be this stupid.

Al calling someone else stupid... that's rich

[Al B. Sure!]

Al calling someone else stupid... that's rich

If that someone is you, it's apparently very fitting and correct

[Lorizael]

I was talking with RIM about a year ago about a job. The pay was low and I declined. Their counter offer? They would give me a Blackberry. Yeah, thanks anyway.

You should have taken the RIM job.

[giblets]

If that someone is you, it's apparently very fitting and correct

Wow, great comeback!

[Al B. Sure!]

Wow, great comeback!

No. This was my comeback:

It's not about how expensive something is.

If we as consumers are given the option to decide to upgrade or continue using the product we purchased, that's great. How the hell is planned obsolescence going to be intrinsically good for the consumer, particularly the consumer who does not want advanced features? More choices are better. If I want a new phone every 3 years, I make that decision; I don't want it forced on me by a mechanical flaw designed into the phone!

Now, there are second-order benefits to planned obsolescence for the consumer, but, generally-speaking, it's not in the consumers' best interests to be forced to purchase a new version of a product every few years because the previous version no longer operates.

To be clear, I don't think phones conk out after a few years. I had a really old phone that continued to work and if I were to power it up and put in a simcard in it, it probably still would work. The batteries do get progressively weaker and a replacement battery for an old phone might not be possible to purchase. I don't think phones exhibit planned obsolescence, though, except in the case of proprietary batteries, in the sense that they stop working after a while because cellphone technology advances so fast and the market, for the most part, seems willing to turn-over phones very quickly. There's no need for cellphones to exhibit planned obsolescence. It's just the example, I think, Cockney gave, so we're running with it.

[giblets]

No, you moron, you still haven't explained why anyone should care if the phone lasts longer than 3 years. You just claimed it somehow makes consumers worse off by some unexplained process.

[Al B. Sure!]

No, you moron, you still haven't explained why anyone should care if the phone lasts longer than 3 years. You just claimed it somehow makes consumers worse off by some unexplained process.

Cockney touched on that already:

i can think of many valid reasons. if you're talking about things in general, then there are many things where there is unlikely to be any real improvement in their design or additional features. for example if i buy a pair of socks, i don't expect that any product that may appear is going to perform the function of a pair of socks "much better", however much time passes. so i want a product which performs its function well and is durable enough to last a long time.

if you're talking just about phones then maybe you are happy with just making phonecalls/sms. or you would prefer to consume less resources, or...etc.

[giblets]

So your posts are basically redundant and you just like to hear yourself type?

[Al B. Sure!]

So your posts are basically redundant and you just like to hear yourself type?

You're the one who took issue with my affirmation of Cockney's post, *******.

You must like to hear me type.

[giblets]

No, I took issue with:

Heaven forbid anyone isn't of the "CONSUME! CONSUME! CONSUME! BIGGER FASTER STRONGER NOW NOW NOW!" mentality.

because you sound stupid.

[Asher]

What's wrong with buying a new phone every 3 years? Phones are not that expensive.

I buy new phones every 2 years. They are subsidized by the contract so usually free, or close to.

[Al B. Sure!]

You know what, I'll leave it alone. I don't care to get into another retarded 'discussion' with gribbler's stupid self.

[giblets]

I WON!