Planned Obsolescence: A Capitalist Conspiracy?

[Lord_Chanticleer]

I've always said that to me it seems that nowadays products are inferior to what they once were in terms of durability. I never really understood how it could possibly be that as technology got more advanced, it's lifespan acutally seemed to diminish. I never knew what was up with that, until tonight.

Terzake, a Belgian tv programme that deals with modern societal issues, showed a documentary about a rather sinister market strategy called planned obsolensence. Basically, a lot of devices are designed to fail after a predetermined number of years, forcing the consumer to purchase a brand new unit, despite the fact that the "broken" unit actually still has lots of years of life left, that the company actually artificially cuts short.

There are two examples that I found most infuriating. The first one is that of a supposedly "malfunctioning" inkjet printer that could actually be fixed by using a clever piece of software that overrided the company's cunning settings, so that the "unsalvageable" parts suddenly became fully functional again.

The second example involved the tyrant of modern technology, the Apple company. Apple designed the internal iPod batteries in such a way, that they only last about 18 months. Seeing as how the batteries can't be extracted from the iPod the consumer has to buy a brand new iPod.

Unfortunately, I didn't catch the start of the documentary but I did find it on YouTube. I'll most likely be watching it in full tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm putting it out there for you to judge for yourself.

Planned Obsolescence Conspiracy

[(insert name here)]

Terzake, a Belgian tv programme that deals with modern societal issues, showed a documentary about a rather sinister market strategy called planned obsolensence.

You didn't know about that?  I've known about that for years.  Heck, my first year in Engineering school this was one of the first things they taught us.

That is one of the biggest reasons I hate modern cars so much.  All the computer parts in them are designed to be junky and require replacement.  When your computer part breaks, where do you go to buy a new one?  None other than the car dealership because no one else makes the components like a regular car part.  What does it cost?  Anywhere from $50 to $300 dollars.  How much does it cost to make?  Maybe $10.  For example, the security system in GM cars (which is required to start the car) is designed to fail after about seven years of use.  They used that system from the early '90s until at least 2005.  Don't know if they are still using it or not.

While planned obsolescence is definitely true, there are some other factors to look at as well.  Things today are made from cheaper materials, because it makes the products...well, cheaper to produce.  Cheaper materials don't last as long as expensive materials.  Another thing to look at in the case of electronics, is how much more complex they have become.  I have an Atari 2600 that's still cooking strong, yet I've been through probably about five PS2s in the same amount of time.  Atari's have no moving parts, nothing to get worn out.  PS2s are chock-full of moving things that are prone to break.  While I don't doubt that PS2s are designed to fail after a certain amount of time like many other modern products, even if they were designed to last as long as possible, they wouldn't be able to last as long as the Atari for example because of all these more complex components they have that receive much more wear.

I may give that video a watch when I have more time.

[coit105]

'Capitallist conspiracy' *Insert hybrid of wow and ouch here*
The reason people are forced to buy products that are less durable than those preceding them is due to the fact that corporations that should have gone bust monopolise the market and fail to utilise new technologies properly. Cars are a good example: GM should have been destroyed by Japanese competitors and new American rival companies should have risen up out of the ashes utilising the new way of making cars, whatever that may be, that meant they didn't break down every morning before you set off. The government bailed them out, they eventually caught up, somewhat, but even so their cars are [now] unable to turn corners properly, or so I'm told, and numerous other problems in reliability and such are still rife.

Government interference causes malinvestment (investment in companies that are 'too big to fail' - those companies that should have actually been replaced by now -) and prevents new competition coming onto centre stage. I mean think about how much easier it could be for you to set up your own car manufacturer if not for all the government regulations, restrictions, patents, licenses, fees and taxes. Every poor bastard who'd been ripped off by GM could've got off their sofa, modified an existing model to keep it as stylish yet still reliable and able to handle well. Then all they got to do is go to the bank for a loan to rent a factory and some workers, rake in the profits and BOOM! Innovation that works.

Microsoft's patent number is actually ridiculous. If it weren't who knows where we'd be computer wise right now. I know it's all the same shit from this corner, but it's all bloody true and for god sake it's down to ridiculous lobbying (the process where corporations fund a party/candidate's campaign trail in return for laws that will keep them at the top and bailouts that will save them from hitting the bottom). Stop blaming capitalism, corporatism is the problem.

