Planned Obsolescence

[petal]

Saw this interesting and wellmade documentary about "Planned Obsolescence" and thought that the "word" needs to be spread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bxzU1HFC7Q

Prepare to be outraged - or inspired, depending on which religion you believe in.

[kensuguro]

Only saw a bit of it.. isn't it just product cycle? Buy once products are worthless to develop because they impede the sale of future products, even if future products may be better. For online games we persistently try to come up with ways to make goods "consumable" because everything in a game is buy once by default. Got a sword? Well, I'll make it break after 1000 swings.

There are both pros and cons I think. The players are the consumer, producer, and economy as a whole. From the consumer's perspective, it definitely feels like you're caught in this system where you have to continuously buy. Of course, that's by design. So while you're almost paying a subscription fee, you're also saving yourself from problems such as:

• variances in failure rates of multiple components
  unpredictable / unknown failures in use
  compliance issues (industry standards, legal standards)

These tend to be cleared automatically when users are forced to purchase new products at a predictable cycle.

From the producer's perspective... it's awesome. A product that can be bought multiple times is great. But on a more practical level, as you create new products, you can only support older products for a limited amount of time. Support staff need to be maintained, parts need to be maintained. The product will eventually stop being produced to make way for newer products, so all related parts stop being produced as well. Going back to the problems that are avoided with cyclical purchases, the producer also avoids a lot of risk from damages related to prolonged use. Also by having an end to their support policy, the producer may not have recall responsibilities (legally) beyond a certain point, though they may opt to do so for good public image.

The economy as a whole definitely benefits from forced consumption. Keeps goods moving and money moving. New standards such as emissions or radio standards can be implemented and enforced more predictably and quickly. If the purchase cycle is known and steady, the economy (of the particular product) becomes more resilient. Down side is that it can also put people in debt esp with a credit society, and smaller recurring purchases can eat away from larger purchases, such as real estate. But that's just my read, specialists may say otherwise.

Of course, the byproduct of all this is junk. In Japan, a law was passed some years ago that electronics companies must collect all disposed items. They started a sticker system, where the consumer purchases a "retrieval" sticker along with the product. (price didn't change, really) So when an item has that sticker, it goes to the manufacturer where they can dispose of it with appropriate methods. Well, turns out that lots of manufacturers just paid illegal dumpers to dump piles of garbage in hidden places, or worse, send them off to be dumped in other countries.

[petal]

I believe you need to watch it all to get the full picture.

Planned Obsolescence may make sense in some cases, but the philosophy behind creating fx light bulps or printers, that could be made to work indefinitely, but are made to only work for 1000 hours purely to make profit and by doing so creates mountains of toxic waste, simply cannot be defended.

[dawman]

Which is why we all met here....
We purchased something that last decades......

[kensuguro]

I believe you need to watch it all to get the full picture.

Planned Obsolescence may make sense in some cases, but the philosophy behind creating fx light bulps or printers, that could be made to work indefinitely, but are made to only work for 1000 hours purely to make profit and by doing so creates mountains of toxic waste, simply cannot be defended.

I definitely will check out the whole thing after work. It's an interesting topic for me because it's something that can be done with online games to a great degree (with great effect) without producing landfills.

Though, I do think that doing it for business reason can be justified.. Meaning, there is a business justification for it in that it generates mad revenues. Also, with physical objects, if products were to be supported forever, then the production of parts will have to continue, support, tech staff for servicing, etc, which will be packaged into the unit cost. And if products took forever to go obsolete, then logistically we'd quickly run out of space to make new products.. which won't sell because everyone's got their first model working just fine. To me that sounds a little sad since it becomes very difficult for consumers to get new products with better features/new tech, etc. Or maybe it'll become one company one product... sort of like with web startups.

In that sense, having a hardware component that runs for a very long time, but a software portion that gets revamped all the time (kind of like smartphones) is a good compromise. though the hardware eventually does become banged up. But same issue though. If a device lasts twice as long, it'll cost twice as much to cover for the money that could have been made from the second purchase. If the device lasts forever most likely it will become a rental/subscription, since the pricing would be absurdly high. As long as it's a business the goal is to make money, and companies will make money. I find it difficult to blame them for doing just that.

