introduction - wordpress.com · the smartphone market in the us is the fastest growing with 50% of...
TRANSCRIPT
R e p l a c e m e n t C y c l e : P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s
Latoya Jones’13Environmental Science &Policy Faculty Advisors: Dr. Abigail Mechtenberg, Dr. Rob
Interna'onal Comparison of Handset Replacement Cycles in Months
Finland
Mobile Phone Trends & Observations
Obsolescence
Smartphones
Research Objec'ves: • Examine and contextualize the
ins2tu2onaliza2on of obsolescence • Understand mobile phone
replacement cycle drivers • Ques2on and present evidence of
how industry prac2ces and policy influence replacement cycles in the US
India
The environmental Impact of Cell phone Infographic Source: hBp://visual.ly/environmental-‐impact-‐cell-‐phones
Source: Recon Analy/cs. 2011
Source: w
ww.itcentralpoint.com
Source: w
ww.m
ypho
nemd.ne
t
!"#$%&'$( )*+,-+./.0#/(.12'*#(1$.3#(.*(1114(
5,-+./.0#/(.12'*#(1$.3#(.*(1114(
6%*/+#&(+,-+./7(.*(1114('8(499:(;51(
<*3'=#(.*(1114(
>:?:(6%*/+#&((@#"A%3#=#*&(B73A#(
!"#$%&' (&#")' *+#' ,-./' ,0-'1")23' ,4456./' 7897'
(#*#:#' !;&&' ,<=8' ,4.4' ,<6/' ,./58<-' ..98'
>%*&#*:' ?)*;"#' ,7-4' ,<-0' ,7=' ,.=5<7<' -=9<'
>"#*@;' A"#*B;' ,-48' ,60.' ,.-/' ,.=58--' .897'
C;"D#*E' FGH)I%&;' ,006' ,47-' ,=-.' ,.058..' =<9-'
J*:%#' *+#' *+#' *+#' *+#' ,.5../' /.90'
JK"#;&' *+#' *+#' *+#' *+#' ,6/5<.4' -09<'
J3#&E' FJH' ,7-/' ,.8/' ,.<4' ,6/5./6' <49<'
L#1#*' ?)MI#*N' *+#' ,48=' ,<<0' ,..578<' =09.'
O)";#' ?O' ,-6=' ,404' ,=//' ,6/57.0' 6/90'
H;P%@)' F;&@;&' ,456..' ,/0.' ,.8.'1")23' ,4=5=.8' ./90'
?)Q3R'ST"%@#' U):#@)D' ,*+#' ,45///' ,45.8/'1")23' ,485=/7' .796'
V*%3;:'O%*B:)D'
A"#*B;' ,-/-' ,8' ,008' ,.=5/68' 669='
V*%3;:'?3#3;K' SFWF' ,<//' ,688' ,=08' ,=-567=' 649-'
Handset Subsidiza'on: The iPhone 4G Case Study
!""#$ !""%$ !""&$ !"'"$ ()*+,-.$/0123)-1*)2$
45367*$-5$(((8$
!"#$%&' ()*(' +,*-' +.*,' /.*/' /.0' 1))2-34'
5#6#7#' -4*(' 3.*/' 3)*/' 33*.' -.0' 1342.(+'
8%6C' ,)*/' (/*)' +,*(' +,*(' ),0' 13,2(/('
8"#69:' -/*(' -/*/' -4*4' 3.*/' 3.0' 13,2.++'
;:"<#6='' ,3*+' ((*/' ,4*(' ,(*+' ((0' 13>2.33'
?67%#' 3--*)' ),,*.' )/(*>' 43*>' 4>0' 132334'
?@"#:&' >+*)' (>*)' >+*.' +>*(' (30' 1-42(3)'
?A#&=' (3*3' ,3*)' ,-*4' ()*(' /+0' 1-4234-'
B#C#6' -(*>' 3(*-' ,3*.' ,>*3' )0' 1332/.('
DE":#' -+*3' -(*)' -,*-' ->*4' .0' 1-42/3>'
F:G%9E' ,/*>' ,)*+' ,-*4' 34*>' />0' 1),2,3.'