[Lord_Chanticleer]

You didn't know about that?  I've known about that for years.  Heck, my first year in Engineering school this was one of the first things they taught us.

I couldn't help myself and started watching the video already. They do indeed mention that planned obsolescence is an integral part of the curriculum for anyone who studies engineering, at about 21:35 minutes in.

Edit: Right, I've now watched the whole thing. Quite frankly, I feel absolutely sickened by what I've just seen. Basically, it all boils down to one simple fact: companies deliberately create inferior products in order to perpetuate growth, which in the long run will turn itself against us as we rapidly squander our planet's resources .

Of course, that's nothing new in itself, but the fact that the industry has actually been knowingly accelerating this process is plain infuriating. It has made me realise that our economic model is horribly flawed, inefficient, unsustainable, immoral and downright retarded.

[coit105]

Of course, that's nothing new in itself, but the fact that the industry has actually been knowingly accelerating this process is plain infuriating. It has made me realise that our economic model is horribly flawed, inefficient, unsustainable, immoral and downright retarded.

Thank you. Now check out the free market. Further, the 'industry' ain't done shit. If a company can sell an inferior product to people with the knowledge that it can make it through the dip in reputation should it be discovered, it fucking will. The ever bailing out government is the problem. PLEASE! GO TOWARD THE ENLIGHTENING LIGHT!

[Lord_Chanticleer]

Thank you. Now check out the free market. Further, the 'industry' ain't done shit. If a company can sell an inferior product to people with the knowledge that it can make it through the dip in reputation should it be discovered, it fucking will. The ever bailing out government is the problem. PLEASE! GO TOWARD THE ENLIGHTENING LIGHT!

I hardly think the government is the sole culprit here. The Phoebus conspiracy was carried out entirely in secret by a cartel of light bulb manufacturers. If the government had found out about it they'd doubtless have forbidden such practices.

What we need to do is change the way we make use of our resources. The solution they suggested in the documentary seems the best to me, which is to imitate nature's vicious cycle of renewal. That way, manufacturers can't justify the strategy of planned obsolencse with their so called "concern" for unemployment that would result from the sudden collapse of the production cycle (as durable products reduce the need for a replacement).

[coit105]

I hardly think the government is the sole culprit here. The Phoebus conspiracy was carried out entirely in secret by a cartel of light bulb manufacturers. If the government had found out about it they'd doubtless have forbidden such practices.

Yeah, prohibition, as history and present day shows us, is clearly the way to go. What with all the success that came with alcohol in the thirties and such. The fact is you have to allow everyone to do what they will and allow the better ideas to rise to the top as capital gravitates toward them as the consumer realises their needs are being better met.

What we need to do is change the way we make use of our resources. The solution they suggested in the documentary seems the best to me, which is to imitate nature's vicious cycle of renewal. That way, manufacturers can't justify the strategy of planned obsolencse with their so called "concern" for unemployment that would result from the sudden collapse of the production cycle (as durable products reduce the need for a replacement).

Didn't watch the video, but it sounds like more recycling and so forth is involved.

[Fauch]

just make more durable product that aren't designed only to end in a garbage bin. recycling is something rather new I believe, and yet it seems we consume much more resources than we ever did.

I believe there is a conspiracy, and planned obsolescence is just one of their weapon. probably the responsible are a bunch of very rich and powerful people, such as private bankers who lend money to states. they will use any possible way to keep their power over everyone else. turning people into consumers who can only worry about their ipod who just broke is one of the ways. of course if there wasn't all that advertising and media propagande to dumb down people, we probably wouldn't be so concerned about futile things.

unemployment isn't a problem, it's one of their strategies. you are supposed to feel bad for being unemployed, even though there is nothing bad about doing nothing. and even then, being unemployed doesn't mean being unproductive. the fact is the vast majority of work (probably 90% or more) serves no real purpose and often is even destructive for the planet or harmful for people (that includes illness such as stress of course) making people work their ass off so they can earn enough to live is a way to control them (they are at work, so we know what they are doing) and exhaust them so that they no more represent any potential danger. for those who don't have work, just give them enough money to please them (oh yes, guess who got elected president in France people are so small-minded that someone offers them bread crumbs and they fall right into the trap)

there is the debt of the state which is a strong incentive to keep people at work "you need to work harder if you want to avoid the collapse of our country" of course the debt is impossible to pay, it is designed to be impossible to keep people prisonners. basically it was our governments allying with some rich bankers. the governments gave up their power to produce money for themselves without any interest rates. now they produce money that they lend to private banks who lend them the money back with high interest rates. and guess who must pay with his work?
that is one of the reason they shove down the european constitution down our throats. before, we had such a law that concerned only the France (and probably, other countries had similar laws too) but now, there is one common law for all the european union, which makes it far harder to abrogate it.

there are also wars. we often hear about wars which are a pretext to steal resources, but they can also be a pretext to destroy resources. they are a very good justification to keeping factories running as fast as possible and thus keep the system working (we well know that some companies made massive profits during wars). planned obsolescence plays a similar role (but apparently kills less people)

of course dumbing down people is very important. even small children often talk about how school is pathetic. a lot of people seem to not like to think. they can spend a whole day watching bullshit on facebook, but try to make them read one page of philosophy for example, and they won't even find time to do it. or will be tired before the end. it also amazes me how people can make hugh efforts to save just a couple cents, but won't move their ass and fight for something that would benefit them much more.

[Godman]

Microsoft's patent number is actually ridiculous. If it weren't who knows where we'd be computer wise right now.

Lots of companies hold back technology that is frankly amazing, presumably so that they have a chance to sell whatever else they spent time thinking of before hand. They usually have the stuff patented so that no one else can jump the gun. You point to Microsoft, but I believe Apple is another offender; as is Dyson, the company that wants everyone to believe is the super friendly underdog in a market that it now largely dominates. I recall them doing a talk where they said that they refused to release some product due to a lack of quality bearings, what a load of crap.

Out of curiosity Coit, does libertarianism account for companies holding progress back by throwing patents all over the place?


I've come across planned obsolescence in my engineering course, and indeed it does exist. I'd rather be a creator of products that last though.

[Joshed7]

We actually learned about this last week in geography. I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said. It's all bullshit.

[hobojoe44]

To quote Bill from king of the hill (from what I remember)

"The last hose you will ever buy"..... let's hope it's 5 times the charm!

[coit105]

I've become somewhat more legible in my views on capitalism, so for further explanations on anything here I write let me know and I'll try my best.

just make more durable product that aren't designed only to end in a garbage bin. recycling is something rather new I believe, and yet it seems we consume much more resources than we ever did.

Free market capitalism has been shown to produce the most efficient distribution of resources. I believe it has something to do with fractional reserve banking and the constant meddling by central banks with the interest rates.

I believe there is a conspiracy, and planned obsolescence is just one of their weapon.

Planned obsolescence, given I've just looked it up, seems like a good business strategy in todays market given that business competition is being held back by its balls quite tightly by all sorts of regulations, intellectual property rights and some other junk. Why does that matter? If there was more competition it's plausible they'd wish to not use planned obsolescence to see if the product sold more. If it did, then planned obsolescence wouldn't be a viable business strategy as consumers would be displaying a preference for longer lifespan over the latest thing.

If planned obsolescence was favoured then that's what consumers want and that's what they're likely going to get sold.

probably the responsible are a bunch of very rich and powerful people, such as private bankers who lend money to states. they will use any possible way to keep their power over everyone else. turning people into consumers who can only worry about their ipod who just broke is one of the ways. of course if there wasn't all that advertising and media propagande to dumb down people, we probably wouldn't be so concerned about futile things.

