this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
690 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
76770 readers
2310 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.