Planned obsolescence
Planned obsolescence is defined as a policy of
planning or designing a product with an artificially limited lifetime. It is an
important topic in the world of a constantly raising consumer-producer
dependency.
The concept firstly arose in 1924, when
representatives of Osram, Philips and General Electric met to discuss a serious problem of the diminishing
market for light bulbs they were
creating. The research they carried out and their analysis of market showed
that with the increase of light bulb's lifetime the demand for new bulbs will
fade as well. The problem was so dangerous for their business continuity that
they all agreed on the condition, that light bulb's lifetime will be reduced to
1000hours and there will be no research aimed at improving this durability.
More about the topic: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy
Photo: Philips
Company Archives
The results of the conspiracy were above the cartel's
expectations and later on more and more companies started to implement the
planned obsolescence policy into their production routine. There is a good
example here, a material most of us know, which is nylon. Nylon was firstly an almost non-destructible
material. There were many reports from the early stage of its existence,
showing its durability. But it was also very unprofitable. It would be enough
for its users to buy it once and there would be no real need to change the
clothes made out of it for many years. So again, the research was conducted
with a goal of reducing nylons durability so that the average usage would
finally destroy it in a short time. And that is how the nylon we know was
finally created and published as a final product.
The most interesting fact about the planned
obsolescence is that the world we know wouldn't exist without it. All the
supermarkets and the huge companies we know, like the electronics producers
wouldn't be able to make their living if the devices they're producing would
last as long as for example the products created in the Soviet Union. All those
stories we can hear about fridges lasting 40 years without a malfunction - they
can sound cool, but such products were mostly possible because the country
supported and gave money to its creators even when they had no real income,
only losses. In the real world, where the companies need to earn their living,
they need to plan their production and sales for a long time together with
maintaining the creation of a demand. Even though the planned obsolescence is
officially illegal, we can see that eg. many computers are breaking just after
the warranty, the printers are stopping to work even though it's often easy to
bypass those "critical failures".
I encourage you to watch this documentary and think
about all the other places the planned obsolescence can be seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbbF3oxf-E
As for the summary, I'd like to encourage you to
discuss whether there is really no other way to make today's companies prosper
and what the real long term pros/cons of this policy really are.
I think it's good idea to make planned obsolescence. Why? I try to understand entrepreneurs who mass-produce different things e.g. clothes, electronics. If they must do things that existed many years they would become bankrupt. Every year they have to pay salary for thousands of employees. They invent nothing significant innovations in products. Being in their place I will also organise the same marketing rules.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, of course you're right, but you are looking at it from corporations side, what about the average user who does not want every few years to replace light bulbs throughout the house? When you buy any equipment you do not want to plan when you'll have to replace it. But we live in such and not other times and we have no choice. We have to agree.
DeleteIt depends. From moral point of view, this is absolutely negative and is targeted directly at consumers. From practical point of view, this is required as otherwise companies would simply become bankrupt if they sold e.g. 3x less phones than currently, only because people tend to keep their old ones until they finally break.
ReplyDeleteSo, I don't know how I should feel about that. I think that it's needed to some degree, but it can't be overused. "With great power comes great responsibility".
On one hand (manufacturer) it is necessary in order to survive, and understand it. In particular, when the country can't help manufacturers, but only to cut their wings.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I could buy a printer for a lifetime? Or anything else? I am angry on equipment that breaks in expiry of the guarantee day.
The manufacturer may say: if you want something perfect, do it yourself.
Sorry, we are dependent on them.
Still we need to remember, if the printers and other devices were bought for the lifetime, they would be much, much more expensive. We're used to the low prices which are partially a result of the planned obsolescence. If the devices were really expensive and the technologies would still progress quite fast we would soon have an expensive tv or a printer with technologies that would be obsolete(which wouldn't probably be the case, because big technological development is also partially a result of huge demand for new products). It's easy to look at our computers, to get an example. Would it be really possible to work on one computer for a lifetime or even for more than 5 years?
DeleteYou're right!
DeleteBut I'm not talking computers. (something about 2-3 years is max for this)
What about printers and bulbs? Why do I have to buy a new one, every single week?
Every single product should get a "Made in China" label, in that case.
Maybe producents could make better and more expensive products (also)? Then everyone can make a choose: great product or crappy one :)
In my opinion I think that large companies introduce new technologies, this is not always good to the market. A lot of equipment after a few years is breaks. For example we spend a lot of money for televisions , which should work for many years. It often happens that after guarantee the equipment is faulty.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before it's important to see here, that a constant change in our equipment is a necessary stimulator for technological development. It's like with wars. A lot of resources and lives are lost at each war but at the same time it's a huge stimulator for technologies and many of today's popular results like many devices or gps technology originate as war-oriented projects.
DeleteThe after warranty breaking is most difficult to accept for people living in poor or still developing countries. In many rich countries it is a normal thing that the families there are changing their house equipment often, even before the warranty expires. It is a problem in countries like Poland, where the earning-costs rate is not so fair for us and buying a new tv often needs a lot of saving.