HEIAJ'KL"%9#' (-*3' ))/*>' ,>*3' 3/*3' /.0' 1).2,4/'
M6%A:7'D%6N7E<'
-,*(' -,*,' ->*,' --*,' (,0' 13,24-.'
M6%A:7'@A#A:@' )/*+' )4*>' -)*)' -)*+' --0' 1,+2-/,'
The smartphone market in the US is the fastest growing with 50% of all subscribers owning a smartphone as of February 2012 (Nielsen Wire). Compared to feature phones (your typical, flip or candy phone) smartphone are more expensive, larger in size, more toxic, superfluous features, contains more minerals and rare metals and is generally more expensive to dispose of. According to IDC market research by 2015 almost all mobile phones sold in the US will be smartphones. Globally, US smartphone market share come was second behind China in 2012. Without argument, smartphone sales will continue to increase. What are the environmental impacts of the smartphone’ life cycle? How does institutional obsolescence contribute to the life of this device? Mobile technology adoption and diffusion is driving change, which impacts human beings and the spaces we occupy
The iPhone’ history of obsolescence
iPhone Release Date
iPhone 1 June 29, 2007
iPhone 3G
July 11, 2008
iPhone 3GS
June 19, 2009
iPhone 4
June 24, 2010
iPhone 4S October 14, 2011
iPhone 5 September 21, 2012
!"#$%&'()*+,!
-./0/1/2/3/.4/.15!!!
"6'+%76)6,!89&(9*!!:(+!*+;+,,$%<!!
-=/>/.=5!
!
"&<?9,@;!)A,)?+,;+*;+!-=/>/.1/.=5!
!"#$%&'(#)*%#+%,+%& -%.*"+%/%,$&01+*%#&
B),#+@;!!
!!!!!!!!!!C+,9D*!!
E?$**+F!!
:9#+!G)%9H)*,!
!
2/"3$.4),%#&
!!5678-97:-8&-8;68!!
B)*&%$;&!!!
B)*,6#+%!I+($J9)%!-./0/.1/.K.=5!
!L$*6M$;&6%+%!-3/.4/.K/.=5!
!
N+&$9?!-2/.K/.=5!
!
E+%;+9J+F!!
-E%)F6;&!O9M+!"'$*5!
N+M+%+*;+,!9*!&(9,!04.0!N+,+$%;(!L++@*D!:$?PQ!
"6A,9F<!!
:+;(*9;$?!)A,)?+,;+*;+!-=/../>/.K/.=5!!
C+,9D*!-.0/.1/.2.=5!
!
R$,&+!-K/.2/.S/.K/.=5!
!
"6A,;%9'@)*,!-0/2/S/=/.4/.K5!
!
C6%$A9?9&<!-../.0/.=5!
C9,'),$A9?9&<!->/.1/.2/.=5!
E)?9;<!-35!!
Introduction As mobile subscriptions globally near seven billion at the end of 2012, the environmental impact of these devices must be acknowledged. This research presents concepts on planned, cosmetic and perceived obsolescence in smartphone technology and consumption. Empirical evidence will be presented to support the relationship between ins t i tu t iona l ized obso lescence, consumption, and waste resulting in negative ecological impact. The average American replaces their mobile device after 21 months. Preliminary results from a survey of smartphone users show handset replacements to be approximately twenty-four months. Industry practices such as upgrading, contracts, phone cost subsidization and laws such as US Digital Millennium Copyright Act shorten replacement cycle.
“WHAT WILL THE WORLD OF TOMORROW BE LIKE?” This question marked the introduction to Vance Packard’ book The Waste Makers (1960). The Waste Makers spoke to obsolescence and the ways in which consumers attitude and behaviors are manipulated which result in wasteful behavior and environmental degradation. Packard worried, rightly so, that American society had become wasteful due to the reduced durability and increasing disposability of products. Things were now being “made to break” not last. Planned or “in built” obsolescence hastens the generation and variation of products resulting in increased replacement rates and promotes further consumption of additional products. Nowhere is this most evident today than the mobile phone industry.
