> It's pointless to design a component to outlast a device's useful lifespan by a decade. No it is not because it can be reused in the assembly of another devi

> It's pointless to design a component to outlast a device's useful lifespan by a decade. No it is not because it can be reused in the assembly of another device. This is not commercially incentivizing though. Think of a car, if EV motors are build to last 100 years then it would make sense for the manufacturer to buy back used EVs and reuse the component, no? Even if it would be commercially more expensive it should make sense because otherwise those components go to the landfill. > anyone can build a bridge that stands, but it takes a good engineer to design a bridge that barely stands This analogy does not fit the current climate of consumables because bridges are built to survive a long time, they are not built for 5 years. The "bridge that barely stands" emphasizes the minimum amount of materials to use to achieve the goal - to make sure it stands for a long time. Consumer items do that already, use the minimum amount of materials but do not make sure their creations live for more than a couple of years - inverse to the analogy.