The common belief is that big companies are out to get the little people by making products that break after a short period, or with substantially new features or accessories that make previous models obsolete, requiring the user to purchase a new model. This conspiracy theory isn’t true; there’s a perfectly good explanation for this phenomenon, and it was caused by the consumers, not the manufacturers.
When we buy the hottest, shiniest, smallest, and cheapest new thing we join the wave of consumer demand that is the cause of what often gets labelled as “Planned Obsolescence”. In truth, we’re all to blame for the signals our buying habits send to manufacturers. Dig in and get your flamewar fingers fired up.
The idea makes sense; some bigwigs in marketing realized that if they sell a product that will expire, break, or become unserviceable after a certain period of time (long enough that people won’t complain), then the consumer will return and buy a newer, better product. Why build a product that lasts a long time and only get one sale when you can build a product that breaks after a few years and get a few repeat sales?
We can point to microwaves that are older than we are that still function fine and say “see, back then they built gadgets that last, why don’t they do that anymore?” There are lots of manifestations of this phenomenon. You see products that break after a period of time. You see products that don’t have user-serviceable or replaceable parts. You see parts or consumables that are discontinued, rendering the product useless. And especially (I’m looking at you, Samsung and Apple) you see products that are upgraded every year or two with fancy new features and operating systems that make the current version look like a potato. So how is this NOT planned obsolescence?
It’s Consumer Demand
The entire conspiracy is explained away when you consider that manufacturers are giving consumers exactly what they’re asking for, which is often compromising the product in different ways. It’s always a tradeoff, and the things that make a product more robust are the things that consumers aren’t considering when they make a purchase, so they are the first to go when a company designs a new product.
Price
The biggest, baddest, most important aspect of this is price, and Harbor Freight is the poster child for this concept. If consumers valued quality products that don’t break more than they do price, then Harbor Freight wouldn’t exist. After all, it’s easy to get the feeling that Harbor Freight is a store composed entirely of shelves that scream “we know this is a crappy product that will break if you look at it wrong, but it’s cheap.”
So product developers make cuts everywhere they can to reduce the cost of the product. They replace metal parts with plastic parts, screws with snaps, and everything they can do to shave pennies off the cost. All of this is just so that you’ll begin to consider their product.
This isn’t a game of increasing their own margin by keeping prices the same and reducing the quality of the product, this is a game of adding features while reducing the cost so that you’ll see that this product costs $.57 less than the competitor and buy it on price difference alone. The Harbor Freights are the obvious ones, but every company does this. Sure you can find good companies that make quality products, but you’ll pay dearly for it.
Size
Next is size, and here the cell phone industry is our best example. When cellphones first hit the scene, batteries were replaceable by users. This was great, except that it added bulk, and it turned out that people weren’t keeping their phone long enough for the battery replacement to be necessary. Cell phone technology was advancing so fast that people didn’t want to keep their phone running for years; they wanted the latest and greatest and smallest. So the easily replaceable battery was compromised so that we could have skinnier smaller phones.
You could still unscrew the case and replace it, but it wasn’t as easy. But that wasn’t skinny or small enough, and in the effort to reduce costs even further, the screws were removed so that we could have smooth glass on both sides, requiring even more difficult methods for replacing the battery. It wasn’t a conspiracy to make phones obsolete more quickly; it was a direct response to different demands that made compromises necessary.
Accessory Compatibility
Then we have to consider the compatibility of accessories. Here again the cell phone is a great example. Consider the monstrosity that is the old iPhone cable. It had so many pins it could be mistaken for a DIMM memory connector. An industry of accessories sprouted up around this connector, with chargers and audio receivers and all kinds of things having this docking connector. Then Apple announced a new connector, the lightning connector, and immediately all these products were obsolete and a whole industry had to redesign and retool.
The same thing happened with USB (Mini->Micro->C), so the Android fanbois can’t point fingers. With both lightning and USB-C, the committees tried to make a connector that was tiny (consumer demand), reversible (consumer demand), cheap (consumer demand), and forward thinking, with lots of flexibility for the future. These connectors aren’t designed to be short lived. Manufacturers don’t want to have to spend a lot of time and energy re-engineering stuff when they could design it once and sell it forever. They’re forced into these types of redesign by consumer demand for improved features and reduced cost.
User Training
It’s hard to put this delicately, but it seems users are less patient and willing to learn than they used to be. Manuals are tossed directly in the garbage without consultation, but users don’t hesitate to write a bad review and complain that it doesn’t work because they didn’t charge it first. Manufacturers are marching steadily towards products that are easier and easier to use, with fewer serviceable parts, less friction on the first use, and simpler interfaces.
As an example, a product I helped develop has a non-user replaceable coin cell battery because. The reasons that drove this decision are pretty eye-opening:
- We couldn’t get the users to be interested in keeping the device running longer than the battery lifetime.
- Even if they were, we couldn’t get them to order the right battery (CR2032).
- Even if they did, we couldn’t rely on them to have the dexterity to remove the battery tray and replace the battery.
- They complained that the battery door made the product look cheap and flimsy.
- They complained that water and dust ingress was more likely.
- Sadly, all this complaining was only possible among the users that understood that their wirelessly communicating device had a battery in the first place.
How Do We Fix It?
Manufacturers need to be given feedback on what to prioritize when designing new products. When the only feedback they receive is that it will be purchased in higher volumes if they reduce the price, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that the consumer cares about price more than any other aspect. The way to fix it is to support companies that develop high quality products that are more expensive but designed to last.
Another important bit of feedback is to use open standards so that integrations between products are easier, and interfacing with a product past its expected lifetime is still possible. Even publishing schematics or repair manuals after a product is considered obsolete and no longer available for sale would be helpful, and builds good will among a certain demographic. We write countless articles about the challenges of hacking older gadgets to extend their useful life or find new purposes, but the world would be a better place if that hacking was assisted by documentation from the manufacturer.
Finally, and I know I’m preaching to the choir in this community, but we need to educate people more about how stuff works, and get people interested in understanding the products they use on a daily basis, and to believe that the stuff inside the plastic box is not just magic pixies.
This article is completely tonedeaf.
Yes there is planned obsolescence. How can you possibly argue that it’s a ghost in the popular mind? Take two seconds and think about how apple stores will tell you that things absolutely cannot be fixed (certain error codes and such), but a skilled professional can actually repair it by replacing one chip, while apple just wants to scrap your unit (and the memories inside since there’s no SD card). If apple cared about users being able to save things, they’d have an internal sd card (no “ugly slot” outside (I don’t think consumers care, and besides you can stack the sd and sim on the same tray), no risk of loss of data if the board is labeled “irreparable” by apple). Oh, and if you need a replacement keyboard on say, a 2017 macbook? Well, I hope you can find a shop that can import a “good enough” clone from another country (apple will not sell them to you, or a shop) and that the shop you’re taking it to is ready to remove and replace a keyboard that’s held in by over 100 tiny rivets. Apple makes significantly more money from selling a new item, than selling parts for an existing item. This is why they build these devices to be as difficult as possible to fix. They are not the only company in the least, and to suggest that would be a disservice to apple (they just make a convenient example). Look at how hard to open the new Galaxy units are. If consumers were meant to be able to work on the hardware they purchased, why are they assembled with normal screws inside but proprietary design screws on the outside, such that you need a special tool to take out the external screws? In 2006 you could order a battery online, pop the back cover off of a phone, swap it out in two seconds, and be on your merry way. Compare that to the current ordeal if you need to replace a battery in a laptop or phone, with big flat packs that are glued into the body of the device. Even if you can find a manufacturer replacement for the battery, it’s a whole ordeal to get into the unit, and then to heat the glue holding the battery such that you won’t start a fire. The threat of puncturing a battery while prying it out is what keeps users taking it in to shops and things. Friends I have who would have no qualms swapping a hard drive are sending friends and family away because they don’t want to deal with batteries. The tech industry continues to push into ever more anti-consumer territory, which makes everything more expensive to build, and to fix. Only absolute sellouts kowtowing to capitalist overlords would find this acceptable.
This is utter bunk.
HarborFreight is a trade-off everyone knows he’s doing quality-wise. A lot of their stuff is one-season wonder. I have a lot of tools of that category, because of my sparse usage of them.
But items that advertise as durable and high quality are often designed purposefully to fail.
An example: my Kenmore Elite washing machine that has a ridiculously undersized main tub bearing and the electronic board that has cheap mosfet which reliably fails every nine years of occasional use (I live alone). My machine needs a new board. Everything else in it is fine, but the mosfets blew up again. The board has been engineered with carelessness.
