@freedomwriter If your comment is a response to my original story then I can only assume that you either didn’t read it fully, nor the subsequent responses I made to other comments, or that you haven’t understood what I said. If the latter, that may be my inability to communicate well enough, in which case I apologise.
The reality is, however, that to assert that when Apple decide to introduce a new iPhone it is because they “decide go ruin the one you have via an update.”
Not only is your assertion tautologous, it. is bizarre or, at least, extremely improbable that a manufacturer would decide to introduce a new model of a successful product, on the basis that they wish to ruin the millions of their current models, which presumably would only serve to infuriate or distress those model owners and be unlikely endear them to future Apple purchases.
The notion also flies in the face of the reality of the iPhones dominance of the smartphone market and the noted loyalty and continual purchase of their products by users.
Apple, in fact, has an excellent record for facilitating the extended life of its products through considering legacy needs. It probably does more in that area than any other manufacturer in that market and certainly does no less. That is just one of the reasons that used iPhones (and other Apple products) have more substantial demand for obsolescent products and they inevitably attract a substantially better price than those of similar age but other brands.
I am a low and fixed income pensioner and still own a perfectly useful and fully operational iPhone 3gs. My current daily user is an iPhone 5s and this does all I need from such a device. No, it cannot load the very latest operating system or the much more evolved cameras of later models. It does not have wireless charging or a retina screen or 5gs. — None of these absences ‘ruin’ the 5s.
Evolutions is by definition, change. Change introduces differences. Those differences are generally improvents but occassionally remove something that was previously considered useful or even essential by some. That is just reality.
Earlier examples of what evolved into the current human appear to have had tails for we have the vestiges of them. No doubt they were of immense value when we hadn’t yet evolved the ability to stand, retain our balance and move around on only two legs. However, that evolution did not deny or ruin the features of its predecessor and many of examples of that predecessor probably existed alongside the upright model for many years.
How many upright models of human would choose to return to the four-legged supine variety? Very few, if any, I suggest. Did this change ‘ruin’ the previous version? No, it was obsolescent for a long time but eventually became obsolete in the human world as the new upright variety was clearly superior.
As I’ve mentioned, I have little income and it has been that way throughout my 70+ years. I have never been able to afford a new computer or a new car or such. I am thankful for the existence of products that have a long and useful lifespan, such as my. 1995 Jeep XJ and my Apple iPhone 5s. They still allow me to do what I *need* to do. They may not allow me to some of it as easily, elegantly or efficiently as more modern products and I don’t deny being envious of those who can purchase a vehicle or phone new and have the benefit of being able to care for it properly and enjoy its latest benefits. However, I accept that I cannot and believe that if all pros and cons are weighted against one another, we would be far worse off with a world of single fixed standards, particularly where they impede progress or innovation.
I will never have even a *new* Ford with GPS, Apple Car Play, hands-off reverse park, in-lane protection, etc. etc. but it hasn’t ruined the usefulness or practicality of my Jeep. Similarly, the iPhone 12 didn’t ‘ruin’ my iPhone 5s.
