Today s mortgage rates for aug 22 2022 rates move or die today s mortgage rates for excellent bankrate today s mortgage rates today s mortgage rate charts today s mortgage interest rate bank of america today s mortgage rates nfl scores today s games

Today's Mortgage Rates for Aug. 22, 2022: Rates Move Up

Today's Mortgage Rates for Aug. 22, 2022: Rates Move Up

A few notable mortgage rates moved up today. The average interest rates for both 15-year fixed and 30-year fixed mortgages both saw increases. At the same time, average rates for 5/1 adjustable-rate mortgages also increased.

Though mortgage rates have been rather consistently going up since the start of this year, what happens next depends on whether inflation continues to climb or begins to retreat. Interest rates are dynamic and unpredictable -- at least on a daily or weekly basis -- and they respond to a wide variety of economic factors. Right now, they're particularly sensitive to inflation and the prospect of a US recession. With so much uncertainty in the market, if you're looking to buy a home, trying to time the market may not play to your favor. If inflation rises and rates climb, this could translate to higher interest rates and steeper monthly mortgage payments. For this reason, you may have better luck locking in a lower mortgage interest rate sooner rather than later. No matter when you decide to shop for a home, it's always a good idea to seek out multiple lenders to compare rates and fees to find the best mortgage for your specific situation.

30-year fixed-rate mortgages

The average interest rate for a standard 30-year fixed mortgage is 5.78%, which is an increase of 25 basis points from one week ago. (A basis point is equivalent to 0.01%.) The most frequently used loan term is a 30-year fixed mortgage. A 30-year fixed rate mortgage will usually have a smaller monthly payment than a 15-year one -- but usually a higher interest rate. You won't be able to pay off your house as quickly and you'll pay more interest over time, but a 30-year fixed mortgage is a good option if you're looking to minimize your monthly payment.

15-year fixed-rate mortgages

The average rate for a 15-year, fixed mortgage is 4.95%, which is an increase of 4 basis points from seven days ago. Compared to a 30-year fixed mortgage, a 15-year fixed mortgage with the same loan value and interest rate will have a higher monthly payment. But a 15-year loan will usually be the better deal, if you can afford the monthly payments. You'll usually get a lower interest rate, and you'll pay less interest in total because you're paying off your mortgage much quicker.

5/1 adjustable-rate mortgages

A 5/1 adjustable-rate mortgage has an average rate of 4.30%, a climb of 8 basis points compared to last week. With an ARM mortgage, you'll typically get a lower interest rate than a 30-year fixed mortgage for the first five years. But since the rate adjusts with the market rate, you may end up paying more after that time, as described in the terms of your loan. Because of this, an ARM could be a good option if you plan to sell or refinance your house before the rate changes. But if that's not the case, you could be on the hook for a significantly higher interest rate if the market rates change.

Mortgage rate trends

Though mortgage rates were historically low at the beginning of 2022, they have been rising somewhat steadily since then. The Federal Reserve recently raised interest rates by another 0.75 percentage points in an attempt to curb record-high inflation. The Fed has raised rates a total of four times this year, but inflation still remains high. As a general rule, when inflation is low, mortgage rates tend to be lower. When inflation is high, rates tend to be higher.

Though the Fed does not directly set mortgage rates, the central bank's policy actions influence how much you pay to finance your home loan. If you're looking to buy a house in 2022, keep in mind that the Fed has signaled it will continue to raise rates, and mortgage rates could increase as the year goes on. Whether rates follow their upward projection or begin to level out hinges on if inflation actually slows.

We use information collected by Bankrate, which is owned by the same parent company as CNET, to track rate changes over time. This table summarizes the average rates offered by lenders nationwide:

Average mortgage interest rates

Product	Rate	Last week	Change
30-year fixed	5.78%	5.53%	+0.25
15-year fixed	4.95%	4.91%	+0.04
30-year jumbo mortgage rate	5.80%	5.52%	+0.28
30-year mortgage refinance rate	5.76%	5.51%	+0.25

Rates as of Aug. 22, 2022.

How to shop for the best mortgage rate

When you are ready to apply for a loan, you can reach out to a local mortgage broker or search online. When looking into home mortgage rates, think about your goals and current finances. A range of factors -- including your down payment, credit score, loan-to-value ratio and debt-to-income ratio -- will all affect your mortgage interest rate. Having a good credit score, a higher down payment, a low DTI, a low LTV, or any combination of those factors can help you get a lower interest rate. The interest rate isn't the only factor that affects the cost of your home — be sure to also consider other costs such as fees, closing costs, taxes and discount points. Be sure to shop around with multiple lenders -- including credit unions and online lenders in addition to local and national banks -- in order to get a mortgage that's the right fit for you.

How does the loan term impact my mortgage?

When picking a mortgage, remember to consider the loan term, or payment schedule. The most common mortgage terms are 15 years and 30 years, although 10-, 20- and 40-year mortgages also exist. Another important distinction is between fixed-rate and adjustable-rate mortgages. The interest rates in a fixed-rate mortgage are fixed for the duration of the loan. Unlike a fixed-rate mortgage, the interest rates for an adjustable-rate mortgage are only fixed for a certain amount of time (commonly five, seven or 10 years). After that, the rate fluctuates annually based on the market interest rate.

One factor to consider when choosing between a fixed-rate and adjustable-rate mortgage is how long you plan on staying in your home. Fixed-rate mortgages might be a better fit for those who plan on living in a home for a while. Fixed-rate mortgages offer more stability over time compared to adjustable-rate mortgages, but adjustable-rate mortgages might offer lower interest rates upfront. If you don't plan to keep your new home for more than three to 10 years, though, an adjustable-rate mortgage might give you a better deal. The best loan term all depends on your situation and goals, so make sure to think about what's important to you when choosing a mortgage.

---

Source

Wwe wrestles with its past as 90s star bill goldberg arrested wwe wrestles with its past as 90s star bill goldberg son wwe wrestles with its past as 90s star bill goldberg football wwe wrestles with its past astros wwe wrestles with it s past your bedtime wwe wrestles with its past due wwe wrestles with it s past tense wwe wrestles with it s pasta time word search wwe wrestles with its past paper wwe wrestlers with face paint wwe wrestlers female wwe wrestlers old wwe wrestlers

WWE wrestles with its past as 90s star Bill Goldberg rises again

---

WWE wrestles with its past as 90s star Bill Goldberg rises again

The Rock, Hulk Hogan and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin are all household names, but for a brief period in the late '90s there was a wrestler just as popular as any of them: Bill Goldberg.

At Sunday's Fastlane event, a 50-year-old Goldberg once again became the top man in the business when he bested Kevin Owens to win the WWE Universal Championship.

Next month's WrestleMania 33, airing on the WWE Network, is the company's biggest show of the year. It'll be headlined by Goldberg as he defends his newly won title against Brock Lesnar.

13 years after his retirement in 2004, Goldberg is once again The Man. But at what cost?

Part-time problem

WWE

For the last five years, there's been an ongoing argument within the wrestling business.

Does it make sense for part-time stars, such as The Rock, Triple H and Brock Lesnar, who only show up a few times a year, to take part in marquee WrestleMania matches?

These icons often have a quantifiable impact on ratings and intrigue casual fans. But at the same time, they take opportunities away from younger wrestlers, who get relegated to background roles while the spotlight shines on returning performers.

Last year, Triple H, 47, wrestled Roman Reigns in the main event of WrestleMania 32, but hasn't wrestled since. The Undertaker, 51, has made one brief in-ring appearance since WrestleMania, entering last month's Royal Rumble. Both veterans are expected to be major parts of Wrestlemania 33 on April 2.

When these returning all-stars are positioned so strongly, it can give the impression that full-time performers such as Dean Ambrose and Kevin Owens are just the B team. That may lead to dips in day-to-day business, if the WWE isn't careful.

In 2012, The Rock faced John Cena in the main event of WrestleMania 28. Since then, no WrestleMania main event has consisted entirely of full-time WWE performers.

But no one can claim the formula doesn't work. WrestleMania 29, headlined by The Rock and John Cena's return match, was touted as the company's highest grossing event, making the WWE $72 million. WrestleMania 31, featuring Brock Lesnar in the main event, drew a record $12.6 million in ticket sales alone. Last year, around 100,000 people packed Dallas, Texas' AT&T Stadium to see Triple H take on Roman Reigns.

These big WrestleMania matches also lead to big boosts in WWE Network subscribers. In 2015, WWE gained 511,000 new paid subscribers to the Network during WrestleMania season, and another 140,000 the year after, according to The Wrestling Observer.

