Planned Obsolescence, do you agree with it?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
More to the point, things like TVs are built with no provision whatsoever for repair or replacement of likely-to-fail parts.

Many things are built with little regard to true quality; thus why your parents 20 year old microwave still works, and you've been through 3 of the same brand in 5 years.

Some of this is a drive to reduce costs, (your parents paid $500-1000 for that microwave), and some of it is a little ridiculous (replacing the compressor in your fridge often costs more than a brand new fridge with the same part in it).

As consumers, we have been trained to demand checklist features, as a substitute for quality, and we've learned well:

I've been laughed at by part-time tradespeople because I still run a 1995 3amp 3/8" Bosch hammerdrill I inherited from my grandfather (I only ever use it for tapcon-sized holes anyway). They think I'm crazy because they got 'twice the drill' in terms of size and power for $35. Of course mine is 13 years old, and theirs is broken the next time I see them. My drill was bought to last forever, not to impress anyone with it's rated power, but that's not we're trained to look for, and it's a trap we all fall into sometimes.

More expensive TVs ($1000+) are usually repairable. With cheaper TVs, it's often not worth the cost to repair them.

 

[SlickSnake]

HD-DVD is pretty darn obsolete now. :frown:

But my new Holographic Laser Vision Crystal Shards now beat Blu-Ray hands down!

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
More to the point, things like TVs are built with no provision whatsoever for repair or replacement of likely-to-fail parts.

Many things are built with little regard to true quality; thus why your parents 20 year old microwave still works, and you've been through 3 of the same brand in 5 years.

Some of this is a drive to reduce costs, (your parents paid $500-1000 for that microwave), and some of it is a little ridiculous (replacing the compressor in your fridge often costs more than a brand new fridge with the same part in it).

As consumers, we have been trained to demand checklist features, as a substitute for quality, and we've learned well:

I've been laughed at by part-time tradespeople because I still run a 1995 3amp 3/8" Bosch hammerdrill I inherited from my grandfather (I only ever use it for tapcon-sized holes anyway). They think I'm crazy because they got 'twice the drill' in terms of size and power for $35. Of course mine is 13 years old, and theirs is broken the next time I see them. My drill was bought to last forever, not to impress anyone with it's rated power, but that's not we're trained to look for, and it's a trap we all fall into sometimes.

More expensive TVs ($1000+) are usually repairable. With cheaper TVs, it's often not worth the cost to repair them.

Not only that: Your New Disposable Flat Panel HDTV

 

[FoBoT]

i don't believe in "Planned Obsolescence"

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Without it I think we'd still be churning our own butter and sending/receiving news via courier pigeon. Uh, no thanks.

Progress FTW, planned or not. :thumbsup:

I doubt it. If someone realizes, "Hey, I can just buy butter for $2 per pound, or I can spend hours making it myself, plus raise cattle too," they're not going to be churning their own butter for too much longer.
When someone can make something better they'll do it. When someone else can make something better that's also profitable, they'll do it.

I don't care for planned obsolescence either. On one hand, it does provide a way of keeping the economy going, by "forcing" consumers to keep purchasing new things. Of course, this also discourages savings, since everyone's compelled to keep spending. When I have the money to do so, I prefer to buy things that will last a long time. Planned obsolescence also encourages a wasteful society, because everything is seen as only a temporary fix until the next new thing comes along - then you just toss the "old" into the trash.

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: sdifox
I hate it, problem is we live in a world where the word Repair has become a dirty word. Thus we end up with throw away appliances. That is out biggest garbage problem right there.

Repair is not a dirty word. What has changed is what types of things we get repaired. The average person will not throw a car away just because it needs repair unless that repair costs more than the cars perceived value. For common objects like printers, phones, SD TVs etc 99% of the time repair makes no sense because the repair costs exceed the cost of replacement.

It's also a side effect of a society which is dependent on technology, but where few in that society have the expertise to know what's going on "under the hood" of their technology. Long ago, if something broke, it was likely a simple fix - maybe a wheel or blade broke. No problem, just make repairs yourself. If a computer has a problem, there are many thousands of possible components which might be the problem, and just diagnosing it may require expensive equipment, or at the very least, very specific knowledge. And some of that knowledge can't be obtained because the information is not made available to the public.
Progress comes at a price. It can be up to us though to decide what that price is, and how it's paid.

 

[Pepsi90919]

I believe that if people are perfectly content with what they have, then they should not be forced to change unless there is an important, pressing issue which would have cause for them to upgrade.

go take an economics course

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
What the hell is planned obsolescence? There is obsolescence that is planned for, the former makes no sense.

