Should You Buy a New Phone? Or Not?

It’s the 21st century, the world is filled with advancements in many fields: society, medicine, and especially technology. Phones have assimilated into our daily lives and serve us many purposes such as capturing a frame of a beautiful moment, calling our loved ones from varying distances, and even fact checking a trivial matter. However, with such powerful machines in the palm of our hands, comes the issue of maintenance. Various authors such as Brian X. Chen, Jefferson Graham, Sereena Dayaram, and Todd Haselton tackle the dilemma of phone upgrades many people face and summarize their opinions and standards in their respective articles. These writers utilize various devices in order to persuade the reader as to what they think is the correct choice.

In “Buy or Wait? Here’s a Guide to Phone Upgrades”, Brian X. Chen, lead consumer technology writer for New York Times, starts the article off by introducing a familiar scenario where the new model of a phone has been released. People are contemplating on whether or not they should change their pocket computers for the newest version. Although Chen is the author of this particular guide, Chen makes it clear that he is no different from the audience, the consumers who are uncertain about their decision regarding their phone, as he writes “when tech companies… bombard us” and “persuade us to upgrade.” With his intentional diction, he was able to create a personal connection to the audience as both consumers, developing his credibility in the introduction.

Throughout the article, Chen starts to ease into his stance on the issue as he starts to recommend repairing the devices themselves instead of trading it in for a newer model. His stance becomes apparent as Chen mentions that these problems can most likely be “remedied with some care.” However, he isn’t entirely against the concept of upgrading as he goes on to advise those who have repairs costing up to half the new phone that they should consider trading it in. Chen maintains a confident tone throughout his article which is implicit and subtle since he has a. The genre complements this particular guide as an article appeals to credibility, rationality, as well as any emotions people can be subjected to. Chen continues to maintain an unwavering stance of going with the more cost-effective solution, which in most cases points to fixing the tiny frustrations.

Sereena Dayaram, author of “wait a minute, does the 2-year phone upgrade plan still make sense? I think not”, also presents a similar perspective as author Chen. Both writers believe that there is simply no need for replacing our current smartphones. However, Dayaram decides to persuade the audience by implementing a personal anecdote where she mentions that she was “born and raised in developing Asia.” This allowed her to create a connection with the readers as she became assimilated into the audience as a consumer, similar to how Chen did. As they started to view the decision of upgrading phones as a privilege to those who have financial stability. On the other hand, this is only effective to the portion of the audience of people who are financially unstable or less fortunate individuals who cannot afford such luxuries. This aspect is what makes the article much more relatable to that certain percentage of the audience. Therefore, Dayaram widens the scope and poses the question of the environmental costs of purchasing a new phone. Dayaram brings up the topic of climate change and how “consumer electronics are responsible for tonnes of e-waste annually.” Dayaram is determined to persuade the reader to keep their current phones by emotionally appealing to the audience with sensitive topics such as financial privilege as well as a global issue such as global warming.

In addition, Todd Haselton, the author for “You don’t need to upgrade your smartphone” as well as the Technology Products Editor for CNBC shares the same thought on keeping current phones in use. Haselton is adamant on getting his readers to keep their current phones and he persuades the audience, the average tech consumer, by utilizing repetition throughout the article. Haselton would list the possible benefits from obtaining a new phone however he would refute that argument by providing the pros of continuing the possession of their phone. Haselton mentions that “Sure, new smartphones offer fancy new camera options, fingerprint readers, iris scanners and gorgeous displays” but proceeds to say that “none of those are real reasons to upgrade.” Which makes his stance clear and explicit. He continues to mention that people can “save serious dough” by not upgrading and that the phones are essentially the same. These are great incentives that Haselton provides. Not to mention that Haselton has been the, which implies that he has solid credibility which puts weight into his words in this particular article.

However, Jefferson Graham decides to take a different stance. In “Get over it: you need to upgrade your phone every year now”, Graham mentions how “upgrading makes more economic sense.” Graham states that the tech giants Google, Apple, and Samsung do a great job on improving their phones and so why should we go against the influx of new phones every year? He includes emotional appeal to the audience since the newer phones are cheaper due to the trade in game and so people could essentially reap the benefits of a new phone with half the price. Graham even implements a hypothetical situation with simulated numbers in order to provide a visualization of the process of trading in a phone. With an enticing statement such as “Your cost of ownership: $1.65 a day.” It is definitely a strong point that appeals to consumers. By combining statistics and a hypothetical situation, Graham was able to create an effective persuasion effort in his article.