But there is a downside: Last year, 358,000 signed up for a free month (like Netflix, you'll get the first month for free) but opted to not stay on after WrestleMania. Much of this could be chalked up to freeloaders, but the big stars leaving after WrestleMania could certainly be a factor.

WWE has a conundrum here, and Goldberg vs Brock Lesnar encapsulates it perfectly.

Big time

When Goldberg returned to the WWE last October, he was originally scheduled for one big match against Brock Lesnar at Survivor Series in November, according to The Wrestling Observer. But his return caused a huge buzz, and a big bump in WWE ratings, making the company change its plans. Goldberg signed a contract to wrestle a few more matches, culminating in next month's WrestleMania main event.

If this isn't Goldberg's last match, it's not far off it: He's 50 years old and originally thought he was wrestling one match so his son could see him perform. Meanwhile, Lesnar, arguably WWE's biggest star, wrestles around five times a year. To set up their match at WrestleMania, this past weekend Goldberg beat the now former-champion Kevin Owens, a full-time star you can see every week on Monday Night Raw, in just over 20 seconds.

This rubbed some fans the wrong way, especially brevity of the match. In recent years, fans have become accustomed to longer, more hard-fought main events. Goldberg's two one-on-one matches since returning have lasted a combined 1 minute and 48 seconds.

The company wrote his bouts this way to make him look as dominating as possible, but it's led some to question how exciting their 'Mania bout will be. Most main events last around 20 minutes, so you can understand how some could find a 20-second match a little flat.

It's a polarising issue among wrestling fans, to say the least.

No matter who wins, a part time star will walk out of WrestleMania 33 as the WWE Universal Champion.

While that's sure to upset some fans, the show will pull around 60,000 people into Orlando, Florida's Camping World Stadium, and bring even more to the WWE Network for Wrestlemania where it'll be streamed live to subscribers.

Come WrestleMania season, the WWE is all about getting as much viewers and media attention as possible. It has records to break, and it'll break them by any means -- whether that means using stars that work five nights a week or five times a year.

---

Source

Apple watch it s been 5 years since my original review and reflect apple watch it s been 5 years since you passed apple watch it s been 5 years since you ve apple watch it s been 5 years since i met apple watch it s been 5 years jamie foxx apple watch it s been 5000 years apple watch it s been 50 years meme apple watch it s been a long day lyrics apple watch series 8

Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up

Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up

I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.

The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.

There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.

I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay. 

I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.

The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.

My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.

The gold Apple Watch, way back when.

James Martin/CNET

An excellent design, with luxury overtones

Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.

The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.

Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.

The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered. 

Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.

A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.

Sarah Tew

New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display

All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.

As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.

Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.

The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.

The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.

Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.

The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.

Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.

Sarah Tew

Lots of features. Too many features?

As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.

There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.

I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.

Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.

Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day. 

Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.

The rings were the beginning.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning

The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others. 

I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.

There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.

The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.

You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.

Sarah Tew

It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory

Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.

One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.

That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).

Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.

The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Today: the best watch in a war of attrition

You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.

I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.

The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).

Sarah Tew

In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.

The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.

What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.

---

Source

Getting a new iphone every 2 years makes less sense of community getting a new iphone every 2 years makes less severe getting a new iphone every 2 years makesy getting a new iphone every 2 years makes sense getting a new iphone every 2 years getting a new iphone and syncing getting a business cell phone

Getting a new iPhone every 2 years makes less sense than ever

Getting a new iPhone every 2 years makes less sense than ever

We all know the drill. As Apple's annual fall event draws close, many of us start to check in on our previous two-year smartphone plan to see if we're eligible for an upgrade in September. After all, the newest phone is only the newest phone for so long. Even for discerning shoppers like me, it takes serious willpower to resist the lure of a purple iPhone or 1TB of storage.

Mobile carriers have long persuaded many of us to upgrade our smartphones every two years, offering two-year contracts linked to free or low-cost phone upgrades to keep the two-year upgrade cycle going. That feeling of ponying up just a couple hundred dollars (or less) for the newest, fanciest phone available has helped perpetuate the rise of the de facto two-year phone upgrade. Case in point: AT&T and Verizon marketed a "free" iPhone 12 last year for customers who buy unlimited plans and commit to a multiyear deal. And the trade-in deals were even better this year for the iPhone 13.