My almost brand spanking new Subaru Outback 2017 substituted a very soft, easily scratcheable plastic for inner moldings. It also used a body paint that gets scratched (look old and beaten) at the slightest friction. If a twig rubs the paint, it will leave a mark. Even ten years ago, paints were not that fragile. But for that, CARB rules from Cali-Leftard-fornia might be to blame.
Planned obsolescence can be seen most in alleged high-quality products.
It feels like a planned degradation of Western civilisation.
In the sixties, corporations were ran by engineers. They made money. THey didn’t know exactly how much money, but they could raise a family of four or six on one salary.
In the seventies, in came the accountant, who then figured out down to the penny how much the company lost under their stewartship.
In the late eighties, came the professional, academia-trained managers who are themselves unable to replace batteries in a flashlight.
Then in the nineties came China.
Consumers must make choices everyday…and the comment that all decisions are contemplating trade offs is correct. We, as consumers, must decide if we want quality that required tremendous investment by a business in R&D and we are willing to pay that business for the quality; or do we want inexpensive products that businesses are not willing to invest, but will knock off from other businesses to price lower? We as consumers vote everyday with our dollars, and yes, Harbor Freight would not exist if consumers did not continually buy those inferior, low priced products.
I am not a conspiracy theorist at all, but I can’t ignore the fact that my costly Samsungs both crapped out right at the three year mark. I have been trying to hang on to my current phone, but at 3 years it suddenly started getting slow to respond, my screen is flickering, etc.
Meanwhile, my netbook was also made with cheap materials, cost half the price of my phone and is still fully functional after a decade, despite heavy use and bumpy trips around the world.
If there is a more expensive phone that would be functional after 10 years, I would certainly pay more for it. I think consumer technology has stabilized pretty significantly over the past 9 years.
LOL. Apple and Samsung have been taken to court and been fined for their planned obsolescence. https://www.itworld.com/article/3316958/apple-and-samsung-fined-for-planned-obsolescence.html You calling this a conspiracy theory makes it obvious that you haven’t done your research. Search YouTube for The Lightbulb Conspiracy. This is a global pandemic that is easily destroying the climate as much as meat consumption, but politicians are not talking about this… likely because they are either ignorant, corrupt (bought and silenced by companies) or because they are tactically trying to avoid any remarks that can have them portrayed as communists… the latter because this is essentially a critique of modern day capitalism. Not only have we made it perfectly legal to fuck over consumers and destroy the planet, the underlying incentives for doing so are massive. There’s a reason why Apple became the most valuable company in the world; it pays to use slaves working under horrible conditions (look up Foxconn suicides), locking down the software and hardware (anti open source) and to have your products self-destruct magically just in time for the upcoming product release.
DO YOUR RESEARCH.
It’s a thing but by its own standard it cannot last. Initially having nothing to do with making money or securing relevance in a relationship of production and consumption, the origins of planned obsolescence begin in a space and time where disfunction is not a natural occurance and implemented only for sake of realizing unknown potential of a specified creative project. Current objectives of planned obsolescence have mutated and will eventually signal its own demise as it will and is veering away from the objectives of that which gives it authority.
Wow, how did this even get posted on this site.
Planned obsolescence isn’t just real, it’s used by darn-near all major electronics manufacturers.
The the author is living in fantasy land.
> It had so many pins it could be mistaken for a DIMM memory connector.
No, it really did not at all. Only an idiot would mistake that connector for a DIMM slot.
A lot of good points have been made here, but the conclusion is at least partly incorrect. Yes, the consumer is hardly blameless, but the reality is more complicated than that. And this whole strategem benefits corporations far more than it does the consumer even if it technically satisfies their stated wishes. It is exactly the game of capitalism in general to make as much money as you can, not strictly to produce a reliable, high quality product.
In any case, anybody with half a brain would realize that the solution is to not to magically enlighten the populace. History itself is proof that it simply isn’t possible.
So it’s not me, but users and customers who are too lazy to understand what they are doing and using. I refuse to identify or be held accountable for that type, especially on a hacker site…
Consumerism is not driven by customers though, it’s the market that tries to make more and more sales. With an economy that is only sustainable with constant growth, this is no surprise.