Are you saying it's a bad idea to improve technology to replace the old? Obsolescence isn't planned, it's just expected.

n00b

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Without it I think we'd still be churning our own butter and sending/receiving news via courier pigeon. Uh, no thanks.

Progress FTW, planned or not. :thumbsup:

I doubt it. If someone realizes, "Hey, I can just buy butter for $2 per pound, or I can spend hours making it myself, plus raise cattle too," they're not going to be churning their own butter for too much longer.
When someone can make something better they'll do it. When someone else can make something better that's also profitable, they'll do it.

I don't care for planned obsolescence either. On one hand, it does provide a way of keeping the economy going, by "forcing" consumers to keep purchasing new things. Of course, this also discourages savings, since everyone's compelled to keep spending. When I have the money to do so, I prefer to buy things that will last a long time. Planned obsolescence also encourages a wasteful society, because everything is seen as only a temporary fix until the next new thing comes along - then you just toss the "old" into the trash.

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: sdifox
I hate it, problem is we live in a world where the word Repair has become a dirty word. Thus we end up with throw away appliances. That is out biggest garbage problem right there.

Repair is not a dirty word. What has changed is what types of things we get repaired. The average person will not throw a car away just because it needs repair unless that repair costs more than the cars perceived value. For common objects like printers, phones, SD TVs etc 99% of the time repair makes no sense because the repair costs exceed the cost of replacement.

It's also a side effect of a society which is dependent on technology, but where few in that society have the expertise to know what's going on "under the hood" of their technology. Long ago, if something broke, it was likely a simple fix - maybe a wheel or blade broke. No problem, just make repairs yourself. If a computer has a problem, there are many thousands of possible components which might be the problem, and just diagnosing it may require expensive equipment, or at the very least, very specific knowledge. And some of that knowledge can't be obtained because the information is not made available to the public.
Progress comes at a price. It can be up to us though to decide what that price is, and how it's paid.

I agree whole heartedly. The problem is not so much a question of education/information as it is of perspective though. The view that things like cell phones, computers or, gasoline fueled cars will always be available and convenient is the real issue.

I believe few folks truly understand how delicate the social/technological environment is. I don't subscribe to the 'prepare for the zombie attack' mentality but, I do see the value in learning and teaching older technology that is not dependent on computer chips.

 

[Foxery]

You are more than welcome to go Amish. There's a whole town of them near me, and they don't worry about old OR new technology!

The rest of us enjoy progress.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Foxery
You are more than welcome to go Amish. There's a whole town of them near me, and they don't worry about old OR new technology!

The rest of us enjoy progress.

You're missing the point! I enjoy technology and progress but, only a fool believes there are only good things that come out of new technology. I prefer to not be dependent on that technology.

 

[ryan256]

If I have something that works just fine for me I should not have to buy something else just because its newer.
Case in point.... I use MS Money 2002. works just fine for me and does everything I need it to. Yet Microsoft retired it back in 2004.
Windows 2000. Still a decent operating system, does everything I need it to, and is alot easier on my older AMD 800 and P3 boxes than XP and especially Vista.

I agree with the motto of the web site OldVersion.com

Newer is not always better.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: ChaoZ
I think a better example would be HP printers; it stops working after a set number of pages are printed. I could be wrong though.

It's true with some, and it's true with Epson printers.

My parents Epson RX500 stopped working and said it needed to be serviced. I looked the message up and you can just push a sequence of buttons to get it working again.

That happened a year and a half ago, it's still printing fine. If that's not planned obsolescence, I don't know what is.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Linflas
I think he is referring to the theory that things like cars, major appliances, etc are all designed so that they will become obsolete within a fixed period of time.

So your appliances come with a stick of dynamite set to go off in four years? Might want to stop buying from Russians.

Dude, Russian products keep working forever. They never work quite right, but they almost never break. And if they break you can use them as hammers, bludgeons, boat anchors, etc.

Russian design philosophy seems to be that if it ain't broke, they don't fix it. If it's broke and still works, they replicate it. In the event that it does break and stop working it must be useful in the capacity of "heavy blunt object" or "heavy pointy object", preferably both depending on which end you hold.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The only argument of substance there is that things get old, wear out, and eventually have to be replaced. No shit.

No sabotage here, things get old, that's what happens.

You'll get no argument from me, that is pretty much my view as well.

Yes and no. There's no denying that things are not built as robustly anymore, but I don't believe that it's "planned" so much as a decision to design towards the mean expected usage life to keep costs down. That is to say, things used to be overbuilt to a shocking degree while today products are built to perform at the median use level. It's not sabotage, just a realization that most consumers don't need a kitchen mixer that can withstand a nuclear blast.