But even though that might still be the norm in the US, a routine upgrade isn't a thing for much of the world. 

I was born and raised in developing Asia, a region where buying a smartphone is financially unattainable for hundreds of millions of people, much less a two-year upgrade. In India, the average person needs to save two months' salary to buy the cheapest available smartphone, according to a survey published by the Alliance for Affordable Internet last August. From my perspective, the trend of routinely upgrading a phone every two years when it doesn't change that much is a privilege, one that reminds me of the stark income equality gap as well as the ever-increasing digital divide globally.

Read more: Billions of people still can't afford smartphones: That's a major problem

Beyond that, and perhaps more tangibly, I think we should consider the environmental cost of purchasing a new phone. You've read the headlines: Climate change is accelerating at rapid speed. Countries around the world keep setting new records for the highest temperatures. There are more climate-related disasters than ever before, arctic caps are melting and biodiversity is disappearing faster than we can save it. What, exactly, happens to all those discarded phones over time? Does all that plastic ever fully decompose? 

Apple says it removed the in-box charger from its iPhone 12 lineup for environmental reasons.

Apple

Read more: Apple is opening up its world of iPhone recycling

Consumer electronics are responsible for tonnes of e-waste annually, which in turn contributes to the climate crisis. Experts have warned about how e-waste disposal contributes to climate change due to the chemicals released when the waste is burned, some of which are equivalent to carbon dioxide.

For years, developed countries like the US have shipped recyclable waste overseas for processing. Although that is now beginning to change, there are real costs. iPhones contain toxic materials like lead and mercury, for instance, which can harm the environment and people if disposed of improperly. And often e-waste isn't properly managed. In Southern China, there is a town called Guiyu that has become known as the world's biggest graveyard for America's electronic junk, and synonymous among environmentalists with toxic waste. The UN's 2020 Global E-waste Monitor report found that the world dumped a record 53.6 million tonnes of e-waste last year, of which the US is the world's second-largest contributor to e-waste, dumping 6.9 million tonnes.

Read more: I paid $69 to replace my iPhone battery: Here's what happened

While Apple is committed to a net zero supply chain by 2030, it's tough to argue that there's a better alternative to lower carbon consumption than less consumption. After all, Apple says the iPhone 12's end-to-end supply chain emits 70 kilograms of carbon to the atmosphere. If even 1 million people waited that extra year, we could save 70,000,000 kilograms of carbon from going into the air in a year. Imagine if it was 10 million or 100 million. It's something to think about before making that upgrade. 

The smartphone upgrade cycle has gotten longer

Even with the enticing deals offered by carriers, the upgrade cycle has seemingly lengthened. In recent years, several reports show how Americans and Europeans are more than happy to hold on to their phones for longer periods of time. In fact, in 2019 smartphone upgrades hit record lows at two of the biggest US carriers, Verizon and AT&T. Carriers like T-Mobile and Verizon seem to have responded to this by offering month-to-month plans, which offer more flexibility and options, indicating a potential departure from the "norm" of a two-year phone upgrade. 

Barring big-picture factors like the struggling global economy amid the ongoing pandemic as well as our increased mindfulness over the environment, I think this trend is persisting for a confluence of reasons. Phones today are receiving software, and therefore security, updates for longer. For instance, 2015's iPhone 6S is compatible with iOS 15, potentially dampening desires for a bi-yearly upgrade.

In addition to all this, smartphone innovation has hit a plateau, and the industry bears the hallmarks of one that's maturing: slowing smartphone sales growth along with the slower evolution of what we need, what we want and so forth. There are no big surprises here: Today's phones are getting more nice-to-have refinements rather than the awe-inspiring innovation seen just three or four years ago.

Decreasing technological gap

Up until a couple of years ago, smartphone manufacturers had us sitting on the edge of our seats, waiting for the next design refresh. But that's not as much the case anymore. With the iPhone 12 series, 5G was probably its buzziest feature -- one that understandably ended up triggering an upgrade supercycle. But the most exciting thing for many of us at CNET was MagSafe, which is hardly new. Apple's proprietary technology, allowing you to magnetically snap on attachments, was first introduced some 15 years ago with the first-gen MacBook Pro. It was then reintroduced for the iPhone 12.

