I own a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE. I bought this phone in 2021. It's been 3 years since I have been using this phone and I feel no need to upgrade it. My friends and family members have similar stories about their phones. Everyone I know upgrades their phone once in every three years (approximately). According to consumer affairs, 55.47% of people upgrade their phones every two to three years, while 11.89% upgrade them every year and 4.28% purchase a new one every 6 months.

Do we need companies to release new phones every year?

There is a huge number of smartphone companies in the world, and all of them are in a race to bring you the latest tech in phones each year. Depending on where you are in the world, there is a good chance you haven't experienced products from most of those companies. You have a select few brands you trust, and which fall inside your comfort zone.

According to Statista, "Overall, smartphone manufacturers shipped 1.17 billion smartphones around the world in 2023. Apple led all smartphone manufacturers with 234.6 million units shipped worldwide, followed by Samsung with 226.6 million units."

My question is - Can smartphone production and their consequent release to public consumption be slowed down to decrease the strain on resources and reduce e-waste?

There are companies like Apple, which release three to four models of phones each year (although they manufacture the greatest number of phones in the world each year too) and then there are companies like Samsung, which have hundreds more than ten models to release each year, and they manufacture millions of units for each of these models.

During the technological boom of the late 2000s, when Apple released the world's first smartphone, the leaps in smartphone technology over the following years were incredible with each newer model. Whereas the technological bridge between two smartphones of the same company released over a gap of a year is not so vast anymore. Companies now rely on small hardware improvements and innovative, or gimmicky, software tricks to justify a newer model at the same price tag as the previous year, or sometimes even a bit higher.

Even though my focus is only smartphones for this article, there are more products that receive a yearly upgrade. Notably earphones and smartwatches. I wonder how many of these upgrades actually justify the draw on so many resources and the flooding of markets with newer products.

Capitalism and the constant need to launch new products

Capitalism justifies yearly releases. For a company to keep making profits, they need to keep selling stuff. Since smartphones are not subscription based, companies cannot rely on them for constant earnings. For companies to increase revenue and give massive returns to shareholders, they need a constant financial input from consumers. For smartphone companies, this comes in the form of yearly smartphone releases.

A constant argument against my stance is the need and space for "innovation". By asking for the products to be released slower and mindfully to reduce strain on naturally available resources, proponents of capitalism often challenge this argument by saying how we are trying to stifle innovation. But I sincerely ask you to find innovation in the yearly smartphone upgrades from any company. What is so innovative going from iPhone 15 to iPhone 16? or Samsung Galaxy Fold 2 to Samsung Galaxy Fold 3? Often the change comes down to really small improvements. Whereas if you allow for an 18-month gap instead of a 12-month gap and let the workflow and production time catch up to this schedule, you might get to see better upgrades and more features in the next smartphone from your favorite company. The bigger companies need to set an example, and the smaller companies will follow suit.

Changing the product release timeline is a massive undertaking for a company. The assembly line is already set in its ways, and introducing deadline changes will be a huge cost. But let us not be fooled into thinking that huge companies like Apple and Samsung do not have the financial resources to introduce such changes. Even if they say that it will be a huge overhead and they will lose a lot of money, that "money" is usually millions in profits to the stakeholders. Apple and Samsung will not die off if they change their product release timelines, it will just cost them a fraction of their yearly revenue.

A lot also hinges on how one defines "innovation". An extra camera button on the side of a phone (with multi-function capabilities) can be innovative to some, but not to all. Similar argument goes for coming up with a foldable phone, which is still arguably a bigger innovation than a camera button.

The Problems

Environmental and Social Justice

There is a huge environmental impact that new electronic products cause on a regular basis. Slowing down release times and production will help reduce the drain on these resources. It will also give time for more recyclable material to be available for use in production later.

1. Mining for metals is still a common occurrence for smartphone casing. Even though bigger companies like Apple and Samsung are recycling more and more older products to create new ones, smaller companies do not have the resources to do the same.

2. Delivering smartphones to people's addresses also causes a lot of plastic waste. Transporting phones from manufacturers to retailers increases the carbon footprint of each device, and the problem only gets bigger with companies like Apple, Samsung and Google which sell their phones to a lot of countries in the world.

