Talk:Planned obsolescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the importance scale
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Planned obsolescence: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Add some images
    • More on ethics and legality
Priority 4  

/archive

Contents

[edit] Opponents?

The main concern of the opponents of planned obsolescence is not the existence of the process, but its possible postponement.

Shouldn't this read 'proponents'? --87.234.84.147 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] There are some serious inaccuracies in this article

That is why I added that notice at the top of this article.

That whole section about "expiry dates" is highly dubious. For starters, the examples it refers to (food and drink) are not explicit expiry dates, but are "best before" dates. And they are usually quite accurate predictions as to when the quality of the product becomes unacceptable for consumption. I have been in the unfortunate position of eating out-of-date crisps, peanuts and chocolate on several occasions (usually a few months off) - with the crisps and salted peanuts they had more or less totally lost their flavour, and generally tasted quite awful. When chocolate goes off it starts to discolour, harden, and also doesn't taste too great either.

And as these dates are predicted, 100% accuracy can not be expected for obvious reasons, and they probably want to stay on the safe side with things like food, drink and medicine so the dates would be put shorter than predicted. Health & Safety boards and whatnot would not be particularly happy if things were expiring before the labelled dates!

Also: "Would DVD players have been adopted as quickly, or even at all, if VCRs didn't break irreparably after three years?" This is complete drivel! It is not typical for consumer VHS VCRs to just "break" after 3 years at all. In comparison to DVD players, VCRs do require occasional maintenance due to the much more complicated mechanical parts needed to operate - many people seem to not understand that VCRs are by no means "maintenance-free" products because of the mechanics involved. But still, that does mean they have to be serviced annually, or even every 3 years. Depending on usage, head and tape transport cleaning is required every year or so to keep picture and sound quality optimal, rubber components will degrade over many years, and video heads will eventually wear out after thousands of hours of usage. I have had a VCR since 1998 and it is still perfectly functional after only occasionally cleaning the heads, and I know people who have had ones for longer without issues.

Unfortunately more modern VHS VCRs tend to be of cheaper quality as most production of units has moved from places like Western Europe and Japan to places of cheaper labour, but as they say, you get what you pay for. A poor quality VCR is going to break just as easily as a poor quality DVD player - which there are also many of these days. --Zilog Jones 10:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed Zilog. I removed the expiry date section entirely. As a biologist who has done work on food spoilage, I can attest that the expiration dates on food are there for good reason. They are minimum dates for the beginning of significant bacteriological growth in many cases, wherein there could be enough bacterial contamination to present a danger for immunocompromised or other sensitive individuals. In addition to that, many nutrients have a limited shelf life and the dates reflect the time to which the Nutritional Facts panel is accurate. The razor/toothbrush comment is very apocryphal; I checked several packages at the drug store today and none of them listed expiration dates.
  • While I whole-heartedly agree that the expiry date issue is a null one, it is naive to believe that the concept of planned obsolescence (or, as I refer to it as, engineered obsolescence) does not exist. This is a difficult topic to cite, as not many companies advertise the fact that they utilize this technique. However, I am confident that with a little research, one could find significant reference and study of this topic. While it is rather unethical, the practice actually makes good business sence. Unfortunately for this discussion, the examples that commentators have used are very poor. VCRs are not devices that became obsolete by design, they were simply displaced by superior emerging technolgy. A better example may be one used in the article regarding cars, most specifically car parts. The replacement part/repair industry is a booming one for manufacturers that could easily build more durable, long lasting parts, albeit at more expense. Rather than translate this expense to their customers, these companys use planned obsolescence by design. Any engineer worth their salt knows that aluminum is not a good metal to use in high heat environments, e.g. heads on an engine. Yet they do. It saves money, it introduces an eventual need for replacement parts, and it introduces the potential to sell a new car to a former customer when their previous automoble blows a head gasket. Even this example is shakey at best, we could debate till we die on the motives of a corporation. Evil Corporate America? Not quite. Smart business? You bet. This topic is NOT invalid. The article is fairly well written, and with some revision, I think it can treat this topic without bias, and that is important. Whether you feel that this concept is wide-spread or not, it's a concept none-the-less, and ought to be covered by wikipedia. -TooLazyToLogIn

This article is fairly accurate. I have had Playstation 2 systems that have fallen apart for no reason and have to be replaced. Clearly, Sony intended to sell 5 or 6 per household so they would make a greater profit then cancel production and move everything to the more expensive Playstation 3. 205.166.61.142 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Clearly accurate based on what research? What documentation from Sony? I've had one of the original PS2s for five years, now, and it still works perfectly. I had a Playstation for a decade and it worked fine, never had to have any maintenance done. I'd like to see some sort of factual backing other than anecdotal evidence before accepting such a claim (or supporting removal of the tag). Nathanpatterson 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Also, Sony makes a loss on each PS2 unit sold, which they make back by selling games. Thus it is Sony's interest to make consoles durable, so that people don't buy more than one.
  • I think that this article should have an example about Ipods. That is definitely planned obsolescence in business. HaLoGuY007 11:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Me

This is probably off-topic, but I know that certain old Sony CD players had planned obsolescence. I'm not mechanically inclined enough to remember the exact workings, but a friend of mine once showed me how a certain gear would slowly drop or wear down until it would be purposefully useless in a number of years. He was able to fix the thing somehow. Not encyclopedia-quality material, I'm aware, but I bet more digging might reveal some more concrete evidence, perhaps. This is a tricky thing to cite. 71.221.10.197 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planned obsolescence (business)

Should this page be merged with Planned obsolescence (business)? Mokwella 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably. However, there is a massive divide between the 'business strategist / marketeers' POV and the 'product designer / engineers' POV, which may not be reconcilable. --Davémon 13:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, such dispute exists. But I think the two sides must be discussed in a single page, so that readers can get the contrast of each vision. If nobody disagrees, I'm marking both as mergeable. -- Hatredman 17:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the merger as they are two sides of the same coin, the buissness owner's support and the engineers struggle against, the differing opinions should cancel for a neutral article--Scorpion451 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Why Category:Electronic waste?

user:Vortexrealm just changed this article from Category:Waste to Category:Electronic waste. I don't see a reason for this limitation. Common Man 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I learned about the term when reading about treeware products manufactured by the US college textbook industry. Let's change it back. MJKazin 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming nobody did so I've done so today. Richard001 09:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

Rather than deleting the information outright, I've added some cite tags to the "Origins of the term" section. It's almost entirely unsourced. In fact, the only thing approaching a source (the reference to Bernard London's Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence) contradicts most of the rest of the section. How could Stevens have made up the definition on a whim if it already existed decades earlier? The claims attributed to books need to be cited with page numbers and the claims not attributed to books need reliable sources of their own. Kafziel 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lightbulbs

I'm removing this:

For instance, lightbulbs that last many years can easily be made for a price that would be considerably lower per hour of lifetime than conventional ones. These bulbs are used by almost all businesses and industries. Homeowners, however, tend to balk at paying two or three times as much even when it might save them money in the end (cf. false economy).

This is an urban legend. The linked article explains that there is a relation between lifetime and efficiency of an incandescent lightbulb. It is easy to make a lightbulb that lasts much longer, but at the price of getting far less light for the same energy consumption.

Han-Kwang 20:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Anthony the Box's microscopic Penis

I'm going to remove or modify that particular section header in the article. As it stands it seems like vandalism and/or a personal attack. Changed to ==Types of obsolescence == -- Tim Fowler 6:24 (UTC), 12 October 2006

[edit] my voice will be heard, bitches

anyhow, I think that this person is right on, whether there exists factual proof of this or not is irrelevant. this is a strategic move that no manufacturing industry would willingly provide, except to their shareholders. I sincerely believe in the evil of corporate leaders. I am not about to justify that claim, but in any case, this is an almost 100% true fact, that only some unrealistic optimist would believe.

additionally, engineers in training have said things of similar effect to me, in different words.


This is an encyclopedia. Your opinions, beliefs and little anecdotes are quite worthless here, if you put something in the article, you have to be able to back it up as fact, or face having it removed. Harley peters 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


We still need one of these wiki-type ~pedias that is free and idependent of corporate influence. Until then, we will remain under totalitarianism. Corporations are government entities - historical fact. They are legally constructed privilages that owe government their very existance. They could not function or be without it. Until then we will have to learn to think for ourselves. Outside the corporate box? What box? 67.53.78.15 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your post is full of uncited claims. Until they can be satisfactorily supported, they will remain off this website. Wikipedia supports NPOV, which means that articles cannot be biased against corporations either.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 95

Using a software product as an example of "planned obsolescence" is incorrect because there's generally nothing about software that's designed to break after a particular period of time. And indeed my 17 year old copy of Windows 95 works just exactly like it always has worked.

How long the developer supports software isn't so much a function of planned obsolescence but an ongoing business decision. The only thing planned to be obsolete about Windows 95 was the model year in the name.