ZV

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
The only argument of substance there is that things get old, wear out, and eventually have to be replaced. No shit.

No sabotage here, things get old, that's what happens.

You'll get no argument from me, that is pretty much my view as well.

Yes and no. There's no denying that things are not built as robustly anymore, but I don't believe that it's "planned" so much as a decision to design towards the mean expected usage life to keep costs down. That is to say, things used to be overbuilt to a shocking degree while today products are built to perform at the median use level. It's not sabotage, just a realization that most consumers don't need a kitchen mixer that can withstand a nuclear blast.

ZV

See, I don't believe it is anything but most companies trying to maximize profits. There are well made durable goods which typically cost more than the vast majority. I believe obsolescence is planned to take advantage of most consumers tendency to bargain hunt and laziness towards doing their homework.

The laziness on behalf of the consumer is nothing new but, the wholesale greed of the majority of durable goods producers is relatively new. That, coupled with the explosion of the number of companies which produce durable goods, has trained an entire generation to accept throw away goods.

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: ChaoZ
I think a better example would be HP printers; it stops working after a set number of pages are printed. I could be wrong though.

It's true with some, and it's true with Epson printers.

My parents Epson RX500 stopped working and said it needed to be serviced. I looked the message up and you can just push a sequence of buttons to get it working again.

That happened a year and a half ago, it's still printing fine. If that's not planned obsolescence, I don't know what is.

Most inkjet printers have a pad in them in which ink is deposited during head cleaning. It probably stops and brings up that message because the engineers decided that after X number of pages, the pad would be full.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: fleabag
I personally hate the very concept of planned obsolescence. I believe that if people are perfectly content with what they have, then they should not be forced to change unless there is an important, pressing issue which would have cause for them to upgrade. For example, I think that people shouldn't be forced to buy a new car, however I do think it's perfectly acceptable for people to be forced to buy a new car if the fuel that their old car uses is not economically viable or physically available anymore because of circumstances that are out of anybody's control.

.

Your argument would be a lot more sound if you didn't contradict yourself.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: ChaoZ
I think a better example would be HP printers; it stops working after a set number of pages are printed. I could be wrong though.

It's true with some, and it's true with Epson printers.

My parents Epson RX500 stopped working and said it needed to be serviced. I looked the message up and you can just push a sequence of buttons to get it working again.

That happened a year and a half ago, it's still printing fine. If that's not planned obsolescence, I don't know what is.

Most inkjet printers have a pad in them in which ink is deposited during head cleaning. It probably stops and brings up that message because the engineers decided that after X number of pages, the pad would be full.

You're assuming the engineers are in charge of what features or functions the printer has. I assure you that this almost never the case.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Yes and no. There's no denying that things are not built as robustly anymore, but I don't believe that it's "planned" so much as a decision to design towards the mean expected usage life to keep costs down. That is to say, things used to be overbuilt to a shocking degree while today products are built to perform at the median use level. It's not sabotage, just a realization that most consumers don't need a kitchen mixer that can withstand a nuclear blast.

ZV

See, I don't believe it is anything but most companies trying to maximize profits. There are well made durable goods which typically cost more than the vast majority. I believe obsolescence is planned to take advantage of most consumers tendency to bargain hunt and laziness towards doing their homework.

The laziness on behalf of the consumer is nothing new but, the wholesale greed of the majority of durable goods producers is relatively new. That, coupled with the explosion of the number of companies which produce durable goods, has trained an entire generation to accept throw away goods.

So it's the companies' faults that we, as consumers, are demanding these goods? The blame here lies squarely on the consumers who demand low prices. People talk big about quality, but when it comes to acting they choose instead to save $50 on a $1,000 item. Talk is just talk, actions are what matter.

The few well-made durable goods are rapidly becoming Veblen goods, goods that sell based on their name or on the cache they carry rather than on the inherent qualities they have. Companies only have so much leeway in terms of making niche products. At some point the lack of volume requires an increase in price well beyond the added value of the superior build quality and this can only be sustained if there is sufficient cache to the name of the product itself, otherwise the company folds.

Like I said, it just plain doesn't make sense to build a product that has a useful expected life that is longer than the majority of owners will use it. It's not that products are designed to fail. They're simply designed for the fat part of the bell curve rather than for the extreme high end that 99% of buyers will never see.

And despite all the harping about products being less robust now, it's worth it to remember that this is far from always the case. Take cars, for example, in the 1950's and 1960's, a car with 100,000 miles was unheard-of. Cars that old were junk. 50,000 to 60,000 miles was considered very high. Cars didn't start well (sometimes not at all) in the winter. Now pretty much any car should last 200,000 miles. Engines start every time thanks to fuel injection. We have power everything even on inexpensive cars. Radios with more speakers than my home theatre system.