Also, with a lot of software that is rented now, the same issues still arise. Incompatibility, removed features, and vendor lock-in.
this article is false. diving into the progression of lightbulb manufacturing proves that. as life expectancy was greatly decreased with intention, as product of a global alliance of manufacturers, prices gradually increased. any manufacturer who strayed from the agreed upon model, were fined huge sums of money, based on the contract they signed.
I disagree to planned obsolescence not being a thing, at the very least it’s a convenient “design flaw” which goes unsolved.
As a copier tech back for a major brand in the late 90’s i have escalated up the chain various reports on failing clutches (and why they were failing) in most of their (and oem-ed) models due to their foam cushions deteriorating and becoming sticky (which conveniently happens after the warranty has expired).
Officially those reports went into the void and never heard of, unofficially i was told not to bother as failing products generate income.
25 years later these exact same clutches are still in use (and failing for the same reason) in their printers and copiers ranging from smb to enterprise products, they are however often no longer available as spare part which forces the customer to purchase a larger, more expensive assembly (unless the tech “repairs” said clutch, which duct tape will do just fine).
Being a copier tech i have seen many examples of “design choices” to various parts that offer little to no cost saving or any other benefit that justify the decrease in reliability those choices entail.
Incorrect, untrue, propaganda, conspiracy, LIE!
Planned Obsolescence is in law. At one time is was required by law. We had products that lasted decades (light bulbs) only to be required by government to limit their lifetimes. Why? Well, for one, the U.S. cannot compete in a world market where consumables have intrinsic value in their longevity. We don’t produce anymore; and, because of this consumer system, fiat currency, leisure lifestyle we’ve adopted, there’s no point in making anything last. Is it the Consumer’s fault? Yes and no. We’re at fault for not expecting more from leadership and allowing ourselves to be brainwashed into thinking Capitalism and Consumerism is good. It isn’t.
Supply and Demand, as this writer claims, is hogwash. A major lie and conspiracy that is manipulated at many points of the market chain. Add to this the fervent (anti-trust) methods of blocking right-to-repair and you have a full blown conspiracy against the public that forces a very planned obsolescence of just about everything and anything…including human value. And with the advent of AI, that hellish conspiracy will only grow exponentially – not because of consumers’ demand, but the supply of demand orchestrated by those who ‘think’ like this writer does. Give them what they want – what we impregnated and raised in them.
If it’s consumers’ fault, why aren’t there products on the market anymore that are: durable, cheap, and *basic*. I’m sure that millions of us would buy the present-day equivalent of the Nokia 3210 – but there isn’t such a thing.
Not only is there planned obsolescence, it’s also true that the low end of the market for most products these days consists entirely of such rubbish products that if you can possibly afford things a tier or two higher, you buy those just to get something that will actually be useful and not break overrnight.
TL;DR: nice try at a hot take, Hackaday, but this is hot garbage.
“This conspiracy theory isn’t true”
It is, though, and doesn’t have to be called a “conspiracy”. It’s true some stuff is sold due to consumer demand for worse products. It’s also true subpar stuff is sold at a profit with the knowledge it will become useless and consumers will have to buy again which means more profit.
Regardless of this article, the current business model contributes to anti-environmentalism for profit. Owners of the global economy do not care about Earth’s environment. They’re polluting Earth for profit, which is causing species to go extinct. Amazon workers are burning nonrenewable resources if they do not sell. So, Amazon is destroying Earth’s limited resources until there is nothing left. Human nature is destroying Earth and its species from rampant greed. From a historical and relevant standpoint, humans have done more damage on Earth than other species. This environmentally unsustainable planned obsolescence proves that. Obsessing about profit is making humans be destructive more than productive considering Earth has limited space and limited resources.
People are trying to make themselves feel better with junk food, television, social media, mobile apps, video games, religion, and stuff. But it’s all escapism on a planet that has become increasingly harmful to species’ health from industrialized pollution in the name of planned obsolescence.
Kids are being trained to consume unhealthy food for profit. Parents are letting kids be spoiled brats on Christmas month, too. Parents are letting kids get products made by child slaves overseas. Kids are doing stupid stuff on TikTok like showing off their iPhones made by Apple that does environmentally unsustainable planned obsolescence. Modern kids are zombified consumers distracted on their phones instead of fighting against environmentally unsustainable planned obsolescence. We don’t have parents creating an environmentally sustainable economy. Instead, kids are being spoiled rotten at the expense of environmental sustainability. This all makes me cynical about the future rather than optimistic.