3 ms·

"watched as they intentionally inserted lower-quality capacitors rather than standard ones on the motherboard, because this one is going to last this exact amou

"watched as they intentionally inserted lower-quality capacitors rather than standard ones on the motherboard, because this one is going to last this exact amount of time and not a month more." This is seriously concerning. I recently bought a new car, and was surprised how much push back there was on buying an extended warranty past the normal warranty. The salesperson argued to sell a multi thousand dollars warranty for the length of the normal warranty that essentially gave me "free" oil changes but was defensive about me spending a few more hundred dollars to extend it for an extra 2 years!

ggm 8y ago
They do it, but the a-priori logic that drives it, is not the overt desire to force obsolescence. The parts are cheaper. If you commission electronics from China, you can stipulate the extact tolerance and compliance and lifetime you want. Its one layer higher than this, which says "gee.. we could do that" . The scientist, the designer, the engineer, is not driving it, the upper specsheet is. Its actually the same with the washingmachine. They made them from thick steel because manufacturing costs hadn't driven to the quality of build and design which worked with thin sheet steel. Once they got over a million, and developed tighter tolerances, and understood in-field lifetimes, they could use thinner stock because they could stamp a pattern into it which added 3D shape-driven strength, and avoid 3lb of steel cost. I know we like to imagine them rubbing their hands with gleee at the future sale from it rusting out, but they really dont: they are driving down front cost, and if this reduces lifetime at end, thats a cost shifting problem they are not maximising to. If they were told to reduce input cost but preserve maximum lifetime, they might drive 1mm of steel back in, or thicker dip-time or better paint or move to less rust prone mix of metal or any of 100 things.
- gandreani 8y ago
  This is probably the most realistic theory I've heard that explains planned obsolescence. I'd then argue that there's still some malevolence in there and that would be the maximum lifetime they calculated. Clearly the older stuff lasts longer so they miscalculated how long the new stuff should last and at some point it becomes the new norm. "Oh yeah, washer's aren't supposed to last more than 7 years"
  - ggm 8y ago
    yes the malevolence is there, but it can be contained. in high price whitegoods (odd name, but there you go, the high price ones are now satin finish metal!) there is a huge story about long-life. European fridges have been driven to insanely thick insulation, far exceeding Australian standards, and there is a structural side to this: the units are very rigid, but have remarkably thin metal skins. If we said that 95% of the product must be demonstrated to be capable of lasting 15 years, and could test it, we'd be driving to airframe resilience engineering: the jumbo jet is designed to work inside the metals fatigue point almost indefinitely, modulo cracking. Thats not how we make consumer goods.
- blacksmith_tb 8y ago
  I'm sure this is very common, but note that there are well-documented cases of gleeful-hand-rubbing[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
- dorfsmay 8y ago
  Refrigerators functions haven't changed much, but their prices seem to go up over time, yet their reliability and life expectancy goes down. Also parts are priced such that it's cheaper to buy a new one if you expect a second faulty part within the would be warranty time of a new one.

ggm 8y ago

They do it, but the a-priori logic that drives it, is not the overt desire to force obsolescence. The parts are cheaper. If you commission electronics from China, you can stipulate the extact tolerance and compliance and lifetime you want. Its one layer higher than this, which says "gee.. we could do that" . The scientist, the designer, the engineer, is not driving it, the upper specsheet is. Its actually the same with the washingmachine. They made them from thick steel because manufacturing costs hadn't driven to the quality of build and design which worked with thin sheet steel. Once they got over a million, and developed tighter tolerances, and understood in-field lifetimes, they could use thinner stock because they could stamp a pattern into it which added 3D shape-driven strength, and avoid 3lb of steel cost. I know we like to imagine them rubbing their hands with gleee at the future sale from it rusting out, but they really dont: they are driving down front cost, and if this reduces lifetime at end, thats a cost shifting problem they are not maximising to. If they were told to reduce input cost but preserve maximum lifetime, they might drive 1mm of steel back in, or thicker dip-time or better paint or move to less rust prone mix of metal or any of 100 things.

gandreani 8y ago
This is probably the most realistic theory I've heard that explains planned obsolescence. I'd then argue that there's still some malevolence in there and that would be the maximum lifetime they calculated. Clearly the older stuff lasts longer so they miscalculated how long the new stuff should last and at some point it becomes the new norm. "Oh yeah, washer's aren't supposed to last more than 7 years"
- ggm 8y ago
  yes the malevolence is there, but it can be contained. in high price whitegoods (odd name, but there you go, the high price ones are now satin finish metal!) there is a huge story about long-life. European fridges have been driven to insanely thick insulation, far exceeding Australian standards, and there is a structural side to this: the units are very rigid, but have remarkably thin metal skins. If we said that 95% of the product must be demonstrated to be capable of lasting 15 years, and could test it, we'd be driving to airframe resilience engineering: the jumbo jet is designed to work inside the metals fatigue point almost indefinitely, modulo cracking. Thats not how we make consumer goods.
blacksmith_tb 8y ago
I'm sure this is very common, but note that there are well-documented cases of gleeful-hand-rubbing[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
dorfsmay 8y ago
Refrigerators functions haven't changed much, but their prices seem to go up over time, yet their reliability and life expectancy goes down. Also parts are priced such that it's cheaper to buy a new one if you expect a second faulty part within the would be warranty time of a new one.