I think that it's a good idea to make a planned obsolescence. For mass-product company it's the only way to stay in business. And maybe it's not a morally correct to make something like that, but we have to remember that every company give a thousands jobs to people. Probably it's not the best job in the world, but these people can live thanks to this.
ReplyDeleteFrom the perspective of the average user, such actions are unacceptable and immoral. On the other hand, now we have free market, which has own pros and cons. For large, private companies the most important is greatest profit and also maintaining a relatively good reputation.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think this is a very negative phenomenon. I don't have a concrete idea for the change this practice. Only the country could somehow affect such companies. But whether it wouldn't be a return to a centrally controlled system?
Before PJATK, I was on the other studies at PW but I resigned after a year - that doesn't really matters but I had there some seminar lectures - it was about durability of materials - there was a lot of talks about situations in life that happened or generaly speaking how important the topic is but also I had a topic about shaving tools for men. Because there is a material (don't remember the name) that if you would make a shaving tool for a men it will last for him for entire life and even for his future family. But still it will be one tool sold right, but the business must flow right ?
ReplyDeleteAnyway I think that it's better to improve - improve improve everything that can be improved but it's the tough world we are living in. As you said - maybe the option is to recieve money even if you are not really making any profit ?
Normal thing in market economy. To survive companies need to sell. The biggest part of products on market created with 'short life-cycle' for being replaced in short time with new, probably same product with a few differences. Like IPhones :) Every year we see it, and every year we paid for. Even more influence there have trends and fashion! This is huge tools for creating cycling selling and for create "need to buy" in our minds.
ReplyDeleteIt helps in developing technologies and increases profits of companies, but it is unfair. I'd rather have a lifelong bulb or lifelong shaving tool for men than change it very often.
ReplyDeleteIt's a normal thing. People want to make money on whatever thay can. They don't care about other people problems. It is how the things work nowadays.
ReplyDeleteMy relative told me about some his Mercedes car issue, where after 2 years (he bought as brand new), went to service, where he was told that he had whole breaking system to exchange. Later he told me that mercedes has braking counter, each time you press pedal it counts it and after 50 000 sends you to service despite its actual condition. It is horrible but common practice nowadays.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting as I’ve always thought that even producers of foodstuff lower the durability of their products so that we buy them more often. It’ very misleading and insincere but it’s obvious that the only thing they care about is their revenue.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also worth mentioning that generally most things used to be most durable in the past as the producers were more focused on the quality of their goods. Nowadays, the quality is some hypothetical idea and money is all that matters ;).
Perfect timing. My three-weeks-old incadescent lightbulb just exploded, taking out a fuse in some sort of suicide bombing. That's like 100 hours of lifetime, tops.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see the problem. The rules are simple, if you want something to last 10 times longer, get it for 10 times the price. It's all about profits, after all.
You have any videos of these? :D
DeleteMany times I've read / heard that deliberately programmed life of the product. I'm so touchy when I learn that a company uses such tricks. My reasoning is simple - if something has stopped working too fast, the next time I will not buy it. In general, this topic is very intriguing, because I think we will never know whether to buy a particular product, spend the money on something that will serve us for years.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger problem here is that there are many market parts where most of the competitors use these techniques - so there's often no choice. But it's good to read the reviews and when some product is well designed and lasts long, we should inform others about that, post some review, promote these products. Maybe one day the natural competition will make the well behaving producers survive.
DeleteAgreed with @Łukasz Domeradzki and @przemekmirek.
ReplyDeleteManufacturers often give guarantees for their merchandise, for a specified period of time. So if you want to know when exactly you'll have to buy next phone or notebook etc., check the guarantee expiration date of the gear you have or you're buying. Probably then.
In some cases it's good to plan obsolescence for example with smartphones. Many people would like to buy a phone and have it for example for 4 years. Because hardware and software progress is so huge old hardware simple can't keep up. Also it's a huge amount of money to spent by the producer of that phone to keep old phones supported and provide new system updates. In this case I support planned obsolescence. Like someone already said it's also very clear that when people would be able to use thing for very long time companies would be bankrupt very quickly.
ReplyDeleteBut there is a little bit different situation with laptops. For example HP who cripples there laptops to only run one OS as I got a perfectly good 17 inch laptop with a GeForce card but it locked to some older OS which is no longer supported and my laptop has the power to run win7 but HP refuses to write the software.
So to sum up when progress isn't so huge like in laptops and cars for example thing should be made to last long years but when not planned obsolescence would stop the market development we would stay in one place all the time.
I guess nowadays this is very true, my electronical devices usually breaks when their guarantee time is over. I hate when my headphones stop working after one month, especially I usually buy more expensive ones. I understand copnaies policy, but when I pay more, I expect that product will be better, not worse ;x
ReplyDelete