The topic at hand is not about a preference that most people would not find objectively good or bad. Why is this particular preference bad enough that one should feel bad for having it? Without statements supporting this view your post doesn’t make much sense.
they wouldn't because, like many teenagers smoking their first cigarette, they don't understand the consequences of satisfying that particular preference
people often have preferences that harm them, so the fact that a particular choice is voluntary isn't a very strong argument that it's healthy, even individually, much less collectively
this probably isn't a productive place to try to reason out the societal consequences of people acceding to these particular losses of freedom
This subthread could exist verbatim in any comment thread because it's devoid of substance. "Some positions are better than others", "why?", "because {poignant but vague analogy}".
Why specifically is it bad for people to prefer devices that are small and tightly integrated to devices which are repairable but make trade-offs to get there? I own a Framework laptop for its repairability but would warn anyone interested in it that the battery life won't work for all use cases. It's a trade-off that I've made that doesn't make sense for everyone.
>Why specifically is it bad for people to prefer devices that are small and tightly integrated to devices which are repairable but make trade-offs to get there?
For repairability, upgradability, hackability, the environment, waste, tighter vendor control, and so on...
Reasons is a good start. Explaining and justifying those reasons would be better.
I choose hackability and upgradeability and less vendor lockin because I myself value those things, but I see that as a personal preference and not something I want or need to impose on the industry as a whole. Benefits to the environment and reducing waste are clearly valuable but it's not obvious to me without seeing data that such benefits would be high—many people tend to upgrade phones long before batteries need replacing anyway, so I would need to see data that demonstrates that a substantial number of things would be saved from the landfill by virtue of higher reparability.
>Reasons is a good start. Explaining and justifying those reasons would be better
The question was "Why specifically is it bad", and I gave 6 reasons. Does the "justyfing" demand stop at some point, or we'd get down all the way to justifying why being alive is better than being dead, why anything ever matters, and so on?
I think the reasons are self-evident - i.e. it shouldn't take any argument as to why repairability and upgradability are good, why being more at the mercy of the vendor is bad, or why protecting environment and being less wasteful matters.
I brought up counterpoints to each of your reasons, but if you don't want to have a conversation about them that's fine. I'm not particularly invested in my counter position, I just get very tired of the zeitgeist where people think it's okay to dismiss a popular perspective because it's "obviously" wrong.
And no, flat-earther comparisons aren't going to fly, I'm talking about perspectives held by tens of millions.
Waste and environment are the only reasons you gave that speak to the preference being bad in any sort of objective sense. The status quo ante iPhones was lack of repairability in cheap, small devices. The devices cost little and there was little economic friction to just getting another one. I don’t know for sure but I imagine the average length of use for Nokia devices was less than that of iPhones.
The lives of people with wealth (which by world standards is just about everyone in the U.S.) is enormously wasteful, and unsustainable. Instead of focusing on one aspect of waste in our lives we should take a holistic approach.
>I don’t know for sure but I imagine the average length of use for Nokia devices was less than that of iPhones
Wasn't and didn't have to be. Ancient Nokia mobile phones would still be perfectly usable, protocols aside, for basic phone functions like talking and messaging. And you could even use them to bash on and mend a dent in your anvil.
It’s unclear who the “they” are in your comment and even if you did make it clear your post is less meaningful than the one I responded to. What was the goal with this retort?
this probably isn't a productive place to try to reason out the societal consequences of people acceding to these particular losses of freedom, but i thought it was worth pointing out that people often have preferences that harm them, so the fact that a particular choice is voluntary isn't a very strong argument that it's healthy, even individually, much less collectively
i appreciate your critique of the clarity of my comment and have edited it to clarify
