5 ms·

Wouldn't planned obsolescence actually speed up tech progress? Old things lasting forever are taking places for new things.

gtsop 5y ago
My thought was that it is a waste of resources: - R&D resources towards making things last less instead of more - If you are a technologist/researcher and you have to constantly pay for more equipment then it is harder to spend those funds in research. Also, I wouldn't agree much with the argument that new things take up space from new things. New and old can co-exist, the issue is that you are buying the same tech over and over again slightly revamped
teddyh 5y ago
Planned obsolescence increases products being bought and sold, but I would guess that it actually decreases innovation, since customers (of a product which breaks or stops being supported) are going to need a new product no matter what – innovation will not increase their need, so innovation is not necessary.
- maximus-decimus 5y ago
  you might not "need" it, but sellers need to innovate to beat their competition.
  - chii 5y ago
    > sellers need to innovate to beat their competition they would still need to innovate to beat the competition. But if there is no planned obsolescence, then their competition includes their old products as well, so it guarantees that there's at least one competitive option. Therefore, i argue that planned obsolescence is removing competition.
throw8383833jj 5y ago
the washing machine and drier we just purchased was much worse than the older model, this was due to planned obsolescene would be my guess. the salesman was quite honest about it: "they don't build em like they used to, nowadays they only last about 8 years". the older models could last more than 10 or even 20 years. this newer model wasn't better in any way that i could appreciate. sure it had a bunch of useless apps attached to it and the brochure was filled to the brim with lists of shiny technologies, that didn't make a ounce of difference in the power usage or water use (at least not compared to our 10 year old model). Driers haven't improved in power usage at all in the last 30 years.
t0suj4 5y ago
I think that planned obsolescence would absolutely slow down tech progress. A washing machine manufacturer has little incentive to make his product better when he knows that his customers will keep buying his washing machines anyway. Creating "new" models could be as easy as giving the thing different paint job. It then makes difficult to sell, for example, graphics cards because customers that wanted to buy a card now have to buy a washing machine because it unexpectedly broken down and may then resort to buy cheaper model from competition. The manufacturer will end up with less money to pour into R&D. I wrote this with the assumption that the washing machine company shares their market with competitors employing the same strategy, entrance to the market is extremely hard because dominant players own the patents which require huge up-front investment with uncertain results due to the rivals' strong market position.

gtsop 5y ago

My thought was that it is a waste of resources: - R&D resources towards making things last less instead of more - If you are a technologist/researcher and you have to constantly pay for more equipment then it is harder to spend those funds in research. Also, I wouldn't agree much with the argument that new things take up space from new things. New and old can co-exist, the issue is that you are buying the same tech over and over again slightly revamped

teddyh 5y ago

Planned obsolescence increases products being bought and sold, but I would guess that it actually decreases innovation, since customers (of a product which breaks or stops being supported) are going to need a new product no matter what – innovation will not increase their need, so innovation is not necessary.

maximus-decimus 5y ago
you might not "need" it, but sellers need to innovate to beat their competition.
- chii 5y ago
  > sellers need to innovate to beat their competition they would still need to innovate to beat the competition. But if there is no planned obsolescence, then their competition includes their old products as well, so it guarantees that there's at least one competitive option. Therefore, i argue that planned obsolescence is removing competition.

throw8383833jj 5y ago

the washing machine and drier we just purchased was much worse than the older model, this was due to planned obsolescene would be my guess. the salesman was quite honest about it: "they don't build em like they used to, nowadays they only last about 8 years". the older models could last more than 10 or even 20 years. this newer model wasn't better in any way that i could appreciate. sure it had a bunch of useless apps attached to it and the brochure was filled to the brim with lists of shiny technologies, that didn't make a ounce of difference in the power usage or water use (at least not compared to our 10 year old model). Driers haven't improved in power usage at all in the last 30 years.

t0suj4 5y ago

I think that planned obsolescence would absolutely slow down tech progress. A washing machine manufacturer has little incentive to make his product better when he knows that his customers will keep buying his washing machines anyway. Creating "new" models could be as easy as giving the thing different paint job. It then makes difficult to sell, for example, graphics cards because customers that wanted to buy a card now have to buy a washing machine because it unexpectedly broken down and may then resort to buy cheaper model from competition. The manufacturer will end up with less money to pour into R&D. I wrote this with the assumption that the washing machine company shares their market with competitors employing the same strategy, entrance to the market is extremely hard because dominant players own the patents which require huge up-front investment with uncertain results due to the rivals' strong market position.