Unravelling the Social and Environmental Cost of Smartphones – Digital for Good | RESET.ORG

This article states the impact of smartphone use and production on the amount of CO2 released in the environment. But the bad news does not stop there. Since mining is a big part of the smartphone industry, it is a valuable commodity in and of itself. While banning mining brings forth the cries of "think about the miners…what will they do? How will they earn?", many countries and regions are exploited for their mining industries and mineral deposits. The miners in these parts of the world barely make a living from their so-called job, as a lot of it can be characterized as slave labor since certain regions are controlled by militias who use the money and resources to strengthen themselves while leaving the workers (including children) to work in abysmal conditions with little pay and of course, like every other poverty-stricken region controlled by armed men, women and girls have to suffer through sexual abuse.

Although slowing down smartphone consumption and production will not directly solve this issue, lowering the consumption and value of this commodity might allow some added time for human-rights organizations to make changes in these regions of the world and might even help redirect financial aid to the regions.

Limited options for consumers

As discussed earlier, innovation takes a backseat when the production time is short. Small incremental changes every year do no warrant an entirely new package. The launch events have become less exciting, and we have also seen companies showing up at live events with faulty products. It may not be a direct causation of smaller production times and more expected output, but it is definitely something that's been happening more and more recently.

The consumers are not left with great, attractive options to choose from. The small upgrades each year are negligible and leave the consumers wanting more. The biggest advertised benefit of capitalism has always been more competition leading to more innovation and a lower price tag. That doesn't seem to ring true in the smartphone arena. Given that companies like Apple have an entire ecosystem with no competition, iPhone users are left with zero other choices and can only look at Apple's line-up to upgrade to. Android companies that have been thriving in countries like India because of their "low-cost, more features" philosophy have been banned from selling their products in the USA and the current budget phone market in the USA is nothing to rave about. The mid-tier phones are bringing forth the most competition, but by using successful features and hardware of their predecessor flagships counterparts, they are sacrificing on innovation.

The proof of disinterest on the consumer's behalf for these yearly launches lies in the fact that most of the readers of this article and most of the people you know are not looking forward to a new smartphone every year. Many people would prefer a smartphone that can last them a long time.

Planned Obsolescence

This ties into the constant need for consumption under capitalism. Companies cannot produce product that are too fragile and break often because that would not be attractive to consumers, but at the same time companies cannot create products that last so long that they lose their repeat customers. Therefore, there exists a sweet spot for companies to operate in. There are also other factors depending on the product that govern how long it should last. For example, in the case of smartphones, there can be new software that requires a newer hardware which would compel people to upgrade to a newer phone if they want to work with the new software.

Since companies need to limit a product's life, they come up with ways to do so. This thought-out process of creating a product that can be made to last longer but doesn't because the company decides to put profit before usefulness is called "planned obsolescence".

" In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) is the concept of policies planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life or a purposely frail design, so that it becomes obsolete after a certain predetermined period of time upon which it decrementally functions or suddenly ceases to function, or might be perceived as unfashionable.[1] The rationale behind this strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").[2] It is the deliberate shortening of the lifespan of a product to force people to purchase functional replacements.[3] " - Wikipedia

As consumers, this should bother every one of us. The only reason that certain products in your life don't last as long as they should is because they wouldn't be as profitable for the companies, even companies that are already making millions from their sales in net profit. So much for innovation under capitalism!

With movements such as "Right to Repair" and slower release of products, this problem can be made less prominent. Companies will always look for ways to make maximum profit, so the only way they will ever agree to such a measure is if they are forced to adhere to it. Forced why? Because it is better for the consumers like you and me, and it is better for the planet.

Solution

I am aware that shifting the production timelines from 12 months to 18 months is not a good enough timeline to stop the pressure on available resources. I would like the number to be more radical, like 2 to 3 years, but it is borderline impractical in the sense that almost no company will agree to such an extreme timeline. If companies are able to successfully transition to the 18-month timeline, it will show a commitment from the companies worldwide towards a better future and will also set a precedent that such changes are possible if the leading brands truly put their money where their mouth is and actually show their commitment towards a more sustainable future rather than slickly produced advertisements about their promises towards a better future.

Here is a tiny survey (3 questions) to gauge how often the readers of this article change their smartphones and what do they think the perfect time would be for companies to launch a newer phone.

Here is a link to the responses for this survey.