I would stick to a mechanical example instead because they are indeed designed to only withstand so much wear and tear.64.171.162.76 20:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Word remains a good example of "planned obsolescence" because when Microsoft releases a version of Word, with a new Word file format, they have already planned the next release and they are also planning for that next release to use a new, incompatible file format. Each release of Word is planned to be obsolete after a certain span of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.23.105.5 (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
No it doesn't. All the new versions of Microsoft Word support reading and editing of files made with previous versions of Word. In addition, MS generally release compatibility packs for newer file formats for older versions of Office (as they did with Office 07)--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
File format support is also an ongoing business decision. There's many many real world examples where software has recieved extended support that wasn't "planned" when originally released. Even from Microsoft. 64.171.162.76 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the starter of this comment. I believe we should reference hardware. A good example is inkjet cartridges.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Also in reference to hardware is devices that have built-in batteries that are not designed - nor even possible - to be replaced. Ipods immediately come to mind, but vast amounts of consumer electronics hardware have lithium batteries in them that last for 3-5 years then go flat, rendering the entire device limited in functionality or even entirely useless. (A flat lithium battery means there's no clock on your VCR which is annoying, but flat battery on your handheld GPS means it loses all its critical settings when switched off!). The article needs to consider consumer hardware and software and designed lifespans with perhaps more verified examples. vk6hgr (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"17-year-old copy of Windows 95"? Whoa, you must have been a beta tester, man!! :) — Lumbercutter 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is not right!

why should we pay good money for something that will break or become unfunctional in a year or 2. Like a computer u pay alot of money for one and in a year it is outof date and u can't dowload anything on to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.145.203 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 April 2007.

I do not know of a computer that cannot be used to download information after one year. The 10-year old computer I have working as a Linux file server downloads data just fine. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss the ethics of planned obsolescense. This is a place to discuss how to improve this article with good cited information.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It might be interesting to have a section on the ethics of built-in obsolescence in the article though.--Timtak 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Consoles

I'm surprised no one brings up built-in obsolescence on video game consoles. Like, ever (not just on WP). I think it might be worth it to do a little research in this area. 63.163.61.3 13:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is so much a built in obsolecence as an obsolecence caused by advancing technology. There are several cases where systems have been designed to be upgraded, for example the Nintendo 64 had ports on the bottom for upgrades like a disk based game system, but it was never popular enough in Japan to see US release. It also had a port for a memory upgrade allowing more complex games to be released, which was utilized. There are also the recient online systems allowing upgrades of the drivers, ect, on console systems, as well as backwards compatability. So while there is obscelence, it isn't really planned obsilecence.--Scorpion451 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article Relevant?

Found this article here: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/end_of_life/  that speaks on the topic of planning the technical end of things. Is there a wiki article that
explains standard practises for incorporating planned obsolesces?

Maetrix 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Obsolescence in the Digital Age

I'd be interested in some reference to the issue of planned obsolescence in non-physical products (e.g. CDs replaced by Mp3s, streaming and downloaded video as opposed to DVDs, though there are plenty more examples where those came from). It seems that the next phase in engineering products with planned obsolescence will have to rely on Intellectual Property restrictions, rather than building shoddy merchandise, simply because of the nature of lossless replication.

Hmmm.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.58.160 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Total bull

"When Japanese and European vehicles with longer lifespans entered the American market in the 1960s and 1970s, the American carmakers were forced to respond by building more durable products."

Many American cars could rack up 300,000 miles or more if maintained properly. I cite the Chevy 283, the Mopar 318, and and the Ford 352. The Jap cars never cited durability as the selling point. It was always economy. The early Jap cars were short lived. It is only since the late 1980s that we find Jap cars with extended life expectancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.26.72 (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, early Japanese cars tended to rust quickly, but their engines soon became more reliable than American engines (and I note you've cited engines, not cars), and then the rest of the car improved greatly as well. This was just a case of better engineering and a willingness to try new ideas and materials, not a case of American manufacturers purposely designing their cars to break down. (And there's just a little racism built into the "how do the Japanese build more reliable cars?" question that planned obsolescence conveniently answers.... "They can't be better than us! We must be slacking off!")
The fundamental problem with the concept of planned obsolescence as a pervasive business practice is that your customers may have to buy a new product after a few years, but they probably won't buy yours. They'll buy a competitor's product with a better reputation for reliability, so any competition discourages it. The article reads as tho this is a common and accepted business practice, when nearly all manufacturers try to put out the best product they can. Planned obsolescence is mostly an illusion created by the desire of manufacturers to put out a better product this year than they did last year and consumer desire for something fresh. --Tysto 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable examples

The article could use some notable examples to show how this sort of thing operates in real life. I would suggest starting with the Apple iPod. New features are never back-ported to older models (unless it's new DRM) and each model often has a very short life span before being replaced. For example, the 4G colour was a current model for just *3 months* before being replaced by the 5G. Mojo-chan (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)