Planned obsolescence: Difference between revisions
Added examples and references |
Chlorobyte (talk | contribs) m →Examples of Planned Obsolescence: Remove Windows 7 EOL as it's not at all a case of obsolescence (on its own) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''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. | '''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. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 16: | ||
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> | 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 == | ==Examples of Planned Obsolescence== | ||
=== Software updates: === | ===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" / | *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> | |||
* 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> | ||
* 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> | ||
* 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: === | ===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> | *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> | *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> | *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 67: | 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= | ||