ZV

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So it's the companies' faults that we, as consumers, are demanding these goods? The blame here lies squarely on the consumers who demand low prices. People talk big about quality, but when it comes to acting they choose instead to save $50 on a $1,000 item. Talk is just talk, actions are what matter.

No, consumers are very much at fault. However, I believe the producers share equally in the blame. Its not saving $50 on a $1, 000 item that's the problem, it's saving $50 on a $100 item that's the problem.

The few well-made durable goods are rapidly becoming Veblen goods, goods that sell based on their name or on the cache they carry rather than on the inherent qualities they have. Companies only have so much leeway in terms of making niche products. At some point the lack of volume requires an increase in price well beyond the added value of the superior build quality and this can only be sustained if there is sufficient cache to the name of the product itself, otherwise the company folds.

I think we're agreeing here. I believe this is the part that is the company's fault. Companies believe that in order to be successful they must offer everything the customer appears to demand in order to hold market share. My question is what market are they trying hold? Cheap flavor of the week? Durable goods companies need to narrow their focus. I contend that durable goods do not fall into the niche market.

Like I said, it just plain doesn't make sense to build a product that has a useful expected life that is longer than the majority of owners will use it. It's not that products are designed to fail. They're simply designed for the fat part of the bell curve rather than for the extreme high end that 99% of buyers will never see.

I agree but the term planned obsolescence implies that the life expectancy of the product is less than the useful life of that product. That is the part I mentioned about training an entire generation to accept disposable goods.


And despite all the harping about products being less robust now, it's worth it to remember that this is far from always the case. Take cars, for example, in the 1950's and 1960's, a car with 100,000 miles was unheard-of. Cars that old were junk. 50,000 to 60,000 miles was considered very high. Cars didn't start well (sometimes not at all) in the winter. Now pretty much any car should last 200,000 miles. Engines start every time thanks to fuel injection. We have power everything even on inexpensive cars. Radios with more speakers than my home theatre system.

There has definitely been innovation and progress. I would point out however that some of the costs that innovation are the high cost of replacement parts, the inability of most folks to work on their cars and, the increased dependence on petroleum products.

ZV

 

[lokiju]

Apple, and MS are the kings of this.


They make a device or OS or SW that by the time it's released, the replacement for it is being made.

I read yesterday that Windows 7 and Zune 3 will be released in 2009.

Vista and Zune 2 were just released.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: lokiju
Apple, and MS are the kings of this.


They make a device or OS or SW that by the time it's released, the replacement for it is being made.

Welcome to the new millennium, where things change. Microsoft is realizing at a faster rate how much their products suck, thus increasing the rate at which they improve. Internet Explorer also fits on your list.

 

[arrfep]

Dunno if it's been brought up because I didn't read the whole thread....but this is particularly prevalent in the cycling industry. 7 speed cassettes were standard in the early '90s, and they worked just fine. Then Shimano says, "Oh, we're introducing 8-speed."

That's fine and dandy, you might say, another choice for the consumer. Only problem is, Shimano says "We're making only 8-speed." The problem with this is that if in a year your 7speed cassette or shifter gives up the ghost, you have to move to 8-speed. Problem with this is you can't buy just a new cassette. You need a new rear wheel, new cassette, new rear shifter/derailleur. Why? Because in changing to 8-speed, Shimano changed the width of the freehub and the spacing of the cogs, so an 8-speed cassette wouldn't fit on an older wheel, and the shifters wouldn't pull the right amount of cable to make accurate shifts.

Okay, so you get used to 8 speed. Then 5 years later Shimano says "Oh, we're introducing 9-speed. Good news though, you can fit a 9-speed cassette on an 8-speed wheel."

Unfortunately, they changed the width of the cogs, so now with your new cassette you needed a new chain, new chainrings, and oftentimes a new derailleur.

There was never a simple upgrade path, and there was never an alternative to not upgrading.

So to answer your question...I see the need to innovate and refine existing products, but it gets pretty frustrating on the consumer's end, especially when you are partaking in an already expensive hobby like cycling/photography/computers.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

The concept and practice has been around for a long time, nothing new, and not specific to any particular industry.

I first learned of "it" in one of my earliest Eng. design classes, nearly 30 yrs. ago.

 

[TitanDiddly]

"No user serviceable parts inside."

People used to fix things. Things used to be designed and made to be fixed. Many people today think that 'repair' means to replace any part that is not working. People today don't know how to make do. We'd rather make more instead.