| ▲ | baggy_trough 4 hours ago | |
The crazy take is thinking that a design choice that causes there to be 1% more iPhone sales is an anti-consumer move. | ||
| ▲ | Jensson 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Planned obsolesce are anti consumer and increases sales. So yes anti consumer design can increase sales volume, that is often the point. Replaceable batteries lets you use your phone longer, that means people will take longer to buy a new phone and reduce iphone sales. Such anti consumer moves requires regulations to be fixed, since there is no incentive for the company to be pro consumer here. | ||
| ▲ | tempest_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
The point is that the incentives are not pointing towards "make better phone" they are pointing towards "sell more phones" Sometimes "better phone" drives "sell more phones" Sometimes it doesn't. | ||
| ▲ | anonymars 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Can you explain your reasoning? Is there some minimum sales threshold required, and 2 million iPhones wouldn't meet it? | ||