Throughout all of these different sources, they all had very similar structures. They all utilized the article genre in order to structure their topic in an organized way. With their guides formatted in a friendly well-structured article, it helps readers digest the information in pieces to not get too overwhelmed. They introduced the topic of upgrading to new phones and provided their rebuttal or agreement in the following paragraphs, filled with their respective rhetorical devices. Emotional appeal was the biggest as well as the most vital similarity throughout these articles. The authors wanted to appeal to the audience’s emotions because it is the defining factor which makes their decision. Chen wanted to persuade consumers to give up on upgrading and to focus on fixing the minor problems with financially more efficient solutions. He was expressing the familiar concept of “the more bang for your buck” in his article which was the driving focus. Dayaram also appeals to a similar concept as she provides finance to be one of the reasons as to why you shouldn’t upgrade your phone every year. In addition, Dayaram also addresses the issue of the environmental consequences should we buy new models annually. Haselton mentions that consumers are able to “save some serious dough” by avoiding new models altogether for years at a time. Graham, although presenting a different stance, also appeals to the consumers’ emotions in order to persuade them. These authors realize that emotion is the largest factor when it comes to making a decision. They utilize various rhetorical devices however it is directed for the same type of result: emotional impact.

Although the authors focused on emotional appeal the most, they utilized different strategies in order to achieve their goal of impacting the readers’ emotions. Because Chen has a very prestigious position of lead consumer technology writer, he was able to use his extensive knowledge in order to provide pros and cons that will ultimately help the readers reach a decision. He also used diction, which made the reader feel closer to Chen as if it were two consumers conversing about phone upgrades. Dayaram, on the other hand, used a personal anecdote regarding her less fortunate upbringing regarding finances which made her source relatable to only a certain type of consumers, those who are struggling financially. She states that “In India, the average person needs to save two months’ salary to buy the cheapest available smartphone”. With a statement such as this, she puts the price of phones in the perspective of an average consumer from a third world country, widening the horizon of perspectives in the readers. Eventually, she expands the scope of the essay into a global issue, changing the audience from poor consumers to everyone who contributes to e-waste pollution. Haselton uses repetition as a way of reinforcing his purpose as the article goes on. It’s an effective method of drilling your opinion onto the reader, especially since Haselton provides incentives such as “save some serious dough” as the main reason. Haselton’s respected position as a Products Editor and “the gadget guy”, he mentions that the new models are items that “you don’t need to actually buy”. Graham, with a different view, Graham decides to become more aggressive with his approach. He provides the raw statistics when it comes to purchasing a phone and with such an attractive offer as low as “$1.65 a day.” He attempts to lure the consumers into the concept of paying such a low price for a new model. He tries to appeal to the fact that consumers use these devices almost 24/7, and if you’re going to use something as often as that, it’s a “minor purchase”. He puts it into the concept similar to investing, since consumers will be using these smartphones for almost everything related to their daily lives. Providing trade values such as “XS Max: $370…XS: $300”, Graham is able to become aggressive in a way that attracts the audience. Phone upgrades will most likely be an annual dilemma for the coming years as technology advances further and companies decide on other ways of maximizing their profits.

Nevertheless, credible writers provide a basic guide where it informs the general public on possible solutions to their problems. At the end of the day, these pages of information may influence the decision of people but ultimately, the decision is left up to them to make.

• Graham, Jefferson. “Sorry, but You Need to Upgrade Your Phone Every Year Now.” USA Today,
  Gannett Satellite Information Network, 26 Oct. 2020,
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/10/24/get-over-it-you-need-upgrade-your-phone-ever
  y-year-now-prove/3735464001/.

• Dayaram, Sareena. “Wait a Minute, Does the 2-Year Phone Upgrade Plan Still Make Sense? I
  Think Not.” CNET,
  https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/wait-a-minute-does-two-year-phone-upgrade-plan-make-sens
  e-i-think-not/.

• Haselton, Todd. “Why You Don’t Really Need a New Smartphone.” CNBC, CNBC, 10 Apr.
  2017, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/you-dont-need-to-upgrade-your-smartphone.html.

• Chen, Brian X. “Buy or Wait? Here’s a Guide to Phone Upgrades.” The New York Times, The
  New York Times, 25 Aug. 2021, www.nytimes.com/article/phone-upgrade.html