4 ms·
Yes, it's stretching the definition. The fact that consumers are buying plenty of things that will wear out soon is not evidence of planned obsolescence. It is
by olalonde 4y ago
Yes, it's stretching the definition. The fact that consumers are buying plenty of things that will wear out soon is not evidence of planned obsolescence. It is evidence that consumers prefer those products over those that last longer (probably because they are cheaper).
- Eupraxias 4y agoYou're assuming that the intelligence of a consumer of well designed products is at parity with that of a consumer of cheap products. You're also assuming that the critical mass of people have enough money to choose.
- olalonde 4y agoNo, I'm not making those assumptions. Can you elaborate?
- Eupraxias 4y agoI'm just taking issue with the word "prefer". Do people really prefer cheaper things? Often people can only afford cheaper things, and don't prefer them over well-built things. I buy cheap things and often would prefer a more expensive thing. I can further unravel the logic of my two statements if you prefer, but it's probably annoying.
- olalonde 4y agoYou are right, I was not using the colloquial sense of the word. I was using it to mean what people choose to purchase under price/budget constraints[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference