Over the years I have read and been told by various people from many walks of life, that for some decades now, manufacturing companies have intentionally built a short life-time into their products, unlike the "old days" (generally considered Pre-1960s in this context) when companies and manufacturers of goods made things to last a life time if properly cared for.
The idea is that items, from cars and knives, to electronics and clothes, footwear and the rest, are purposefully made to not last for more than a few years, and more likely weeks to months if possible, or even less, in order to get you and I the customer coming back for more.
Or is it simply a matter of "you get what you pay for". If you want the cheapo 10 dollar knife that will only last a few times and then break, go for it, but if you want the knife, or pair of shoes that last for years, spend that extra money. What do you all think?
Is Planned Obsolescence Real or an Urban Legend?
-
SpyderEdgeForever
- Member
- Posts: 6325
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:53 pm
- Location: USA
-
jabba359
- Member
- Posts: 4958
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:07 pm
- Location: North Hollywood, CA U.S.A. Earth
- Contact:
You certainly get what you pay for. I think part of the problem is society, as they are always wanting something shiny and new but aren't willing to pay the price to get something that will last (anyway, if it lasted then it would get old and wouldn't be shiny and new anymore 
). We are sort of a disposable society. That is great news for manufacturers, as they can sell us new items when the old one (or not so old one) wears out. There is a balance, however, as they don't want it to break too quickly or the customer will buy another brand on the next go around.
I've always been of the mindset to pay the higher price once and get a quality product that will perform it's task well instead of buying the inferior product two, three or more times over the years at a lower price and the product will perform poorly and frustrate me the entire time. As I've been shopping for a quality bench top drill press, I've been having a hard time finding anything decent. There are some on the very high end that work great ($1000+), but are out of my price range. Then there is a lot of junk in the $100-300 range. All the good quality, mid priced (~$500) bench top drill presses seem to have vanished, as people opt for the cheaper Chinese-made piles that do a poor job.
). We are sort of a disposable society. That is great news for manufacturers, as they can sell us new items when the old one (or not so old one) wears out. There is a balance, however, as they don't want it to break too quickly or the customer will buy another brand on the next go around.I've always been of the mindset to pay the higher price once and get a quality product that will perform it's task well instead of buying the inferior product two, three or more times over the years at a lower price and the product will perform poorly and frustrate me the entire time. As I've been shopping for a quality bench top drill press, I've been having a hard time finding anything decent. There are some on the very high end that work great ($1000+), but are out of my price range. Then there is a lot of junk in the $100-300 range. All the good quality, mid priced (~$500) bench top drill presses seem to have vanished, as people opt for the cheaper Chinese-made piles that do a poor job.
It really depends, for me, on whether I think it's likely that advances in technology will obsolete the item before it's nominal end of life.jabba359 wrote: I've always been of the mindset to pay the higher price once and get a quality product that will perform it's task well instead of buying the inferior product two, three or more times over the years at a lower price and the product will perform poorly and frustrate me the entire time.
Knives and flashlights (two common hobbies around here) are a great contrast.
The technology of knives is pretty stable. Yes, we get new manufacturing methods, steels and handle materials all the time. But, over all, a knife that was a great knife 100 years ago, still is. Spending whatever you need to to get the knife you really need/want is a nominal expenditure over the course of multiple decades or even multiple generations.
Flashlights OTOH are obsoleted very quickly. A year? Maybe two? Within 3 years you can buy the same light with better tint and twice the output for the same cost, if not less. I can never see myself spending $500 for a custom Ti flashlight that will be completely eclipsed by a $50 pocket rocket in two years (if it isn't, already
) There are ways around that (upgraded components) but to me, on a $50 item, I'd rather just buy a new one every 3 years.Of course buying quality gear that you expect to last for decades involves an understanding of care and maintenance that a lot of folks today don't know and don't want to know. It's easier for them to replace a wore out item than spend a bit of time and effort keeping their gear in shape.
My pet gripe is when you spend what seems like a reasonable amount on a supposedly decent product and it fails prematurely even when well maintained.
To the OP I would give a qualified "yes". My Jetta is a good example. The transmission is "sealed" Supposedly not user serviceable (a lie, by the way) They say it's sealed for the life of the vehicle. By that, I came to learn, they mean 'when the transmission fails, the vehicle life has ended'. Not my original understanding, of course. Building things that need service without building in a way for them to be serviced is one form of planned obsolesce.
Ken
玉鋼
-
The Deacon
- Member
- Posts: 25717
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: Upstate SC, USA
- Contact:
FWIW, the term has been around since at least the 1950's. As for "fact or urban legend", it's a bit of both, with a side order of conspiracy theory paranoia thrown in.
The automotive industry is a prime example. Fifty years ago, tires lasted less than half what they do today, batteries needed replacement more often, brakes wore out more quickly, and it was considered unusual for a car to last for 100,000 miles. Today I'd bet 20% of the cars in my neighborhood have at least that on the clock. Accusing them of being "built to break or wear out" is a bit ridiculous. Granted, today's cars may not survive a crash as well as their 50's counterparts, but that's mostly because they're engineered to crumple and absorb the shock of impact, rather than allowing all of the energy to be transferred to the occupants.
The one thing that has not changed is that, in general, people do not buy a new car because the old one wore out, they buy it because they believe there's more social status to having a newer car. Whether that belief is a result of brainwashing by the car companies, or just "human nature" is debatable.
Whatever the cause, obsolescence is more often a question of psychology than wear and tear. The entire fashion industry is based on people feeling the "need" to be "in style". Do folks rush out to buy each new version of the iPhone the day it's released because it's significantly better than the previous one, or just to "be in style"?
The automotive industry is a prime example. Fifty years ago, tires lasted less than half what they do today, batteries needed replacement more often, brakes wore out more quickly, and it was considered unusual for a car to last for 100,000 miles. Today I'd bet 20% of the cars in my neighborhood have at least that on the clock. Accusing them of being "built to break or wear out" is a bit ridiculous. Granted, today's cars may not survive a crash as well as their 50's counterparts, but that's mostly because they're engineered to crumple and absorb the shock of impact, rather than allowing all of the energy to be transferred to the occupants.
The one thing that has not changed is that, in general, people do not buy a new car because the old one wore out, they buy it because they believe there's more social status to having a newer car. Whether that belief is a result of brainwashing by the car companies, or just "human nature" is debatable.
Whatever the cause, obsolescence is more often a question of psychology than wear and tear. The entire fashion industry is based on people feeling the "need" to be "in style". Do folks rush out to buy each new version of the iPhone the day it's released because it's significantly better than the previous one, or just to "be in style"?
Paul
My Personal Website ---- Beginners Guide to Spyderco Collecting ---- Spydiewiki
Deplorable :p
WTC # 1458 - 1504 - 1508 - Never Forget, Never Forgive!
My Personal Website ---- Beginners Guide to Spyderco Collecting ---- Spydiewiki
Deplorable :p
WTC # 1458 - 1504 - 1508 - Never Forget, Never Forgive!
Completely agree with you Paul. It is not so much that they plan on the product going bad early, it is that they plan on people feeling the need to buy a new one relatively quickly, and thus release "new and improved" versions annually.The Deacon wrote:
The one thing that has not changed is that, in general, people do not buy a new car because the old one wore out, they buy it because they believe there's more social status to having a newer car. Whether that belief is a result of brainwashing by the car companies, or just "human nature" is debatable.
In the example of smart phones, specifically iPhones, they have built their gadgets into a sign of social status. Apple plays on peoples desire, or "need" for that new release and thus releases a new model essentially every year, and the worst part is people buy the new ones just because it is new even if they are grossly expensive. The worst is when they come out with one in black then 6 months later they release the white one and people go back and get the new color! It makes no sense to me. I am an owner of an iphone, yes, but my first one lasted me three years before it eventually got enough gunk in the charging port from being in the woods that it wouldn't charge anymore, my second one is just about a year old and it **** well better last atleast a few more years.
So many spydies, not enough pockets.
"No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it." Before the Law, Franz Kafka
Spydernation #1990
"No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it." Before the Law, Franz Kafka
Spydernation #1990
-
phillipsted
- Member
- Posts: 3674
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:30 am
- Location: North Virginia
There is an object lesson that is beginning to appear in business/marketing textbooks. HP's initial LaserWriter printers came out in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They built these early printers like tanks - they were heavy, solid, and, as it turned out, had a long meantime between maintenance. This gave HP a great reputation and their LaserWriters became the defacto printer for many offices by the mid-1990s.
The problem is probably obvious. Once HP sold a LaserWriter, it went into service and kept on working - and working and working and working. Consequently, users ended up buying a few printers - and didn't have to replace them. HP experienced a rapid peak on the adoption "S" curve - then demand for new printers plummeted. HP's products were so well engineered that they almost sunk the company.
What happened next is pure conjecture. Did HP introduce new "must have" features on new printer models? Yes. Did the new printers have a lower cost to manufacture and a higher profit margin? Sure. Is this "planned obsolescence?" Your call.
TedP
The problem is probably obvious. Once HP sold a LaserWriter, it went into service and kept on working - and working and working and working. Consequently, users ended up buying a few printers - and didn't have to replace them. HP experienced a rapid peak on the adoption "S" curve - then demand for new printers plummeted. HP's products were so well engineered that they almost sunk the company.
What happened next is pure conjecture. Did HP introduce new "must have" features on new printer models? Yes. Did the new printers have a lower cost to manufacture and a higher profit margin? Sure. Is this "planned obsolescence?" Your call.
TedP
The short answer is that technology began to advance so rapidly that designing things that lasted 10 years became a waste of time when the same object becomes obsolete through technology a year or two later anyway. They can build electronics that can withstand the rigors of space for decades on end, but I've had dozens of hard drives die on me over the years. There's no point in making a computer that'll last forever when they're outdated the day you buy them. Technology is an evil beast that never stops consuming itself, and is both it's best quality and worst enemy at the same time because it never stops advancing and in turn constantly kills it's former self.
Still, it also depends on what we're talking about. I've never worn out a fork
Still, it also depends on what we're talking about. I've never worn out a fork
All SE all the time since 2017
~David
~David
Ken, it's surprising how little you need in a flashlight. I have a number of lights that I've been using for a LONG time and I expect them to keep going for another long time.
Just like Henry's lights, do you need more than 120 (or 200) lumens? I find it rare that I need a huge amount of light.
I wonder how much of this has to do with the customer changing. A lot of times, I see people buy the cheapest thing they can find so they can use/abuse it until it breaks and go out and buy another one. My Grandfather had a lot of tools that had seen their day in the sun. They were used and they weren’t babied, but they weren’t used to the point where he would try to break them.
Just like Henry's lights, do you need more than 120 (or 200) lumens? I find it rare that I need a huge amount of light.
I wonder how much of this has to do with the customer changing. A lot of times, I see people buy the cheapest thing they can find so they can use/abuse it until it breaks and go out and buy another one. My Grandfather had a lot of tools that had seen their day in the sun. They were used and they weren’t babied, but they weren’t used to the point where he would try to break them.
-Brian
A distinguished lurker.
Waiting on a Squeak and Pingo with a Split Spring!
A distinguished lurker.
Waiting on a Squeak and Pingo with a Split Spring!
-
MacLaren
- Member
- Posts: 12639
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:59 pm
- Location: High in the Blue Ridge of NC
+1Evil D wrote:The short answer is that technology began to advance so rapidly that designing things that lasted 10 years became a waste of time when the same object becomes obsolete through technology a year or two later anyway. They can build electronics that can withstand the rigors of space for decades on end, but I've had dozens of hard drives die on me over the years. There's no point in making a computer that'll last forever when they're outdated the day you buy them. Technology is an evil beast that never stops consuming itself, and is both it's best quality and worst enemy at the same time because it never stops advancing and in turn constantly kills it's former self.
Still, it also depends on what we're talking about. I've never worn out a fork
-
SolidState
- Member
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:37 pm
- Location: Oregon
It's real, at least in semiconductor processing and display manufacture. The term in the field is "obsolescence lifetime." Typically smartphones have an obsolescence lifetime of 2 years. Televisions average around 6 years (plasmas and OLED). Inorganic LEDs are closer to 20 years. OLED televisions are a perfect example of a product that is designed to break down within its obsolescence lifetime. The chemicals and chemical processes that allow organic molecules to emit light actively destroy the molecules; therefore, the phosphors in the screen break down through use over time.
There are even engineers whose whole job is to fast track devices to failure and report approximately how long it would take under normal conditions for the tech to break. Failure Analysis departments are common in silicon valley. It's kind of fun work too. You get to throw microchips in an oven and cycle them multiple times, and dunk them in water etc.
There are even engineers whose whole job is to fast track devices to failure and report approximately how long it would take under normal conditions for the tech to break. Failure Analysis departments are common in silicon valley. It's kind of fun work too. You get to throw microchips in an oven and cycle them multiple times, and dunk them in water etc.
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete, and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
Sir Humphry Davy
Sir Humphry Davy
I don't feel like it's necessarily "planned obsolescence" so much as fierce competition on retail price and extreme pressures on corporations to drive profits and boost their stock market value. Unfortunately, I think this trend where Wall Street rules the world happens to line up perfectly with most consumers' desire to have a "good enough" product at a ridiculously cheap retail price rather than an excellent, no-compromise product at a comparatively expensive -- albeit fair -- price.
Go look at any Paramilitary 2 review on YouTube and I guarantee you'll see several comments to the effect of "Yeah, it's nice, but OMG, I would NEVER pay > $100 for a knife!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?"
I of course think a PM2 is a ridiculous value even at full retail -- especially considering it is made in the USA, and also in a fairly high cost-of-living state within the USA -- but there will always be plenty of people who can't see that value, as well as plenty of manufacturers happy to sell to them.
Go look at any Paramilitary 2 review on YouTube and I guarantee you'll see several comments to the effect of "Yeah, it's nice, but OMG, I would NEVER pay > $100 for a knife!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?"
I of course think a PM2 is a ridiculous value even at full retail -- especially considering it is made in the USA, and also in a fairly high cost-of-living state within the USA -- but there will always be plenty of people who can't see that value, as well as plenty of manufacturers happy to sell to them.
Tim
haha, yeah, especially when the quality of the $20 Chinese knockoff folders is advancing so quickly. :)timlara wrote:I don't feel like it's necessarily "planned obsolescence" so much as fierce competition on retail price and extreme pressures on corporations to drive profits and boost their stock market value. Unfortunately, I think this trend where Wall Street rules the world happens to line up perfectly with most consumers' desire to have a "good enough" product at a ridiculously cheap retail price rather than an excellent, no-compromise product at a comparatively expensive -- albeit fair -- price.
Go look at any Paramilitary 2 review on YouTube and I guarantee you'll see several comments to the effect of "Yeah, it's nice, but OMG, I would NEVER pay > $100 for a knife!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?"
I of course think a PM2 is a ridiculous value even at full retail -- especially considering it is made in the USA, and also in a fairly high cost-of-living state within the USA -- but there will always be plenty of people who can't see that value, as well as plenty of manufacturers happy to sell to them.
-Brian
A distinguished lurker.
Waiting on a Squeak and Pingo with a Split Spring!
A distinguished lurker.
Waiting on a Squeak and Pingo with a Split Spring!
I don't think obsolescence is planned, but a product's actual failure (by an inevitable wearing out) or perceived failure (by falling behind the competition, especially with virtual products like software) does spark resentment and foster suspicion about the producer's intention, especially when the failure has occurred sooner than deemed reasonable.
While The Man in the White Suit does play on the idea that products must physically fail for companies to stay in business, the truth is that companies making hardware (as distinct from software) are forever trying to cut costs of production (substituting proven materials and components for less expensive and probably less durable ones; watering down costly quality control, etc.) to stay competitive, at least in the short term.
I will admit, however, that producers of software (as distinct from producers of software-driven hardware; I worked for both kinds of producers for 20 years), does come close to planned obsolescence. These producers rely on dribbling out just those features that will keep them competitive, even though they have many other features on the drawing board just waiting for a simple change in code.
While The Man in the White Suit does play on the idea that products must physically fail for companies to stay in business, the truth is that companies making hardware (as distinct from software) are forever trying to cut costs of production (substituting proven materials and components for less expensive and probably less durable ones; watering down costly quality control, etc.) to stay competitive, at least in the short term.
I will admit, however, that producers of software (as distinct from producers of software-driven hardware; I worked for both kinds of producers for 20 years), does come close to planned obsolescence. These producers rely on dribbling out just those features that will keep them competitive, even though they have many other features on the drawing board just waiting for a simple change in code.
-Marc (pocketing an S110V Native5 today)
“When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.”
“When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.”
As we were with our iPad 1s. They were all we needed, hardware wise, and they still run fine (and look brand new). But the inability to install new apps because our iOS couldn't be updated eventually drove us to buy iPad mini retinas. In all likelihood we'll run these until we hit the same wall. We both love Apple products, and iPads in particular but it does kinda bother us when they pull support just to move people on to the newest offerings. I do understand maintaining a support structure for products that are longer generating revenue is expensive but it seems the active window could be just a bit longer.Skidoosh wrote: I would still be happy with the the first iPhone.
Ken
玉鋼
-
Johnnie1801
- Member
- Posts: 2219
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:29 am
- Location: Europe
You might be interesteed to read this short article:Skidoosh wrote:The clearest example of planned obsolescence is the iPhone and different operating systems. Eventually they don't upgrade your preferred system (xp anyone?) and you need to upgrade. I would still be happy with the the first iPhone.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... one-slower
Currently enjoying Spyderco's in - S30V, VG10, Super Blue, Cruwear x4, CTS XHP, S110V x2, M4 x3, S35VN, CTS 204P x2, S90V, HAP 40, K390, RWL34, MAXAMET, ZDP 189, REX 45
Jon
Jon
Re: Is Planned Obsolescence Real or an Urban Legend?
If you haven't seen this already, it's worth the watch. A bit of a broader discussion, but obsolescence is mentioned about an hour in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
-
dewildeman
- Member
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:37 pm
Re: Is Planned Obsolescence Real or an Urban Legend?
I used to poo-poo the idea of planned obsolescence until a few years ago. I bought a vacuum sealer that was made by a company that is better known for their power tools. It worked fine for a couple of years and then the heating element quit heating. I called customer service to get a replacement element. After I gave the rep the model and serial #'s she sounded very surprised that I would tried to fix something that was already 2 years old. And besides, they didn't have parts anymore for that model. Now, if this is planned obsolescence or just a corporate mentality of making crappy products, I don't know. I do know that I won't buy ANY of their products in the future.