Planned Obsolescense

[lmitchell0012]

I may do a horrible job at explaining this, and I apologize in advance if I do. Basically, planned obsolescense is when companies build something (usually some sort of a machine/appliance) with parts that are designed to break after a certain period of time. Machines that used to have their parts made with a sturdier material (such as metal) are now being built with some of their parts made with a weaker material, such as a type of plastic. I believe this practice of building crap products should be made illegal. Companies should not be allowed to sell something that THEY KNOW WILL BREAK after a period of time. Anyways, sorry for my rant. What are your thought on this??

 

[Minwu]

Never heard of any isolated instance of this on the news recently, but you have to expect some sleazier companies to do business like that and shop around for the best product you can find before you buy


for example turtle beach is cheap garbage and i learned that by going through two headsets before switching brands

 

[moonbound]

It's not just "sleazier companies" that are guilty of this. Even Apple, the so-called pinnacle of quality, is rumored to be guilty of this. I accepted years ago that this is how modern economics works and there's no way for me to stop companies from making decisions that are more profitable to them if they aren't doing anything illegal. I don't see the practice being banned anytime in the near future, and if it was, companies could still get away with it by manufacturing the products oversees.
I doubt that every company is specifically trying to screw the consumers, they just calculate the most cost effective way for them to make and sell products, which they have every right to do.

 

[WaterBomb]

I don't necessarily think it's a conscious practice of planning for products to break after a period of time. More likely it's just the company's ongoing efforts to make their manufacturing costs as low as possible. Using sturdier materials makes the cost higher, which will transfer to the consumer as well. In order to keep costs AND prices down, companies must strike a balance between quality and efficiency. I believe companies do try to make the best product possible with the materials they use, they just cut costs through the quality of the materials themselves. I seriously doubt it's a deliberate act of decreasing quality for the purpose of forcing consumers to buy more, it's just the natural side effect of cost-cutting and a company's constant drive toward maximizing profit.

 

[JimBob]

That's a pretty alarmist way of putting it. Planned obsolescence more involves companies realizing that through technology upgrades, their products will, after a few years, fall behind and become obsolete. Why build a product Tonka Tough so it'll last fifty years if the end user is going to replace it after five? So to save money, they build it to break after a certain point.

If you're buying cheap products, and they are breaking, well... there's a reason that they're cheap! Most higher-end products are not only higher quality, but have higher durability, since the user is not expected to replace them as often.

 

[Arcticblast]

Just an example of this - my family currently has a refrigerator that is at least 20 years old (older than I am, definitely...) but it's come time to get a new one - it leaks and the ice machine is broken.

None of the refrigerators we could find were predicted to last more than seven or eight years.

 

[verbatim]

This isn't a new practice, planned obsolescence goes back to the 1950's. If you dig around long enough you can even find logs of engineers trying to find the earliest point a product can break without ruining the costumer's trust in the manufacturer.

 

[M. Rock]

It's been this way forever, and car manufacturers are the worst offenders. How can new cars sell if every single model was capable of lasting 'forever' (like 10 years at least).

My parents are dentists, and they always have to update their equipment. Apparently, the old dental chairs without circuitry can practically last forever. Newer ones with circuitry? They have to be replaced every few years.

 

[Wikey]

It really is a shame that things aren't made with the same level of quality and craftmanship as they used to be. Another issue with cars is that bot only are new cars not as well made as old cars; they're harder to fix yourself. My dad buys old beaters and fixes them up as a hobby but he can't do much more than change the oil on his new car.

 

[Snkz]

I don't think thats a sign of it not being well made, thats just a sign that cars have become complicated as fuck.

 

[cookie]

well personally I think it's political correctness gone mad.

 

[San_Pellegrino]

xbox 360. 'nuff said

 

[Zacchaeus]

Well first of all, as Waterbomb pointed out, companies need to balance quality with manufacturing to ensure that they turn a profit. After all, businesses need to make money or they won't exist.

Also, to a certain extent, obsolescence is healthy. You don't want your product to be so good and long lasting that you drive yourself out of business.

This is the sad truth. I've talked to some people who believe that "the big companies could make computers that never die if they wanted to" and while I think that that's bullshit, it's probably not entirely false. But if a product never broke or otherwise stopped functioning properly, the economy would ultimately fail. It could maybe work in some utopian socialist society but I don't think it's possible in the real world.

