Planned obsolescence
❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub
This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Issues may include:
- This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
- This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
- More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
- The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
- The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content
How you can help:
- Add documented examples with verifiable sources
- Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
- Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
- Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
- Flesh out the article with relevant information
This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.
Overview
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.
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".
Types of Planned Obsolescence:
- 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- Perceived or Aesthetic Obsolescence: Marketing-driven trends that make functional items seem outdated.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[1] [2] 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.[3]
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.
.
Famous Planned Obsolescence Cases
| Year | Company | Product | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Apple | 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[4] |
| 2018 | Samsung | Galaxy Note 4 | Italy’s antitrust body fined Samsung €5 million regarding software updates that allegedly slowed down certain Galaxy phones.[5] |
| 2016 | HP | Printer | HP released firmware updates for "Dynamic Security", causing printers to show error messages or stop working if a non-HP-branded cartridge was installed. Multiple settlements were reached totaling over USD $5M between 2016 and 2020.[6] |
| 1925 | Associated Electrical Industries(UK),
General Electric(US), Osram(GER), Phillips(US), Tungsram(HUN) |
Incandescent Light Bulbs | One of the earliest examples of planned obsolescence. On January 15, 1925 corporations based in Europe and the U.S. incorperated a cartel called, Phœbus S.A. Compagnie Industrielle pour le Développement de l'Éclairage, Industrial Company for the Development of Lighting. Until 1939, Phoebus S.A. kept the life-span of light bulbs to 1,000 hours. After the cartel was dissolved the industry continued this practice for years.[7] |
See Also
References
- ↑ Cordella1, Alfieri2, Clemm3, Berwald4, Mauro1, Felice2 , Christian3, Anton4 (2020-12-01). "Durability of smartphones: A technical analysis of reliability and repairability aspects".
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ↑ "Smartphone Repairability Scores".
- ↑ Bulow, Jeremy (1984). "An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence". Stanford Graduate School of Business.
- ↑ https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/science/4153770-apple-to-start-paying-out-claims-in-500m-iphone-slowdown-lawsuit-reports/
- ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/24/apple-samsung-fined-for-slowing-down-phones
- ↑ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-sued-again-for-blocking-third-party-ink-from-printers-accused-of-monopoly/
- ↑ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/82/753/1755675/
- REDIRECT Self-destructive design