Planned obsolescence is the intentional design of a product to have an artificially limited
lifespan.
The first major example of this could be seen in the formation of the Phoebus Cartel in
1924.
The cartel was made up of a number of major manufacturers including Osram, Philips, and
General Electric.
They’re goal was simple – reduce the lifespan of electric bulbs to 1000 hours in order to
maximise profits.
This forced consumers to have to buy new light bulbs regularly.
Of course, the public were not informed of this agreement.
Style Obsolescence
The intentional change of the style of a product can be used to create the illusion that the
new product is better than the previous one.
Clothing and accessories are a common example of this.
One year, small sunglasses are considered fashionable, then the very next year, larger
ones are all the rage.
Car manufacture is another good example of planned style obsolescence.
Back in the United States in 1924, cars were flooding the market from the likes of General
Motors and Ford, so the market was close to saturation.
General Motors could see that their growth would start to falter if they didn’t come
up with a new way to sell more cars.
So their CEO, Alfred P. Sloan Jr., came up with the ingenious idea of producing a slightly
difference design every year – a new model, so to speak.
Of course, very little of the internal engineering was changed.
The main focus was on making the car look different by slightly changing the design
of its body.
Of course, people fell for it and got caught up in “Keeping up with the Joneses”, that
is, conspicuous consumption.
Difficult to Repair
Some companies intentionally make it hard to repair their device.
So either the user has to spend a lot of money repairing the product, or simply go out and
buy a new one.
Often the repair costs are close to the cost of the new device, so most people opt for
the latter option.
I’m guilty of falling for this too.
If my toaster breaks down, it would cost me at least $50 to repair it, so I simply go
out and buy a new one which is often much cheaper than the repair costs.
Capitalism at its best, hey?
Apple’s cash cow, the iPhone, is notoriously hard to repair.
This causes an artificial scarcity of skilled technicians which has the effect of increasing
maintenance costs for obsolete phones.
Batteries are non-replaceable, so customers either have to pay Apple to replace the battery,
or upgrade to the newest model.
Repairs done by third-parties can result in malfunctioning phones, or even lock the phone
completely.
Apple of course defend their practices in the name of security.
That is, if a malicious individual got hold of your phone, they couldn’t just replace
the fingerprint scanner with a doctored one and gain access to your phone.
Of course, it’s all bullshit.
Apple only care about one thing – how to get as much money as possible.
They basically want every iPhone user to upgrade to the newest phone whenever Apple dictate.
I’ve known a fair few iPhone users over the years, and most of them get extremely
jealous when they see another friend or colleague with a newer model than them.
Low Durability
Some products are designed with low-quality parts in mind, especially in key areas.
Manufacturers know that making critical components from cheap plastics or metals will result
in a significant reduction in lifespan.
Toy manufacturers are infamous for this.
Sure, their toys look great on the outside, but they often contain cheap plastic cogs
in vital locations.
Having children myself, I know that children can play quite roughly, easily damaging these
cheap components.
What happens when a four-year-old’s motorised train stops working?
“Dad!
I want a new one!”
While I was living in Beijing, I went through four bicycles in the space of one year.
The first one I bought was dirt cheap (180 yuan, about $40).
It looked quite nice, so I thought it would easily last me the year of my work contract.
Within a month or two, it was starting to break down until eventually it basically fell
to bits.
I sold it to a secondhand dealer for 10 yuan (about $2).
I ended up buying more expensive bicycles, but they all suffered the same fate, or were
stolen.
This morning I noticed a lot of my clothes pegs have been starting to break (I only bought
them about a year ago).
However the ones that I got from my parents, which I presume they’ve had for many years,
are still going strong.
Obviously these new pegs are designed to be replaced every year or so.
Systematic Obsolescence
Many computer software and hardware companies are guilty of planned systematic obsolescence
where they make their software or hardware incompatible, or difficult to use with future
operating systems.
Just last night I was trying to get my old scanner to work on my new Windows 10 laptop.
It took me about three hours to work out a fix, and I’ve worked in IT.
The average person would have given up and just bought a new scanner.
The scanner is in good condition, so there is no physical reason to throw it away, however
the manufacturers don’t want me to use the same scanner for 20 years, do they now?
Microsoft is famous for making new versions of its Windows software that makes it difficult
to run programs designed for previous versions.
Of course their goal is to make Windows users spend more money to update to their latest
software, whether it is better or not.
However in a complete reversal of attitude, Microsoft didn’t charge their users to update
to Windows 10.
Hmm, have they changed their tune and become an ethical company?
I have my doubts.
I’m sure there’s some market reason for it.
My guess is that their goal is to get as many users as possible using Windows 10.
Once that has happened, they can find other ways to fleece you money, for example, by
buying or subscribing to “apps” such as Office 365.
Hey, I get it, they’re a big company that needs to make money.
As an aside, I haven’t used Windows for many years (I’m a Linux fan), but I thought
I’d give Windows 10 a go on my new laptop.
Actually, I’ve been finding it quite enjoyable to use with very few hiccups.
Programmed Obsolescence
Some devices have a pre-programmed lifespan.
They do not rely on some random part to fail like a toy with a cheap cog inside, but instead
are designed to fail on a particular date, or after a certain number of uses.
Hewlett Packard had to go to court over designing some of their inkjet printers and cartridges
to automatically shut down on a particular expiration date, even though ink remained.
Users were being forced to go out and buy costly ink cartridges.
The case was settled for about $5 million, but each plaintiff could only receive a maximum
of $6.
Wow, thanks Hewlett Packard.
Advantages
The manufacturers and producers benefit the most from planned obsolescence.
By creating items that need to be replaced often, they can ensure demand.
One could also argue that this in turn creates more jobs.
Disadvantages
Continually replacing items rather than repairing them can cause a lot of waste and pollution,
which has a negative impact on the environment.
Planned obsolescence is inefficient.
It’s wasting workers’ time and customers’ money.
If customers work out that a company is intentionally making goods that break down, they might to
turn to a company that sells more durable goods.
Solution
As long as we live in a capitalist economy, there will always be planned obsolescence.
Companies are making far too much money to voluntarily create items that last forever.
Doing so would prevent them from getting the constant revenue streams that they’ve become
addicted to.
Just imagine if Apple created the iPhone Infinity, a device designed to last 25 years, solar/kinetically
powered, never needs a battery replacement, and guarantees free apps for life.
Yeah, it would be a real hit with the consumers, but Apple would never do it.
It’s not in their market interest to make such a device.
And there lies the problem.
As long as companies’ number one goal is to make money, we will forever be victim to
buying junk that won’t last more than a few years.
Ideally, we would live in a society where money is no longer required, or no longer
useful.
Companies would take pride in making long-life, durable, good quality machines that function
well.
Of course they would!
They wouldn’t want to waste hundreds of man-hours fixing crappy devices.
If you haven’t already seen it, go to Resource Based Economy and watch the video The Choice
is Ours by Jacque Fresco.
It outlines a possible society where people focus on quality and durability rather than
money and profits.
I think we will get there eventually.
It’ll just take time.
So in the meantime, we have to find a way to not keep buying junk that breaks down all
the time, or every year buying a slightly different model just to keep up with the Joneses.