Patrick Holland/CNET

When you look at what changed from the iPhone 11, you'll see the usual suspects on your list: 5G, OLED screen, new design. Admittedly there are a few more things you won't see everywhere, such as MagSafe and the Ceramic Shield, but nothing extra-special to truly write home about. Personally, the last time I was blown away by an iPhone reveal was back in 2017 when Apple introduced the iPhone X, which set new design standards for the modern-day iPhone. The iPhone X did away with the physical home button and chunky bezels of its predecessors and made way for a sleek, futuristic device that inspired the iPhone 12 family. Also, for the first time with Apple, we were able to unlock an iPhone with Face ID, Apple's facial recognition technology.

Looking at the iPhone 13, the narrative sounds familiar. We knew it wouldn't get a major technical upgrade (though that didn't stop us from wishing). While we appreciate the upgrades Apple did give the phone (a smaller notch, a larger battery and a faster screen refresh rate), the iPhone 13 is "not radically different," according to CNET's Patrick Holland. Plus a number of these new iPhone features, like the 120Hz screen, currently exist on Android phones, reinforcing the notion of a decreasing technological gap in the smartphone landscape. Apple itself says the life-cycle of a typical iPhone is now three years. So the company times its new releases accordingly: We get a major redesign every three years, not two, with more minor updates in between. 

Look no further than the glitziest non-Apple flagship launch of this year for clues: Samsung's Galaxy S21 family. Here the standout change wasn't made to the hardware or software, but perhaps to its least interesting feature: its price tag. The S21 lineup has a starting price of $800 (£769, AU$1,249), which is $200 less than last year's $1,000 Galaxy S20, making for an enticing deal. 

Apart from that, major differences between the S21 and last year's S20 were mostly incremental. I remember having to pore over the specs sheet to spot salient differences as I covered Samsung's virtual Unpacked event. Refinements were made to the usual suspects, including the processor, software and 5G. This might have been part of Samsung's response to the global coronavirus pandemic, but again it lends credence to the notion of that decreasing technological gap. It was also interesting to note the items Samsung dropped from the S21 flagship family to meet that lowered price. We said goodbye to expandable storage, bundled earphones and most notoriously the in-box charger, as Samsung followed in Apple's lead -- apparently in the name of the environment. 

Read more: Here's what we know so far about Samsung's Galaxy S22

Let's also take a moment to consider the question: What makes the S21 an attractive buy? Chances are, a great camera, fast performance, battery longevity and a crisp display with narrow bezels are at the top of your list. But the truth is 2019's Galaxy S10 boasts all those features. Heck, even the Galaxy S7 from five years ago did. My point is yearly changes have become too incremental to compel most people to upgrade with urgency, especially given the backdrop of rising smartphone prices.

Samsung's Galaxy Z Flip.

Angela Lang/CNET

Are we at peak phone?

I'm not discounting foldable phones. Samsung and Huawei have made undeniable technological progress, and their bendy handsets have dramatically altered the way smartphones are used and could represent the future of the industry. But folding phones are far from the mainstream. Phone manufacturers and carriers in the US have moved the most innovative devices to a price that's simply beyond reach for most people. For instance, the Galaxy Fold 3 starts at $1,800 (£1,599, AU$2,499) and Huawei's Mate X2, available in China for now, costs nearly $3,000 ($2,800, £1,985, AU$3,640 converted). Until these prices hit price parity with, say, the iPhone 12 Pro or Pro Max, foldable phones are likely to remain a niche product.

Smartphone innovation has stagnated, and this is not a knock against the consumer electronics companies or the tech giants that design them. Maybe we've reached peak smartphone, and this is as far as it needs to go. It could well be part of the reason why the race to upgrade your phones is slowing.

---

Source

Getting a new iphone transfer everything getting a new iphone getting a new iphone 8 getting a new iphone 12 getting a new iphone icloud backup what to do when getting a new iphone getting new iphone how to transfer everything getting a new birth certificate getting a new passport getting a new drivers license getting a new puppy getting a new kitten getting a new cat getting a new credit card getting a loan getting a gst number canada getting a mortgage getting a heloc with bad credit getting a job getting a pardon in canada

Getting a new iPhone every 2 years makes less sense than ever

---

Getting a new iPhone every 2 years makes less sense than ever

We all know the drill. As Apple's annual fall event draws close, many of us start to check in on our previous two-year smartphone plan to see if we're eligible for an upgrade in September. After all, the newest phone is only the newest phone for so long. Even for discerning shoppers like me, it takes serious willpower to resist the lure of a purple iPhone or 1TB of storage.

Mobile carriers have long persuaded many of us to upgrade our smartphones every two years, offering two-year contracts linked to free or low-cost phone upgrades to keep the two-year upgrade cycle going. That feeling of ponying up just a couple hundred dollars (or less) for the newest, fanciest phone available has helped perpetuate the rise of the de facto two-year phone upgrade. Case in point: AT&T and Verizon marketed a "free" iPhone 12 last year for customers who buy unlimited plans and commit to a multiyear deal. And the trade-in deals were even better this year for the iPhone 13.

But even though that might still be the norm in the US, a routine upgrade isn't a thing for much of the world. 

I was born and raised in developing Asia, a region where buying a smartphone is financially unattainable for hundreds of millions of people, much less a two-year upgrade. In India, the average person needs to save two months' salary to buy the cheapest available smartphone, according to a survey published by the Alliance for Affordable Internet last August. From my perspective, the trend of routinely upgrading a phone every two years when it doesn't change that much is a privilege, one that reminds me of the stark income equality gap as well as the ever-increasing digital divide globally.

Read more: Billions of people still can't afford smartphones: That's a major problem

Beyond that, and perhaps more tangibly, I think we should consider the environmental cost of purchasing a new phone. You've read the headlines: Climate change is accelerating at rapid speed. Countries around the world keep setting new records for the highest temperatures. There are more climate-related disasters than ever before, arctic caps are melting and biodiversity is disappearing faster than we can save it. What, exactly, happens to all those discarded phones over time? Does all that plastic ever fully decompose? 

Apple says it removed the in-box charger from its iPhone 12 lineup for environmental reasons.

Apple

Read more: Apple is opening up its world of iPhone recycling

Consumer electronics are responsible for tonnes of e-waste annually, which in turn contributes to the climate crisis. Experts have warned about how e-waste disposal contributes to climate change due to the chemicals released when the waste is burned, some of which are equivalent to carbon dioxide.

For years, developed countries like the US have shipped recyclable waste overseas for processing. Although that is now beginning to change, there are real costs. iPhones contain toxic materials like lead and mercury, for instance, which can harm the environment and people if disposed of improperly. And often e-waste isn't properly managed. In Southern China, there is a town called Guiyu that has become known as the world's biggest graveyard for America's electronic junk, and synonymous among environmentalists with toxic waste. The UN's 2020 Global E-waste Monitor report found that the world dumped a record 53.6 million tonnes of e-waste last year, of which the US is the world's second-largest contributor to e-waste, dumping 6.9 million tonnes.

Read more: I paid $69 to replace my iPhone battery: Here's what happened

While Apple is committed to a net zero supply chain by 2030, it's tough to argue that there's a better alternative to lower carbon consumption than less consumption. After all, Apple says the iPhone 12's end-to-end supply chain emits 70 kilograms of carbon to the atmosphere. If even 1 million people waited that extra year, we could save 70,000,000 kilograms of carbon from going into the air in a year. Imagine if it was 10 million or 100 million. It's something to think about before making that upgrade. 

The smartphone upgrade cycle has gotten longer

Even with the enticing deals offered by carriers, the upgrade cycle has seemingly lengthened. In recent years, several reports show how Americans and Europeans are more than happy to hold on to their phones for longer periods of time. In fact, in 2019 smartphone upgrades hit record lows at two of the biggest US carriers, Verizon and AT&T. Carriers like T-Mobile and Verizon seem to have responded to this by offering month-to-month plans, which offer more flexibility and options, indicating a potential departure from the "norm" of a two-year phone upgrade. 

Barring big-picture factors like the struggling global economy amid the ongoing pandemic as well as our increased mindfulness over the environment, I think this trend is persisting for a confluence of reasons. Phones today are receiving software, and therefore security, updates for longer. For instance, 2015's iPhone 6S is compatible with iOS 15, potentially dampening desires for a bi-yearly upgrade.

In addition to all this, smartphone innovation has hit a plateau, and the industry bears the hallmarks of one that's maturing: slowing smartphone sales growth along with the slower evolution of what we need, what we want and so forth. There are no big surprises here: Today's phones are getting more nice-to-have refinements rather than the awe-inspiring innovation seen just three or four years ago.