[garyb]

in my father's day, making something other than a toy that wouldn't last a lifetime, or at least be repairable for a lifetime was grounds for violence. in my grandfather's day, even toys were expected to last. products that weren't fully finished and functional were absolutely avoided, no matter how slick and useful they promised to be. somehow, companies that made a quality product made a profit.

yes, people are more and more stupified.

[kensuguro]

wouldn't it be a problem of sustainability though? If everyone bought just once, the lifetime value of one purchaser would be so low that it will be extremely difficult to support a company. After market saturation, the only new purchasers would be people switching from other products, or a new generation who enter the demographic. If your product is $5, that's very tough. For much smaller companies, that may be enough, but beyond a certain scale, it won't be able to maintain a large staff. And with such a dark outlook on revenue, it would be extremely difficult to get capital to start an operation, so it becomes hard to even make a product, good or bad. It's sort of the ultimate in unscalability.

I also think it really depends on the type of product too. Or, depending on how fast the tech that pertains to that item is moving. Like a hammer, or a wrench. Those can last a very long time. People may lose them, but in term of innovation, there's probably not much left to do, or companies aren't putting in r&d to come up with new concepts. But if a pc were buy once and development stopped in the 70's.. well, I'm sure we'd be spending way more time outside.

[petal]

And yet you can buy new hammers in many a shops all around the world

Ken - Planned Obsolescence has implications way beyond just creating an interesting profit for the company. Watch the movie

[kensuguro]

well, hammer producers can keep making low revenue hammers because they make other things that are consumable. Conveniently, tools have a built in lifespan, and while it may be long for a typical person, it's much shorter in a professional situation. So, the tools may be good, but they're still consumables. And when you get into heavier machines, they do cost quite a bit since you don't buy them all the time. Then you get into renewable parts (consumable), maintenance (consumable), rechargeable batteries (very consumable), etc.

It's a dilemma though, because in specific cases you do want a good tool that lasts a life time, but that fact kills the company. Like Japanese cutlery. These things last a very, very long time, and the quality is simply awesome. But the industry is struggling and many, many master smiths have gone bust. If 1 knife costs $1000 and lasts 15 years, and there are only so many chefs in the world (that are looking for a new knife), you've got a problem. And many have opted to go for a lesser quality, cheaper, higher revenue products to survive. (while still making traditional ones) The reality very much a blend of high volume + low unit rev and low volume + high unit rev. The diversity gives companies some wiggle room since demand is not a stable thing.

lol, ya. I'm like, why am I typing all this without having watched the movie first. Ya, I'll watch it first.

[garyb]

how do you think that companies made a profit in the past?

yes, things cost more, but you only needed to buy one.

economics is not a natural order that comes from God. it's a manufactured concept. the paradyne has shifted completely since 40 years ago. as to "sustainability", you realize that the old reality with the cheap fuel was 100% sustainable. the new reality with all the recycling is not. of course, recycling is not new either. most food products came in reusable glass containers that were used over and over again, soda bottles, milk bottles and so much more. automobiles were made with replacable parts that anyone could replace in their own garage. this is bullsh*t, but people don't know any better...

[dawman]

And yet you can buy new hammers in many a shops all around the world

Yes, but the Claws after pulling a few thousand 16 Penny Double heads start to chip, unless you get a Craftsmen or a real Hammer.
Real Hammers have a lifetime warranty. That's the sign of non obsolescence.

[lindsayB]

Manufacturers, for a long time, have been building a feature into their products solely for their benefit called “planned obsolescence.” In other words, a product is made with the knowledge and intention of it being obsolete within a few years. The idea is to get people to throw the old one away and just buy a new one, thereby putting more money in corporate pockets.

[petal]

That is correct.

[garyb]

people are ignorant suckers. the love and defend to the death things that don't help them.

[jksuperstar]

Wow, that's a pretty good spam-bot to keep to context AND provide a link to making more money in the same sentence...even putting the link right on the "Planned-obsolescence" quotes. What money can't buy these days....