Consumer Rights Wiki

Planned obsolescence: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
VisualWikitext
DzLamme (talk | contribs)
18 edits
Added citation
Chlorobyte (talk | contribs)
confirmed
1 edit
m →Examples of Planned Obsolescence: Remove Windows 7 EOL as it's not at all a case of obsolescence (on its own)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{StubNotice}}
'''Planned obsolescence''' is a business strategy where products are intentionally designed to become obsolete, undesirable, or to stop functioning within a predetermined time-frame, forcing consumers to replace them. This practice maximizes profits for corporations, but leads to unnecessary waste and consumer frustration.
=Overview=
'''Planned obsolescence''' is a form of malicious product design that intentionally shortens the lifespan of a product, often in such a way that it fails soon after the legally mandated warranty period. In recent years, software and firmware updates have increasingly been used to augment planned obsolescence, for example by requiring replacement components to be validated by a whitelist.


In most cases of planned obsolescence, the producer of the product uses this malicious effect for one purpose: profit, and it makes quite a bit of sense if we look at it from the company's perspective. Imagine a company like [[wikipedia:Bic_(company)#Pens|Bic]], who makes the Cristal ball point pen (since 1950). Let's imagine this company figured out a way to make a ball point pen that lasts "forever", perhaps someone's lifetime. This consumer never has to buy another pen (unless they lose it or break it), so Bic would make far less profit, and they might even find it hard to keep their employees working, which would cause a large chain reaction of things that need to change.
The phrase "planned obsolescence" was coined in 1932 by Bernard London, who proposed mandatory product expiration to stimulate Depression-era economies. Brooks Stevens later popularized it in the 1950s, defining it as instilling a desire for newer products "sooner than necessary".


However, the above example is for a physical product. The other case we often see, and which is becoming far more relevant in the current day, are electronic products like apps, games, and services. Back in the time of CDs, a game could be purchased once and used again and again. Now, products such as that are far less common, as most electronic companies have strayed to a subscription based service (or free services that implement ads or both). However, it isn't the re-usable copy or the subscription copy that's the problem, it's often how the company goes from point A to point B. They make the physical, one time purchase copy, obsolete, and move to the new form where they can continuously charge the consumer so they make more profit.  
Vance Packard’s 1960, The Waste Makers, critiqued corporations for manipulating desires through style changes and a perception of being out of date. Modern fast fashion and tech industries continue this trend, fostering "throwaway" cultures.


It is important to point out that not all cases of planned obsolescence are bad. Companies making a profit isn't bad either, since they tend to pay their employees, which is how many of us make a living. The largest thing is when they take something good and perfectly functional and alter it in some way to make it work worse to encourage or force the consumer to buy their new version. This is what this page focuses on most: malicious planned
<u>Types of Planned Obsolescence:</u>
 
*   Contrived or Artificial Durability: Designing products with inferior materials that wear out quickly or using non removable/repairable components.
*   Systemic Obsolescence: Technological incompatibility, such as software updates rendering older devices unusable.
*   Perceived or Aesthetic  Obsolescence: Marketing-driven trends that make functional items seem outdated.
*   Legal Obsolescence: Regulatory bans.
 
Modern devices are often sealed with adhesives, welded components, or proprietary screws, making disassembly difficult or destructive. Smartphones exemplify systemic and contrived obsolescence, glued in batteries and soldered components needing specialized tools in some cases and software updates that render the device useless<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cordella1, Alfieri2, Clemm3, Berwald4 |first=Mauro1,  Felice2 , Christian3,  Anton4 |date=2020-12-01 |title=Durability of smartphones: A technical analysis of reliability and repairability aspects |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871336/}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |title=Smartphone Repairability Scores |url=https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-repairability-scores |website=iFixit}}</ref> These design practices force consumers to rely on manufacturer-authorized repairs or buy replacements, aligning with planned obsolescence strategies
 
A foundational 1984 Stanford study theorized that monopolists intentionally reduce product durability to maximize profits by forcing repeat purchases. Oligopolists may collude to shorten product lifespans, though outcomes depend on market dynamics.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bulow |first=Jeremy |date=1984 |title=An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence |url=https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/economic-theory-planned-obsolescence |journal=Stanford Graduate School of Business}}</ref>
 
==Examples of Planned Obsolescence==
 
===Software updates:===
 
*Apple’s "Batterygate": Apple admitted to slowing down older iPhones via iOS updates to compensate for aging batteries, pushing users to upgrade.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Apple confirms iPhones with older batteries will take hits in performance / It makes sense, but the company could have been a bit more transparent |url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/20/16800058/apple-iphone-slow-fix-battery-life-capacity |work=The Verge}}</ref><ref name=":0" />
*Samsung Smart TV "Slowdowns": Older TVs received updates that degraded performance.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Samsung TV Update Bugs |url=https://www.wired.com/story/samsung-tv-update-bugs/ |work=Wired}}</ref>
*Fitbit’s Planned Software Expiration: Older devices lose app compatibility after updates.<ref>{{Cite news |title=FitBit Legacy Device Support Ends |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/fitbit-legacy-device-support-ends/ |work=CNET}}</ref>
*Sonos Speaker "Recycle Mode": Software updates brick older devices during setup.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Sonos explains why it bricks old devices with ‘Recycle Mode’ |url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/30/21042871/sonos-recycle-mode-trade-up-program-controversy |work=The Verge}}</ref>
 
===Hardware limitations:===
 
*Tesla Battery Degradation: Older Tesla models experience rapid battery capacity loss, requiring costly replacements.<ref>{{Cite web |title=High-energy long-cycling all-solid-state lithium metal batteries enabled by silver–carbon composite anodes |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0575-z |website=Nature Energy}}</ref>
*GE Microwaves with Sealed Electronics: Circuit boards prone to failure but inaccessible for repair.<ref>{{Cite news |title=GE Appliances Repair Monopoly |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/ge-appliances-repair-monopoly |work=ProPublica}}</ref>
*HP printers reject third-party ink cartridges via firmware updates.<ref>{{Cite news |title=HP sued (again) for blocking third-party ink from printers, accused of monopoly |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-sued-again-for-blocking-third-party-ink-from-printers-accused-of-monopoly/ |work=Ars Technica}}</ref>


=Famous Planned Obsolescence Cases=
=Famous Planned Obsolescence Cases=
Line 20: Line 42:
|Apple
|Apple
|iPhones
|iPhones
|Apple admitted it had released software updates that could slow down older iPhone models when their batteries degraded. This was allegedly done to prevent unexpected shutdowns caused by aging batteries. This resulted in 3 settlements totaling over USD $600M<ref>https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/science/4153770-apple-to-start-paying-out-claims-in-500m-iphone-slowdown-lawsuit-reports/</ref>
|Apple admitted it had released software updates that could slow down older iPhone models when their batteries degraded. This was allegedly done to prevent unexpected shutdowns caused by aging batteries. This resulted in 3 settlements totaling over USD $600M<ref name=":0">https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/science/4153770-apple-to-start-paying-out-claims-in-500m-iphone-slowdown-lawsuit-reports/</ref>
|-
|-
|2018
|2018
Line 42: Line 64:
|}
|}


== Related Practice: ==
=== Non Repairability: ===
Non-repairability is a critical enabler of planned obsolescence, as manufacturers intentionally design products to limit repair options, thereby shortening their functional lifespans and forcing consumers to replace them prematurely. This practice amplifies environmental harm, economic costs, and consumer dependence on new purchases.
==== 1. Design Barriers to Repair ====
Manufacturers employ physical and technical design choices to obstruct repairs, such as:
Proprietary components: Printers often include chips that block third-party ink cartridges, rendering devices unusable unless replaced with expensive OEM parts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Right to Repair and the Fight against Planned Obsolescence |url=https://botpopuli.net/right-to-repair-and-the-fight-against-planned-obsolescence/ |website=botpopuli.net}}</ref>
Glued or sealed units: Smartphones and laptops increasingly use non-removable batteries or adhesives, making replacements hazardous or impossible without specialized tools. For example, Apple’s iPhones require prying open glued batteries, risking damage to internal components.
Incompatible fasteners: Companies like Apple use tamper-resistant screws (e.g., pentalobe screws), preventing users from accessing internal parts.
These design choices ensure that even minor malfunctions necessitate professional (and costly) repairs or replacements, accelerating product turnover.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Built to fail: is planned obsolescence really happening? |url=https://www.consumersinternational.org/news-resources/blog/posts/built-to-fail-is-planned-obsolescence-really-happening/ |website=consumersinternational.org}}</ref>
==== 2. Software and Legal Restrictions ====
Software locks: Manufacturers embed software that disables devices if third-party parts are detected. For instance, Apple’s iOS has historically blocked phones with non-OEM screens or batteries from functioning fully.
Warranty voiding: Many companies void warranties if users attempt repairs, deterring independent fixes. This practice forces consumers to rely on manufacturer-approved services, which may be prohibitively expensive or unavailable.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Planned Obsolescence |url=https://getenviropass.com/planned-obsolescence/ |website=getenviropass.com}}</ref>
Copyrighted repair manuals: Toshiba and others have restricted access to repair guides, stifling third-party repair markets.
Such tactics disproportionately affect low-income and geographically isolated consumers, who lack access to authorized repair centers.<ref name=":2" />
==== 3. Legal and Policy Responses ====
Governments are addressing non-repairability through legislation:
EU Right to Repair Directive: Mandates spare parts availability and prohibits anti-repair practices like software locks.<ref name=":3" />
Québec’s Bill 29: Criminalizes planned obsolescence and requires manufacturers to provide repair services, spare parts, and warranties for up to 10 years.<ref name=":2" />
EU Battery Regulation (2026): Requires user-replaceable batteries in electronics, countering sealed designs.
Despite these efforts, enforcement remains challenging. France’s 2015 law against planned obsolescence saw no convictions until 2022 due to the difficulty of proving manufacturer intent.<ref name=":1" />
Non-repairability is a cornerstone of planned obsolescence, enabling manufacturers to control product lifespans and maximize profits. While legislation like the EU’s Right to Repair represents progress, systemic change requires dismantling design barriers, improving consumer access to repairs, and shifting cultural norms toward durability over disposability


=See Also=
=See Also=
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/Planned_obsolescence"