However, on a smaller scale, there are a few niche companies or products that practically do last forever. Think of a Zippo lighter or a Gerber knife. While they aren't nearly as expensive or complex as cars or computers, they fulfill their purpose and while they occasionally need to be refueld or steeled/sharpened respectively, they aren't normally discarded and replaced

 

[Shiny Mew2]

It really is a shame that things aren't made with the same level of quality and craftmanship as they used to be. Another issue with cars is that bot only are new cars not as well made as old cars; they're harder to fix yourself. My dad buys old beaters and fixes them up as a hobby but he can't do much more than change the oil on his new car.

Same thing with my dad's car. All the wires and shit blocking the oil filter. This is why old cars kick ass. Speaking of things that kick ass, HP printer cartridge don't. This is why they run out, despite printing next to nothing. A lawsuit about it.

 

[Kevin Garrett]

They only get away with it because every company uses these practices. If one company offered higher quality for a similar price they would outcompete the others.

 

[billymills]

If this is the case, opt for long term warranties. Buy products that are assured a long life, or alternatively, realise that in 3-4 years you'll probably want a number of these products replaced anyway.

 

[VKCA]

My grandparent's washing machine (bought in 1950's) still works fine. Never needed repair or broken down or anything. Not the case with any washing machines my parents have owned. computers are too complicated to put in everything

 

[Dan Dan]

Pretty sure this happens to everything that comes with a warranty. Washing machine breaks, try to claim on warranty.. oh look it ran out last week..how convenient.

 

[Glen]

everyone seems to be ignoring the most ubiquitous application of planned obsolescence: opting out of placing functions that are technologically and even fiscally feasible into current devices in order to strengthen the pull of the next generation of products.

it's not that the ipad 2 was created to break after x amount of time, it's that some perks that the ipad 3 has could have been in the ipad 2 but were intentionally left out.

 

[X5Dragon]

I always buy higher priced quality stuff, as a man I expect my shit to work properly until I decide when to replace them, and instead of buying tons of the same item over and over and feeling cheap about it, just pay premium one time.

That's my philosophy anway..

 

[Wikey]

Except what we are talking about is that what you're saying doesn't exist. Even the high-end premium products are designed to fail.

 

[X5Dragon]

It depends on what exactly are we talking about here (fashion related items, technologies, utility products, etc).

The first is about how a certain culture embraces a trend , the second is on how fast technology progresses and the third is about material strength.

I still believe that buying into certain reliable brands (be a fanboy), future proofing yourself instead of buying something medicore and embracing
"you get what you pay for" goes a long way.

 

[capefeather]

IMO the thing to look at with this matter is whether buying a new version of a product actually provides a practical improvement. Without that, the consumer is being made to buy the next version just because his/her previous version doesn't work anymore, and that's where the problem, I think, would lie.

 

[BattleStar]

I always found this a really cool topic. A couple months ago I actually first came accross this concept when I was doing a research paper on Zombies and I had to look up scientific methods of immortality or just extension of life. Interestingly enough is our bodies are like this. Our DNA designates how long we will last and when its our time to break. It is hopefully possible in the next coming years to reverse or slow it down by extending our genetic length.

Anyways back on subject. While I was reseraching this I came accross how companies do this as well. Most notably like mentioned before is Apple is rumoured to do this. Mostly with there Ipods and Iphones batteries. I personally think this is plausible because I have had experience with my ipod. I find it a real shame that the quality exist but companies don't make it due to profit.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

It's not just "sleazier companies" that are guilty of this. Even Apple, the so-called pinnacle of quality, is rumored to be guilty of this.

apple is not "rumored to be guilty" -- it is the world leader of planned obsolescence.

yeah, they do it in hardware, extensively -- for example: since 2009ish no apple macbooks have had removable, replaceable batteries, so when they die, you perform surgery or buy a new one.

but apple takes the idea to a whole new level by deliberately breaking their old software. as an example of this, apple mac os x comes with its own java implementation. that's fine; if you bought a mac, that's probably what you want. but, as soon as a new mac os x is released, apple stops updating your java, and it does everything in its power to stop the user from updating it (even if a newer version is available) or from changing their default implementation. i've known several java developers (including cathy) who would rant for hours about supporting 2-year-old macs.

another example: they release a new version of mac os x every year or so. and every time they do, the drop support for one of their older versions, and, by extension, some of their old laptops, because they arbitrarily prevent older laptops from upgrading to the newest version, even if they have the technical capacity. likewise, itunes will prevent users from installing newer versions of ios on ipods that are "too old", even if they could run the new ios without a problem.