3 ms·

I really think planned obsolescence is the future for everyone. Why build things to last when you can 1. save money by cheaping out and 2. ensure a future custo

I really think planned obsolescence is the future for everyone. Why build things to last when you can 1. save money by cheaping out and 2. ensure a future customer by cheaping out? There's no reason for them to build high quality, long lasting things. So why would they? They don't care about the waste.

iamkroot 7y ago
You can buy stuff that lasts, it just tends to cost a lot more than the mass market products. Consumers have voted with their wallets and the markets have responded. If consumer behavior changes, the markets will to.
- julbaxter 7y ago
  It is more complicated than this. Many do not have enough in their wallet to 'vote' based on their values.
  - iamkroot 7y ago
    Which is why the "cheap" products are important. Without them many people would not have access to a wide variety of goods.
    - julbaxter 7y ago
      The fact that "cheap" products are important does not reinforce your first statement that "if consumer behavior changes, the markets will to". When a family can afford a swimming pool because there are now ones you can buy for 8 dollars I won't call it a vote. In my opinion, buying can be assimilated to a vote when your wallet is big enough to let you consider several market options.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > In my opinion, buying can be assimilated to a vote when your wallet is big enough to let you consider several market options. And also, and I keep repeating this, if there even are options. The problem with voting with your wallet is the same as the problem of voting in a typical western democracy. You never get to vote on a feature/issue in the abstract; you can only choose out of what's available on the market/ballot, and that's always a very large bundle of features/issues, so you have to make trade-offs when voting. For instance, I very much want to have a replaceable battery in my smartphone, but my current one doesn't have this feature. That's because I had to choose a whole bundle and the replaceable battery lost with considerations like "won't turn into unsupported and underpowered garbage in 2 years", "still has audio jack", "support SIM cards" and "I trust the manufacturer". There's no way for the market to pick up on my preference for replaceable batteries here.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  "Voting with wallets" doesn't apply if one alternative is missing from the marketplace. For many good categories, there are no durable options. It's a problem of the bottom the market raced to being placed too low.
amelius 7y ago
I think we're heading in a different direction: products are not owned by the customer, but are owned by the company. You will pay a monthly fee, and it's the company's responsibility to keep the product from failing. A slightly different thing is happening with Apple. When you bought your phone, you didn't receive full ownership. Instead, you bought a seat in a theater. Apple's incentive is to keep the phone working so they can sell you more apps/movies/songs.

iamkroot 7y ago

You can buy stuff that lasts, it just tends to cost a lot more than the mass market products. Consumers have voted with their wallets and the markets have responded. If consumer behavior changes, the markets will to.

julbaxter 7y ago
It is more complicated than this. Many do not have enough in their wallet to 'vote' based on their values.
- iamkroot 7y ago
  Which is why the "cheap" products are important. Without them many people would not have access to a wide variety of goods.
  - julbaxter 7y ago
    The fact that "cheap" products are important does not reinforce your first statement that "if consumer behavior changes, the markets will to". When a family can afford a swimming pool because there are now ones you can buy for 8 dollars I won't call it a vote. In my opinion, buying can be assimilated to a vote when your wallet is big enough to let you consider several market options.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > In my opinion, buying can be assimilated to a vote when your wallet is big enough to let you consider several market options. And also, and I keep repeating this, if there even are options. The problem with voting with your wallet is the same as the problem of voting in a typical western democracy. You never get to vote on a feature/issue in the abstract; you can only choose out of what's available on the market/ballot, and that's always a very large bundle of features/issues, so you have to make trade-offs when voting. For instance, I very much want to have a replaceable battery in my smartphone, but my current one doesn't have this feature. That's because I had to choose a whole bundle and the replaceable battery lost with considerations like "won't turn into unsupported and underpowered garbage in 2 years", "still has audio jack", "support SIM cards" and "I trust the manufacturer". There's no way for the market to pick up on my preference for replaceable batteries here.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
"Voting with wallets" doesn't apply if one alternative is missing from the marketplace. For many good categories, there are no durable options. It's a problem of the bottom the market raced to being placed too low.

amelius 7y ago

I think we're heading in a different direction: products are not owned by the customer, but are owned by the company. You will pay a monthly fee, and it's the company's responsibility to keep the product from failing. A slightly different thing is happening with Apple. When you bought your phone, you didn't receive full ownership. Instead, you bought a seat in a theater. Apple's incentive is to keep the phone working so they can sell you more apps/movies/songs.