So the private bankers are the enemy, but also the corporate media who have the content of their shows/news bulletins practically hand selected for them by government bureaucrats? This sounds like one hell of a conspiracy.

unemployment isn't a problem, it's one of their strategies. you are supposed to feel bad for being unemployed, even though there is nothing bad about doing nothing. and even then, being unemployed doesn't mean being unproductive. the fact is the vast majority of work (probably 90% or more) serves no real purpose and often is even destructive for the planet or harmful for people (that includes illness such as stress of course) making people work their ass off so they can earn enough to live is a way to control them (they are at work, so we know what they are doing) and exhaust them so that they no more represent any potential danger. for those who don't have work, just give them enough money to please them (oh yes, guess who got elected president in France people are so small-minded that someone offers them bread crumbs and they fall right into the trap)

There's nothing bad about doing nothing, but there's nothing useful about it either. The problems associated with benign/destructive production methods/services that you're talking about are there because big firms that lobby future governments for bailouts in the future don't have to worry about bringing value to the economy because even if they don't and they go bankrupt because of it, they'll be bailed out.

there is the debt of the state which is a strong incentive to keep people at work "you need to work harder if you want to avoid the collapse of our country" of course the debt is impossible to pay, it is designed to be impossible to keep people prisonners.

National debt isn't impossible to pay. Governments just don't want to do it because they want people to rely on them for public services so they look like they have a reason to be there and public services cost so much they keep the nation in debt.

basically it was our governments allying with some rich bankers. the governments gave up their power to produce money for themselves without any interest rates. now they produce money that they lend to private banks who lend them the money back with high interest rates. and guess who must pay with his work?

OK wow. You sound rather overexcited and muddled up from my point of view.

From my knowledge of things: governments have central banks. They print money when you have a fiat currency. This printed money is given to other banks that lend out money to business's and consumers so they always have a good supply to lend (despite there being no savings in the bank left) which means people can take out more loans and don't have to pay them back. Normally when a bank runs out of savings they stop lending and raise interest rates to get their existing loans paid back quicker so they can have more savings to lend out again. Look up Hayek's business cycle for, quite frankly, a better explanation of this.

that is one of the reason they shove down the european constitution down our throats. before, we had such a law that concerned only the France (and probably, other countries had similar laws too) but now, there is one common law for all the european union, which makes it far harder to abrogate it.

The common law of Europe is not my area of expertise. I'll sit this one out.

there are also wars. we often hear about wars which are a pretext to steal resources, but they can also be a pretext to destroy resources. they are a very good justification to keeping factories running as fast as possible and thus keep the system working (we well know that some companies made massive profits during wars). planned obsolescence plays a similar role (but apparently kills less people)

Erm, war's a whole other story, but can I just ask when you have a large portion of your country's labour force going overseas, how is that helping to keep factories running as fast as possible? Also, war does not keep the system working and I'm not sure which companies you refer to that make massive profits during war.

of course dumbing down people is very important. even small children often talk about how school is pathetic. a lot of people seem to not like to think. they can spend a whole day watching bullshit on facebook, but try to make them read one page of philosophy for example, and they won't even find time to do it. or will be tired before the end. it also amazes me how people can make hugh efforts to save just a couple cents, but won't move their ass and fight for something that would benefit them much more.

All humans, in fact pretty well all life forms, will always do what costs less energy and benefits them most. We're highly social animals. So learning all the 'bullshit' on Facebook keeps us in touch with our local friends and their lives, because it'll play to their advantage in their social circles to know who's done what recently. Reading Descartes meditations on the other hand (which I personally would not condone, let alone recommend) probably wouldn't give them a very direct benefit in their lives.

Out of curiosity Coit, does libertarianism account for companies holding progress back by throwing patents all over the place?

'Hardcore' libertarians oppose intellectual property. Having property over an idea is LUDICROUS. Once an idea hits the public domain it's fair game. If you believe in the right to a free opinion, I fail to see how having the right to imagine something new based off of something that already exists is consistent. That being said, a friend of mine pointed out to me yesterday, so long as it's a voluntary transaction, there's noting wrong with charging someone for teaching them a new way of making something, or showing them a new design you have.

I've come across planned obsolescence in my engineering course, and indeed it does exist. I'd rather be a creator of products that last though.

Everyone would rather not be a dick and do the same. But like I said, in todays market environment if you're trying to outcompete someone who's doing well using it as a strategy, you'll have to be prepared for the eventuality that you may sink. I'd recommend reading Rory Sutherland's 'the wiki man' for a few good tips on how to make something sell. If not remember this: solid marketing, or how you present the product, is going to get you further than if you just rely on having a solid, efficient, long lasting product.

