11 ms·

Isn’t the underlying issue planned obsolescence as a business model? It’s anti-consumer and anti-environment, and maybe we shouldn’t incentivize it as a planet.

• zepto 5y ago
  The problem is that planned obsolescence is not in fact everyone’s business model. Apple’s penetration into the US market is not because the iPhone matches Android in terms of sales, it’s because iPhones last longer and get handed down or resold. Apple literally continues to sell years old devices. That isn’t planned obsolescence. A really simple step in the right direction would be mandated labeling showing how many years of software updates the device will get and statistical expected lifetime.
  • fsflover 5y ago
    > That isn’t planned obsolescence. Yes, it is. Even though Apple devices last longer, after the support is ended, I cannot do anything with them. I cannot update, install anything. They effectively become bricks. If this is not planned obsolescence, then what is?
    • ska 5y ago
      It's only planned obsolescence if the lifetime of a product is artificially shortened by design choices. It's not clear this applies here.
      • fsflover 5y ago
        I would say it is artificially shortened by design choices. It is a perfectly capable device, the harware is still fast and secure. However, I am just not allowed to fix the software, even if I have enough resources for that. This is exactly why we need free software.
        • ska 5y ago
          > I would say it is artificially shortened by design choices. The design choices have to be made to artificially shorten the life, not for any other purpose. For example, I can make a device cheaper and use cheaper materials that wear out faster - that's not planned obsolescence. However if I include a little plastic tab that I know will break before everything else for no good reason other than making it break faster - that is. I suspect you'll have a hard time arguing compellingly that the purpose of apples closed update system was to shorten the useful life, rather than as a side effect of other product and design goals. Phones are sort of a bad example, because for a long time the replacement cycle was driven by actual technical obsolescence, arguably only relatively recently has this ceased to be the case.
          • fsflover 5y ago
            > the purpopse of apples closed update system was to shorten the useful life, rather than as a side effect of other product and design goals So what is the reason to prevent updates of software after the support is over? This is a classical software anti-feature.
            • ska 5y ago
              I suspect the main driver was consistency of experience. Obviously they didn't always nail this.
            • google234123 5y ago
              IT's a ton of work to make and push updates.
              • fsflover 5y ago
                I am not speaking about making updates. I am speaking about preventing users from making them.
                • zepto 5y ago
      • splix 5y ago
        I cannot replace a battery on a perfectly working iPad otherwise, and Apple is charging almost a price of a new device to replace it for me, i.e. they are basially forcing me to buy a new one. Wondering, can that be called a planned obsolescence or not?
        • Karunamon 5y ago
          If we're talking about an unsupported devices, aren't the downsides of third party repairs basically moot? There are any number of above-board companies that you can ship your device to and will do a battery swap for you so long as batteries are available.
          • splix 5y ago
            Yeah, that's what I did. Found an unofficial repair and replaced the battery for less that $100. Anyway, I don't think it should be so hard to replace a battery. And I still remember times when I was able to replace battery manually at home.
            • ska 5y ago
              > And I still remember times when I was able to replace battery manually at home. This is definitely an issue, but it's not the same issue as planned obsolescence.
              • fsflover 5y ago
                Why is it not the same issue? By preventing the users to replace the battery, you force them to buy a new device after a couple of years.
                • ska 5y ago
                  > Why is it not the same issue? Because the design choices are pretty easily argued to have been made for reasons other than reducing user access, but have the side effect of reducing user access. Both size/weight constraints and case integrity drive you to the same sort of thing. To be clear, I think it's fine to call out a company for planned obsolescence, and I think it's fine to call them out for emphasizing size, etc. over user serviceability. I just don't think it's useful to pretend they are the same thing.
      • Der_Einzige 5y ago
        We know for a fact that Apple was artificially lowering their battery capacity, and that's most likely just the beginning. The PR speak about it being done to protect batteries is BS and we all know it. It incentivizes more purchasing. Much like how the GTA5 loading bug was never solved because it led to more advertisements for digital currency being forced upon one's eyes... Every update I get on my mac, or Iphone slows it down. Bloat and "protecting the users battery" are the root causes, and ultimately Apple is one of the best examples of a company "artificially shortening" things via design choices.
        • zepto 5y ago
          > We know for a fact that Apple was artificially lowering their battery capacity. This is completely false.
          • fsflover 5y ago
            Apple artificially decreased the performance (not lowered the battery), which is why they were fined.
            • zepto 5y ago
              Firstly, thanks for confirming that that the parent poster was posting a false statement. Secondly, as you must be aware, the reason Apple decreased the performance was to extend the useful lifetime of the battery. The fine was because they didn’t explain this properly in advance, not because they did it. They still in fact do alter the device performance to accommodate aging batteries and make them last longer. This is a really silly issue to raise if the argument is about Apple shortening lifetimes of devices or batteries, since it makes the device usable for longer.
              • fsflover 5y ago
                Imagine your phone with a still good working battery gets significantly slower "to extend the useful lifetime of the battery"...
      • shard 5y ago
        I'm going a little bit on a tangent here, and this may not apply so much to recent Apple phones, but Apple phones had planned obsolescence in terms of the design of their physical appearance such that you can tell almost instantly which generation it is. This allows broadcasting of status, that this person can afford the latest while that person can only afford to use a 2-year-old phone, thus artificially driving the upgrade cycle.
        • zepto 5y ago
          That isn’t planned obsolescence, because the people who upgrade for status reasons don’t destroy their phones - they either pass them on or trade them in. Arguably it’s the opposite of planned obsolescence - even used phones are not obsolete and are still in circulation. It’s also worth pointing out that this is Apple’s stated policy - they want phones to last longer so that more people have them and they can continue to sell services to them.