Survey was designed after researching mobile phone users survey conducted by PEWS, IDC Portio research, and Nielsen Wire. These surveys were more concerned with the use habits of subscribers (with the exception of Recon Analytics) and not replacement or disposal habits. Survey was completed online by sharing with friends via email, links posted on various social media sites, and hard copy handouts on Clark University Campus. Statistical software will be used to do more in depth analysis.
Methods Obsolescence in its various manifestations generates waste. Furthermore, industry practices, laws concerning digital technologies such as smartphones, and retail practices are increasingly contributing even more our “throwaway” society. There is no “away” for these devices. Statistical analysis on survey response is need to make accurate correlations between mobile phone subscribers and replacement habits. Preliminary survey results show the “upgrade” or phone subsidization as being the main driver to rep lacement hab i ts o f mobi le phone subscribers. Design, manufacturing, copyright, consumer behavior, and environmental policies have a big role to play in reducing the environmental impact of the smartphone life cycle.
Conclusion
Is there such a thing as a “throw-away” phone? Mobile Phones can be rendered obsolete long before they fail to function. Three ways in which this occurs is through cosmetic changes, software updates, and new version release. Simple stylistic changes encourages the user to buy a new color for example or smaller size while the phone on a whole is not very different from it preceding model. Software updates will sometimes require changing devices because the new software does not function with the old device. With the release of a new version (generation) of a handset users now perceive their handset as inferior due to much advertised superiority of the newer device. Consumption of device accessories, and applications is guaranteed and the capitalist political economy is perpetuated.
Survey Responses Approximately 39% of the one hundred fifty six responders have owned their smartphones less than one year. % of one hundred thirty three responders replaced their previous mobile device because of an upgrade and 29% because their device malfunctions and 18% due to contract renewal with phone upgrade. One very interesting result from the survey is how many people continue to store their old devices (55% of 138 responders. This survey is still in progress and further in depth analysis will be conducted.
USA
References 1. Nnorom, Innocent (2007, June 29). Electronic Waste (e-waste): Material Flows and Management Practices in Nigeria . Retrieved from
Science Direct Journal 2. Two Thirds of New Mobile Buyers Now Opting for Smart-phones (2012, July 12). Nielsen Wire Blog. Retrieved from
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/two-thirds-of-new-mobile-buyers-now-opting-for-smart-phones/ 3. Entner, Roger (2011, June 23) International Comparisons: The Handset Replacement Cycle Recon Analytics. Retrieved from Mobile
Future. http://www.mobilefuture.org/page/handset-replacement-cycle.pdf 4. The Boom in Smart-phones: Cleverly Simple (2009, October 1). The Economist Magazine Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/node/14563636 5. https://enviu-challenges.s3.amazonaws.com/production-files/inspirations/attachments/11/original/slide_06.jpg?1327576302 6. http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-content/uploads/Facts_and_Figures_on_EWaste_and_Recycling.pdf 7. Neil Maycroft, Consumption, planned obsolescence and waste (2009, January) 8. 8https://www.eff.org/is-it-illegal-to-unlock-a-phone 9. Slade,Giles. (2006) Made to Break.Cambridge: Harvard University Press 10. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/smartphones-account-for-half-of-all-mobile-phones-dominate-new-phone-
purchases-in-the-us/ 11. Cooper, Tim. (2010) Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the Throwaway Society. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing
Left Table: Why such variation in replacement cycle? A few variable to consider: Prepaid customers, income, contract length and phone subsidy. Right Table: Analysis done by Recon Analytics points to subsidization as the variable witch best explain differences in replacement cycle. Recon Analytics gathered data on handsets sold from manufacturers, then used these numbers to calculate replacement cycle