[Fauch]

Erm, war's a whole other story, but can I just ask when you have a large portion of your country's labour force going overseas, how is that helping to keep factories running as fast as possible?

it doesn't concern my country in particular, the system is world wide. it doesn't matter where the factories are.

So the private bankers are the enemy, but also the corporate media who have the content of their shows/news bulletins practically hand selected for them by government bureaucrats? This sounds like one hell of a conspiracy.

actually, think about totalitarianism, or read George Orwell's "1984". it is possible they don't even know what they are doing. in 1984, the most powerful members of the party are the most indoctrinated by their own ideology, and when they lie, they are the firsts to believe their own lies. it's those people we usually call fanatics.
and the people who work for them, well, when you need to feed your family, sometimes you take a job whatever it is. another more subtle solution is to divide a work so that no ones know what's the big picture (in "Deus ex" you can talk to an employee of versalife who says that is working on some part of a big project and he has no idea what it is. of course, it turns out he is working on the grey death)

From my knowledge of things: governments have central banks. They print money when you have a fiat currency. This printed money is given to other banks that lend out money to business's and consumers

and governments. here, until 1973, the government could print his own money and use it as they wanted. they can't any more, now they must borrow from private banks. and yeah, the law was voted by our government of course. why the hell would they do that?

All humans, in fact pretty well all life forms, will always do what costs less energy and benefits them most.

then you should explain me why people will work 10 / 12 or even more hours per day sometimes?
yeah, pretty much all life forms. except humans.

[Godman]

National debt isn't impossible to pay. Governments just don't want to do it because they want people to rely on them for public services so they look like they have a reason to be there and public services cost so much they keep the nation in debt.

Is not borrowing money the simple solution to how do you spend more money than you make? If you spend loads and get the country into debt, everything looks good and nobody cares that the country is in debt; so you get voted in again. Though that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory.

'Hardcore' libertarians oppose intellectual property. Having property over an idea is LUDICROUS. Once an idea hits the public domain it's fair game. If you believe in the right to a free opinion, I fail to see how having the right to imagine something new based off of something that already exists is consistent. That being said, a friend of mine pointed out to me yesterday, so long as it's a voluntary transaction, there's noting wrong with charging someone for teaching them a new way of making something, or showing them a new design you have.

Hmm, this makes me doubt the libertarian idea that monopolies and other evil things are unsustainable even more. I can understand the idea of owning an idea being wrong, but that in itself is counter productive. What is the point of spending money on development if you gain no advantage over your competitors for doing it? You spend a load of money on some revolutionary technology only for other people to nick it and do the exact same thing but a bit different, you've essentially lost that money. The idea of innovating seems lost. Not that I really know anything about economics.

Everyone would rather not be a dick and do the same. But like I said, in todays market environment if you're trying to outcompete someone who's doing well using it as a strategy, you'll have to be prepared for the eventuality that you may sink. I'd recommend reading Rory Sutherland's 'the wiki man' for a few good tips on how to make something sell. If not remember this: solid marketing, or how you present the product, is going to get you further than if you just rely on having a solid, efficient, long lasting product.

That really depends on what market you are going for, the market for common people is not the one I am likely to be interested in. More specialist things work in a different way. For example, you would buy a Rolls Royce or General Electric jet engine for several million pounds rather than some crappy Chinese thing that doesn't last quite as long, but has a smaller price tag. To continue, whether you get the RR or GE depends on much more than the price tag. That is a bit of a safety critical system, so might not be the best example. Perhaps of you were purchasing a factory machine, what you buy is based more on quality than price. Of course, those two are a bit of a trade off, so you have to adjust depending on what the costumer wants. At any rate, you don't put in any planned failures so that they have to get another one.

As for marketing, that doesn't interest me in the slightest. I imagine if I was working in a company making stuff for the public, I would have the marketing people constantly telling me to do this and that to make it look better.

[Fauch]

You spend a load of money on some revolutionary technology only for other people to nick it and do the exact same thing but a bit different, you've essentially lost that money. The idea of innovating seems lost. Not that I really know anything about economics.

imagine if it worked that way in science. we would barely make progress if people refused to share their ideas and theories.
of course it is about the profit, but in the 1st place, aren't companies supposed to provide services? if you focus on the service part, then even if the idea is "stolen", you don't really lose anything.