          • fsflover 5y ago
            > That isn’t planned obsolescence, because the people who upgrade for status reasons don’t destroy their phones This has nothing to do with the definition of planned obsolescence. It does not matter what people do with the old phones.
            • zepto 5y ago
              It obviously does. If the phones are still in service, then by definition they are not obsolete.
              • fsflover 5y ago
                Reread the thread. In this thread, the OP is speaking about design obsolescence.
                • zepto 5y ago
                  > Reread the thread. In this thread, the OP is speaking about design obsolescence. I don’t need to reread it. My response applies to design obsolescence. Relatively few people upgrade every year these days. The fact that the old devices are still desirable negates the idea that people don’t want them because they look outdated. I.e. changes in design are not causing people to stop using the devices. For design obsolescence to apply to Apple, workable devices would need to be retired from service early because they were no longer seen as desirable. That isn’t happening.
    • colejohnson66 5y ago
      Except they don’t become bricks. They still work just fine. In fact, on some more recent unsupported devices, you can still redownload apps (but only up to the latest version supporting your device). Did the Apple II become a brick when Apple stopped supporting them? The IBM PC? Why is an older iDevice a “brick”, but not BlackBerrys or Nokias?
      • fsflover 5y ago
        Security issues are found in browsers every day. You get no updates anymore and you are not allowed to update yourself. If you care about (not) leaking any of your data, this is effectively a brick.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • zepto 5y ago
          > They effectively become bricks. In other words this was complete bullshit. It’s true that older devices are less capable than newer ones, and you might not want to browse on an old device. But they aren’t bricks.
          • fsflover 5y ago
            > older devices are less capable than newer ones Understatement of the year concerning unsupported, insecure and (unreasonably) locked Apple devices.
            • zepto 5y ago
              Not really - I don’t expect a 7 year old device to be a good browser - that technology is a moving target, but I do expect it to still work as a notepad, music player, etc.
              • fsflover 5y ago
    • zepto 5y ago
      Which Apple device do you own that behaves like this? I have owned many and not one has become useless in this way, not has any I have every heard of.
  • KozmoNau7 5y ago
    It is planned obsolescence, because at some point I am artificially prevented from installing and running software and/or security updates. This is done by Apple only providing updates up to a certain point, and then keeping the platform locked down, while no longer providing updates. Any closed platform that becomes unsupported and stays locked down is made artificially obsolete. I can buy an original IBM PC, write my own software and run it with no limitations, despite it being an unsupported platform for several decades. See the famous 8088 MPH demo for an example of how much can still be done on an ancient platform, way beyond what was considered possible in its heyday. I can even write my own OS and run that. Remember that Linux was originally written by Linus Torvalds because there was no freely available Unix-like on x86, so he decided to write his own. I can't do that with an original iPhone. You can jailbreak it, but that's not a risk-free process and it still doesn't let you install your own OS or give you direct access to the hardware. Once a device no longer receives updates or official support, it should be opened for hobbyists to experiment with.
    • zepto 5y ago
      I disagree with the argument that there is any planned obsolescence going on. Lack of support is not the same thing. However this: > Once a device no longer receives updates or official support, it should be opened for hobbyists to experiment with. I agree with and I’d support legislation to that effect.
      • KozmoNau7 5y ago
        Apple completely cutting support for first-gen iPads is certainly planned/deliberate obsolescence. The hardware is fine, well-built and solid, probably still has 50% battery life left at this point. It's not the fastest device, but plenty fast for text and 2D graphics, plus some mild 3D. But Apple has cut off support, very few apps can run on the old version of iOS it is locked to, and there is no real way of installing a different OS or adding a third-party app store or sideloading apps. Even with a paid developer account, you're severely limited. That is actively killing off a device that could still be viable and usable to a lot of people, thus planned/deliberate obsolescence.
  • darren_ 5y ago
    > A really simple step in the right direction would be mandated labeling showing how many years of software updates the device will get and statistical expected lifetime. This isn't that simple because it depends on _which_ software. This gets glossed over a lot in these discussions. An iPhone gets ~5 years of iOS updates. Importantly, these updates are the only place where the only permitted web viewer on the platform gets updated. An android phone gets 2-3 years, if it's very lucky, of android updates. However, the _browser_ you use on that device is updated entirely independently of the OS, and while it isn't obvious how far back Chrome supports, android Firefox runs on android 5.0 devices (i.e. at least 7 years, probably more?) These are two different security scenarios - an iOS device is fully patched against OS-level exploits for longer. True. But an android device will have a safer browser for a lot longer. In my threat model the latter is a lot more important - I don't think I'm unusual in that my web browser is by far my largest attack surface. (disclaimer: i work at google, but i work on iOS stuff and like iOS a lot. more than android for sure. but i'm very salty that i can't have a browser updated independently from the OS)
    • zepto 5y ago
      That’s a fair point, but easily addressed. The base OS and Browser are arguably the two platforms on which software runs, and for which security updates are important. There could be 2 numbers. I realize there are other runtimes, but for a general indication for cross comparison this would do.
• rapht 5y ago
  Planned obsolescence != suboptimal life expectancy On the left hand, you make design choices with the goal of limiting the life expectancy of the product, and on the right hand, you just don't prioritise life expectancy over other considerations when making said choices. Of course the line is thin and the complexity of design trade-offs in all directions makes it pretty hard to pinpoint where evil actually happened... which is why the "right to repair" is so complicated in terms of hardware. Software though is another matter: no-one can claim it's "too difficult" or "too costly" to provide users with the information that will allow them to use their device with the software they want.