3 ms·

> it's not completely secret, it's not admitted to either, and it's not illegal because it's not illegal. No, your assertion is quite wrong. All engineered pro

> it's not completely secret, it's not admitted to either, and it's not illegal because it's not illegal. No, your assertion is quite wrong. All engineered products have service lives, because they all have failure modes that are taken into account in the design process. If a phone's failure mode consists of the battery dying the the battery will be designed to ensure it will likely work well for a minimum of x time following a typical usage pattern. Likewise an airplane failure mode is the fuseage breaking off due to fatigue, thus it is designed to be flown X times (takeoff/landing counts, number of hours in flight) taking onto account the likelihood of cracks forming and propagating. Targeting a certain service life in a design does not mean there is mischief in play. It only means engineering. Thus obviously planting time bombs has absolutely nothing to do with engineering a product.

nerdponx 7y ago
You're talking about 2 different things. The implication with "planned obsolecence" here is that the device becomes nonfunctional or less-functional because the manufacturer simply designed it to fail after a while. See for example the Phoebus Cartel, who actually fined manufacturers who made lightbulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > because the manufacturer simply designed it to fail after a while. You're missing the whole point. Everything fails after a while. Everything. It's the engineer's job to ensure that it fails only after X amount of use, which can be expressed in time of normal usage. There are no time bombs, only the fact that designers picked a small service life.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The point is not that tradeoffs are inherently unethical, it's that in practice, deceiving the customer about those tradeoffs affects how they are made. You go to the supermarket and they have to post unit prices so you can compare, although this is gamed as much as possible. But you go and look at shoes, and you can only guess whether the $100 pair is going to last proportionally longer than the $80 pair. Some things, like tires and cars, you can get information from others experience and testing about lifespan, but even so, there is still a segment of the market that buys the poor quality products which is being deceived in the sense that they might well choose differently if it was thrown in their face how they are being screwed.

nerdponx 7y ago

You're talking about 2 different things. The implication with "planned obsolecence" here is that the device becomes nonfunctional or less-functional because the manufacturer simply designed it to fail after a while. See for example the Phoebus Cartel, who actually fined manufacturers who made lightbulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours.

rumanator 7y ago
> because the manufacturer simply designed it to fail after a while. You're missing the whole point. Everything fails after a while. Everything. It's the engineer's job to ensure that it fails only after X amount of use, which can be expressed in time of normal usage. There are no time bombs, only the fact that designers picked a small service life.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  The point is not that tradeoffs are inherently unethical, it's that in practice, deceiving the customer about those tradeoffs affects how they are made. You go to the supermarket and they have to post unit prices so you can compare, although this is gamed as much as possible. But you go and look at shoes, and you can only guess whether the $100 pair is going to last proportionally longer than the $80 pair. Some things, like tires and cars, you can get information from others experience and testing about lifespan, but even so, there is still a segment of the market that buys the poor quality products which is being deceived in the sense that they might well choose differently if it was thrown in their face how they are being screwed.