Self-destructive design: Difference between revisions

Line 39:

===Dependence on third-parties for repairs and bypasses===

Some consumers will wish to repair their products after it has been damaged which results in them contacting third-parties. Some third-party services may be untrustworthy and could open the user to [[security]] and [[safety]] risks

Some consumers will wish to repair their products after it has been damaged which results in them contacting third-parties. Some third-party services may be untrustworthy and could open the user to [[security]] and safety risks

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is often the least harmful in terms of reparability as a side effect of its invisible nature. Often times it is possible to simply replace obsolete components with working ones. Companies attempt to prevent third party repair of obsolete components by using other dark practices such as ~~[[Component pairing|~~anti-repair component pairing]].

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is often the least harmful in terms of reparability as a side effect of its invisible nature. Often times it is possible to simply replace obsolete components with working ones. Companies attempt to prevent third party repair of obsolete components by using other dark practices such as anti-repair component pairing.

*'''EOL''' is more significant due to the disappearance of repair components over time and anti-repair practices that prevent consumers from repairing their products with custom components.

**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is perhaps the most difficult to deal with due to the complexity of bypasses. A product that has ceased functioning because an authorization server has gone offline will require the user to either setup their own servers or bypass the remote authorization, malicious third-parties can take advantage of desperate consumers whose digital products have been disabled. In addition the more digital products depend on remote servers, the more difficult it will be to replace the hardware.

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ===Dependence on third-parties for repairs and bypasses===
-Some consumers will wish to repair their products after it has been damaged which results in them contacting third-parties. Some third-party services may be untrustworthy and could open the user to [[security]] and [[safety]] risks
+Some consumers will wish to repair their products after it has been damaged which results in them contacting third-parties. Some third-party services may be untrustworthy and could open the user to [[security]] and safety risks
-*'''Planned obsolescence''' is often the least harmful in terms of reparability as a side effect of its invisible nature. Often times it is possible to simply replace obsolete components with working ones. Companies attempt to prevent third party repair of obsolete components by using other dark practices such as [[Component pairing|anti-repair component pairing]].
+*'''Planned obsolescence''' is often the least harmful in terms of reparability as a side effect of its invisible nature. Often times it is possible to simply replace obsolete components with working ones. Companies attempt to prevent third party repair of obsolete components by using other dark practices such as anti-repair component pairing.
 *'''EOL''' is more significant due to the disappearance of repair components over time and anti-repair practices that prevent consumers from repairing their products with custom components.
 **'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is perhaps the most difficult to deal with due to the complexity of bypasses. A product that has ceased functioning because an authorization server has gone offline will require the user to either setup their own servers or bypass the remote authorization, malicious third-parties can take advantage of desperate consumers whose digital products have been disabled. In addition the more digital products depend on remote servers, the more difficult it will be to replace the hardware.