Self-destructive design

❗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. Learn more ▼

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.

Self-destructive design is a generic form of product design whereby it is possible that some if not all functions of the device will cease functioning. Self-destructive design can occur unintentionally due to oversights but it can be implemented intentionally for a number of reasons. Self-destructive design is split into numerous types: discontinuation bricking, end-of-life irreparability, and planned obsolescence. All forms of self-destructive design harm consumers in that it reduces product lifetime and increases waste production.

Overall impacts

All types of self-destructive design share common impacts on consumer rights.

Actively malicious behavior

All types of self-destructive design can occur out of malicious intent to ruin a consumer's product but it is important to note that only planned obsolescence is always malicious in that it is the only one that has a direct intent to reduce product functionality.

Excessive waste

Excessive waste of all forms are inevitable in all types of self-destructive design. The loss of product or component functionality will create justification for consumers to discard their product and replace it with a functioning one; in fact planned obsolescence is often implemented with this intent.

Hard vs soft bricking

The term "bricking" refers to the process of a product losing functionality to the point that it becomes "brick-like" -- just a useless object. A product becomes hard-bricked if all its functionality is lost, usually in a very sudden manner -- in the flick of a switch. Hard-bricked devices are often difficult to de-brick. A product becomes soft-bricked when some of its functionality is lost. Soft-bricking can occur quickly but it can also slowly progress into hard-bricking; I.E: oxidation of a processor slowly killing it.

Dependence on third-parties

Some consumers will wish to repair their products after it has been damaged.

Type | Impact	Actively malicious behavior	Excessive waste	Soft-brick	Hard-brick
Planned Obsolescence	Always	Guaranteed	Likely	Possible but unlikely as of now
Discontinuation Bricking	Sometimes	Guaranteed	Unlikely	Often
EOL Irreparability	Sometimes	Guaranteed	Likely	Likely