Decreasing technological gap

Up until a couple of years ago, smartphone manufacturers had us sitting on the edge of our seats, waiting for the next design refresh. But that's not as much the case anymore. With the iPhone 12 series, 5G was probably its buzziest feature -- one that understandably ended up triggering an upgrade supercycle. But the most exciting thing for many of us at CNET was MagSafe, which is hardly new. Apple's proprietary technology, allowing you to magnetically snap on attachments, was first introduced some 15 years ago with the first-gen MacBook Pro. It was then reintroduced for the iPhone 12.

Patrick Holland/CNET

When you look at what changed from the iPhone 11, you'll see the usual suspects on your list: 5G, OLED screen, new design. Admittedly there are a few more things you won't see everywhere, such as MagSafe and the Ceramic Shield, but nothing extra-special to truly write home about. Personally, the last time I was blown away by an iPhone reveal was back in 2017 when Apple introduced the iPhone X, which set new design standards for the modern-day iPhone. The iPhone X did away with the physical home button and chunky bezels of its predecessors and made way for a sleek, futuristic device that inspired the iPhone 12 family. Also, for the first time with Apple, we were able to unlock an iPhone with Face ID, Apple's facial recognition technology.

Looking at the iPhone 13, the narrative sounds familiar. We knew it wouldn't get a major technical upgrade (though that didn't stop us from wishing). While we appreciate the upgrades Apple did give the phone (a smaller notch, a larger battery and a faster screen refresh rate), the iPhone 13 is "not radically different," according to CNET's Patrick Holland. Plus a number of these new iPhone features, like the 120Hz screen, currently exist on Android phones, reinforcing the notion of a decreasing technological gap in the smartphone landscape. Apple itself says the life-cycle of a typical iPhone is now three years. So the company times its new releases accordingly: We get a major redesign every three years, not two, with more minor updates in between. 

Look no further than the glitziest non-Apple flagship launch of this year for clues: Samsung's Galaxy S21 family. Here the standout change wasn't made to the hardware or software, but perhaps to its least interesting feature: its price tag. The S21 lineup has a starting price of $800 (£769, AU$1,249), which is $200 less than last year's $1,000 Galaxy S20, making for an enticing deal. 

Apart from that, major differences between the S21 and last year's S20 were mostly incremental. I remember having to pore over the specs sheet to spot salient differences as I covered Samsung's virtual Unpacked event. Refinements were made to the usual suspects, including the processor, software and 5G. This might have been part of Samsung's response to the global coronavirus pandemic, but again it lends credence to the notion of that decreasing technological gap. It was also interesting to note the items Samsung dropped from the S21 flagship family to meet that lowered price. We said goodbye to expandable storage, bundled earphones and most notoriously the in-box charger, as Samsung followed in Apple's lead -- apparently in the name of the environment. 

Read more: Here's what we know so far about Samsung's Galaxy S22

Let's also take a moment to consider the question: What makes the S21 an attractive buy? Chances are, a great camera, fast performance, battery longevity and a crisp display with narrow bezels are at the top of your list. But the truth is 2019's Galaxy S10 boasts all those features. Heck, even the Galaxy S7 from five years ago did. My point is yearly changes have become too incremental to compel most people to upgrade with urgency, especially given the backdrop of rising smartphone prices.

Samsung's Galaxy Z Flip.

Angela Lang/CNET

Are we at peak phone?

I'm not discounting foldable phones. Samsung and Huawei have made undeniable technological progress, and their bendy handsets have dramatically altered the way smartphones are used and could represent the future of the industry. But folding phones are far from the mainstream. Phone manufacturers and carriers in the US have moved the most innovative devices to a price that's simply beyond reach for most people. For instance, the Galaxy Fold 3 starts at $1,800 (£1,599, AU$2,499) and Huawei's Mate X2, available in China for now, costs nearly $3,000 ($2,800, £1,985, AU$3,640 converted). Until these prices hit price parity with, say, the iPhone 12 Pro or Pro Max, foldable phones are likely to remain a niche product.

Smartphone innovation has stagnated, and this is not a knock against the consumer electronics companies or the tech giants that design them. Maybe we've reached peak smartphone, and this is as far as it needs to go. It could well be part of the reason why the race to upgrade your phones is slowing.

---

Source