Planned obsolescence
Discussion
So I was watching a documentary earlier this week about products that are designed to fail. Examples were the lightbulb being restricted to 1000 hours and more recently the iPod with its 1 year battery in 2002. There was even a printer that had a chip in it that literally stopped the thing from working after a certain period of time (5years).
My question is, the film went on to talk about early American car manufacturers who implemented this strategy into their manufacturing process but I want to know if it goes on in the modern industry?
My question is, the film went on to talk about early American car manufacturers who implemented this strategy into their manufacturing process but I want to know if it goes on in the modern industry?
1) things wear out (though granted, some older stuff is built like fort knox and will never break or wear out. However, they generally cost $$$ to make and our quest for wanting more, cheaper means things get made to a price...cheaper materials, less parts etc...and as such are likely to not be as durable)
2) The relentless march of technology often has the effect of making things obsolete whether you like it or not, whether the manufacturer planned it in or not. Thems the breaks.
2) The relentless march of technology often has the effect of making things obsolete whether you like it or not, whether the manufacturer planned it in or not. Thems the breaks.
Not sure about chipping the computers in our cars to make them fail but I certainly believe they have the technology to make our cars last a hell of a lot longer, but using that technology in mass produced cars would be financial suicide for the future. I base my opinion on precisely zero evidence but you have to admit that when technology evolves faster than the world's financial system, that underhand tactics like planning your products to fail is the only option.
Benbay001 said:
Im not sure if you are serious?
The thread topic is 'Planned Obsolescence'. The question is asked in relation to an industry where most manufacturers of the product have the next design on the drawing board before the existing model has even gone on sale. Is the answer not obvious?Matt UK said:
Without any firm evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to agree.
Building in a planned failure, seems like corporate suicide...
Do you seriously believe that?Building in a planned failure, seems like corporate suicide...
What happens to your business once everybody have one and then they never need another?
In the nicest way, I think you are giving corporate companies far too many morals and far to little of business nous.
DCLXIV said:
Nothing is designed to fail, but building down to a price can have the same effect.
This. Also, with a incandescent bulb, there is a direct trade-off between efficiency and longevity. Hotter wire = more energy output as useful visible light rather than less useful (depending on application) IR. But hotter wire also = greater evaporation rate so less time to failure. Made worse by the fact that, in most cases, you need a thinner wire to run hotter, so less material to lose in the first place. For some reason the BBC did a report a while back on the longest running incandescent bulb on Britain (your license money hard at work, folks), it was in a fire station I believe. Lasted decades, but chewed power and the light it gave off was crap.
paranoid airbag said:
DCLXIV said:
Nothing is designed to fail, but building down to a price can have the same effect.
This. Also, with a incandescent bulb, there is a direct trade-off between efficiency and longevity. Hotter wire = more energy output as useful visible light rather than less useful (depending on application) IR. But hotter wire also = greater evaporation rate so less time to failure. Made worse by the fact that, in most cases, you need a thinner wire to run hotter, so less material to lose in the first place. For some reason the BBC did a report a while back on the longest running incandescent bulb on Britain (your license money hard at work, folks), it was in a fire station I believe. Lasted decades, but chewed power and the light it gave off was crap.
Herbs said:
Matt UK said:
Without any firm evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to agree.
Building in a planned failure, seems like corporate suicide...
Do you seriously believe that?Building in a planned failure, seems like corporate suicide...
What happens to your business once everybody have one and then they never need another?
In the nicest way, I think you are giving corporate companies far too many morals and far to little of business nous.
But the way I see it, there is a very clear difference between these two approaches; although I agree, it's a fine line and the outcomes are the same:
"Use this material/method as it is cheaper (for the good of our margins or the end use price) - it does however mean it will not last as long as the alternative.."
Maybe I am too naive? I often put poor design down to incompetence/lack of investment in the design/manufacturing process.
"Despite our better knowledge, build in this deliberate defect to ensure that bork is guaranteed at a planned moment.."
This has an element of malice involved, which I can't see any 'professional' person or business wanting to actively support.
It all depends on the industry in question.
Cars and shoes for example are both industries where you build to last and reputation is paramount - people but cars and shoes because of advancements in technology (cars) and fashion/ use (shoes and cars) so there is always an element. Of repeat business.
Lightbulbs/hoovers/ microwaves and white goods in general where they are bought as deemed a necessity could easily be built to last a lot longer for very little additional cost but where is a company's incentive to do so and they would lose any repeat business and essentially would kill their own market ie corporate suicide
Cars and shoes for example are both industries where you build to last and reputation is paramount - people but cars and shoes because of advancements in technology (cars) and fashion/ use (shoes and cars) so there is always an element. Of repeat business.
Lightbulbs/hoovers/ microwaves and white goods in general where they are bought as deemed a necessity could easily be built to last a lot longer for very little additional cost but where is a company's incentive to do so and they would lose any repeat business and essentially would kill their own market ie corporate suicide
There is a school of thought that having airbags and seatbelt pre-tensioners is a back-door way of building in obsolescence - or at least bringing forward the point at which a car has to be replaced. I'm not sure if this is valid in the UK, but in the US for instance it is the law that in the event of an accident where, say, the airbags have gone off, they have to be repaired, otherwise the vehicle can't go back on the road. At some point in the car's economic life it becomes cost-ineffective to repair such devices, so the car gets scrapped earlier than it might otherwise have done, for economic and legal reasons - not mechanical.
Might also be a bit tin-foily
Might also be a bit tin-foily
I suppose any modern car could, conceivably, be kept going indefinitely, assuming that it's maintained fastidiously and 'wear & tear' parts (brakes, dampers, drive belts etc) are available. The issue then becomes one of cost: At what point does it become more economic to buy a (new) replacement rather than keep repairing/maintaining existing. Although you could end up in a "Trigger's Broom" scenario.
As for built in obsolescence? We'll it doesn't seem to have done Bic any harm.
BTW, you do realise that Tinfoil hats only last for 6 months and then they start to lose effectiveness, so you have to buy a new one.
As for built in obsolescence? We'll it doesn't seem to have done Bic any harm.
BTW, you do realise that Tinfoil hats only last for 6 months and then they start to lose effectiveness, so you have to buy a new one.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff