4 ms·

There is a big difference between planned obsolescence and support periods. As long as a device can be repaired by the owner as much as practical and allows af

There is a big difference between planned obsolescence and support periods. As long as a device can be repaired by the owner as much as practical and allows aftermarket operating systems or software to be installed on it, I don't see why a company should have unlimited liability for something they sold. If they made it so you are dependent on them though, then yeah, they should remain responsible.

devjab 3y ago
You have a good point. It took some consideration for me to use the term “planned obsolescence” because it really is a different and more nefarious thing. Like the ink printers who would squirt excess print into a sponge and then stop working when they had done it x amount of times, which could be fixed by resetting the count. I couldn’t come up with a better term for it though. Maybe planned abandonment? In either case the result is sort of similar on an enterprise level. Like here in Denmark we buy Chromebooks for school and use a lot of Google education, and while you can certainly have some privacy debates about that (and we have), the prospect of non-updated software is a different issue. EOL devices are replaced in those enterprise settings because of the security risk and the support burden they pose. In theory you could do things about it, but they are operated by IT departments of maybe 3 techies who also support all the other devices for the 5000+ employees in a municipality so it’s almost always cheaper to simply replace the devices. In the past this often made sense because the hardware was so old it couldn’t really run “new things”. It might even make sense for Chromebooks that are 7 year olds here in 2023, but it probably won’t make sense the next time. I don’t think the practice of Google will change voluntarily, so to me it sort of becomes “planned obsolescence” even though it’s not exactly the same thing as there is total transparency with the EOL on software updates. But you’re right, it’s not the same.
- glimshe 3y ago
  Windows and even macOS have longer support periods, so the market is already taking care of the problem. Google is notorious for short support periods (aren't Pixel phones supported for only 3 years?), so why is the government buying Chromebooks for schools without mandating longer support terms? Also, as the parent said, as long as you can "jailbreak" your device and install anything you want, support periods are simply a competitive advantage.
  - devjab 3y ago
    > so why is the government buying Chromebooks for schools without mandating longer support terms? Having spent a decade in politically led organisations I wouldn't personally rely on them for long term planing. I still remember when our analysis team went before the elected officials and told them that if our citizenship increased from 50.000 to 60.000 then they would likely need bigger schools in 5-10 years because 90% of the people moving to our city were young families. Increasing our citizenship to 70.000 was part of the priorities from basically every political party, they even paid the top management bonuses if this was achieved. But the schools were never expanded. Then 5-10 years later when there weren't enough room in the schools and the parents started operating their own "free schools" (basically the same as public schools but more expensive for the city), the politicians spent 6 months trying to find someone within the administration to blame for not warning them that this would happen. So the easy answer is that they bought them because they thought they were cheap.
  - daveoc64 3y ago
    >aren't Pixel phones supported for only 3 years? Pixel 6 and later get 3 years of OS feature updates, and a further 2 years of security updates (5 years in total).
    - Lapha 3y ago
      This change is likely only due to anticipation of a proposed EU law that would require 3+2 years of support, the Pixel 5a released in 2021 will only get 3 years of support, including security updates, and every single Pixel and Nexus phone that has been discontinued has had <= 3 years of support. For comparison, all but the first 2 iPhones have received 4-5 years of support with the iPhone 6S being the oldest iPhone still receiving support almost 8 years later. Android has been a complete joke when it comes to software support for older hardware, it's almost sad that it took proposed legislative pressure to change this.
- chongli 3y ago
  Like the ink printers who would squirt excess print into a sponge and then stop working when they had done it x amount of times, which could be fixed by resetting the count. Inkjet printers are a fatally flawed technology for occasional printing (the vast majority of home printing needs). They really should be relegated to commercial printing only. Ink dries up, makes a sticky mess, and clogs the very tiny nozzles of the print head. People who buy inkjet printers and then only print once a month or less are basically buying something they can only print with a handful of times ever before the machine needs service. These people would be way better served by laser printers which are far more serviceable, durable, and completely amenable to occasional printing (no liquids to dry up)!
  - Etherlord87 3y ago
    I bought the cheapest HP printer a few years ago. As every HP printer I ever tested, it has problems with the paper feed (grabs multiple pages at once or, usually, can't grab any at all). However, in regards to the printing heads, no problems for years, and I had probably over 10 one-month pauses between printing. Meaning, you're just wrong, inkjet printers aren't nearly as unreliable as you portray them.
fauigerzigerk 3y ago
Whether or not it is planned obsolescence is not a technical question but one of intention. If shorter support periods were motivated by an expectation that customers would feel forced to buy new hardware rather than launching into a complex Linux migration, then that would be planned obsolescence. But I think it's not that simple. Limited support periods can always be justified by pointing to difficulties further upstream along the supply chain and to the fact that longer support periods cause degraded security and higher cost. You could still argue that putting more regulatory pressure on hardware makers and platforms would indirectly lead to longer support periods throughout the industry. On the other hand, you'd have to ask why consumers are not creating this pressure themselves. Has the market converged to a steady state where consumers no longer have a choice? If that was the case I would be all for regulation to create choice. We should be under no illusion though that longer support periods come at a cost. If longer support is mandated by regulators then everyone will have to pay more. If we leave it to consumers then only those who value longer support will pay for it. Buying the cheapest hardware possible and then petitioning vendors to fund longer support periods does not seem like a solution to me. We have to make up our minds on whether using hardware for longer is for the common good and we all carry the costs, or if it is a feature of some products but not others and those who value it have to pay up.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Whether or not it is planned obsolescence is not a technical question but one of intention. intention is basically impossible to prove. The impact/effect of planned obsolescence isn't. > On the other hand, you'd have to ask why consumers are not creating this pressure themselves. Has the market converged to a steady state where consumers no longer have a choice? It often seems that way. Sometimes it will be more profitable to refuse to provide consumers with what they want.
wslh 3y ago
One basic idea that came from this thread is to Google to promote and help an event to receive the Chromebooks and install Linux, ChromeOS Flex, whatever, in the day. I think the core problem is not just absolescence but communication. With great power comes great responsability and many times we see the same laws should apply for normal companies and cash cows. This is basically the consumer laws goal.
vouaobrasil 3y ago
> As long as a device can be repaired by the owner as much as practical and allows aftermarket operating systems or software to be installed on it, I don't see why a company should have unlimited liability for something they sold. Unfortunately, most people cannot support devices themselves, even though many of us here can. I do believe a company should have unlimited liability for something they made: why not? At least for 15 years. Most electronics break then so the company should have the responsibility of recycling it should the consumer send back a broken one. This would reduce the environmental impact of electronic devices and make developing new technology less profitable, which is a good thing.

devjab 3y ago

You have a good point. It took some consideration for me to use the term “planned obsolescence” because it really is a different and more nefarious thing. Like the ink printers who would squirt excess print into a sponge and then stop working when they had done it x amount of times, which could be fixed by resetting the count. I couldn’t come up with a better term for it though. Maybe planned abandonment? In either case the result is sort of similar on an enterprise level. Like here in Denmark we buy Chromebooks for school and use a lot of Google education, and while you can certainly have some privacy debates about that (and we have), the prospect of non-updated software is a different issue. EOL devices are replaced in those enterprise settings because of the security risk and the support burden they pose. In theory you could do things about it, but they are operated by IT departments of maybe 3 techies who also support all the other devices for the 5000+ employees in a municipality so it’s almost always cheaper to simply replace the devices. In the past this often made sense because the hardware was so old it couldn’t really run “new things”. It might even make sense for Chromebooks that are 7 year olds here in 2023, but it probably won’t make sense the next time. I don’t think the practice of Google will change voluntarily, so to me it sort of becomes “planned obsolescence” even though it’s not exactly the same thing as there is total transparency with the EOL on software updates. But you’re right, it’s not the same.

glimshe 3y ago
Windows and even macOS have longer support periods, so the market is already taking care of the problem. Google is notorious for short support periods (aren't Pixel phones supported for only 3 years?), so why is the government buying Chromebooks for schools without mandating longer support terms? Also, as the parent said, as long as you can "jailbreak" your device and install anything you want, support periods are simply a competitive advantage.
- devjab 3y ago
  > so why is the government buying Chromebooks for schools without mandating longer support terms? Having spent a decade in politically led organisations I wouldn't personally rely on them for long term planing. I still remember when our analysis team went before the elected officials and told them that if our citizenship increased from 50.000 to 60.000 then they would likely need bigger schools in 5-10 years because 90% of the people moving to our city were young families. Increasing our citizenship to 70.000 was part of the priorities from basically every political party, they even paid the top management bonuses if this was achieved. But the schools were never expanded. Then 5-10 years later when there weren't enough room in the schools and the parents started operating their own "free schools" (basically the same as public schools but more expensive for the city), the politicians spent 6 months trying to find someone within the administration to blame for not warning them that this would happen. So the easy answer is that they bought them because they thought they were cheap.
- daveoc64 3y ago
  >aren't Pixel phones supported for only 3 years? Pixel 6 and later get 3 years of OS feature updates, and a further 2 years of security updates (5 years in total).
  - Lapha 3y ago
    This change is likely only due to anticipation of a proposed EU law that would require 3+2 years of support, the Pixel 5a released in 2021 will only get 3 years of support, including security updates, and every single Pixel and Nexus phone that has been discontinued has had <= 3 years of support. For comparison, all but the first 2 iPhones have received 4-5 years of support with the iPhone 6S being the oldest iPhone still receiving support almost 8 years later. Android has been a complete joke when it comes to software support for older hardware, it's almost sad that it took proposed legislative pressure to change this.
chongli 3y ago
Like the ink printers who would squirt excess print into a sponge and then stop working when they had done it x amount of times, which could be fixed by resetting the count. Inkjet printers are a fatally flawed technology for occasional printing (the vast majority of home printing needs). They really should be relegated to commercial printing only. Ink dries up, makes a sticky mess, and clogs the very tiny nozzles of the print head. People who buy inkjet printers and then only print once a month or less are basically buying something they can only print with a handful of times ever before the machine needs service. These people would be way better served by laser printers which are far more serviceable, durable, and completely amenable to occasional printing (no liquids to dry up)!
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  I bought the cheapest HP printer a few years ago. As every HP printer I ever tested, it has problems with the paper feed (grabs multiple pages at once or, usually, can't grab any at all). However, in regards to the printing heads, no problems for years, and I had probably over 10 one-month pauses between printing. Meaning, you're just wrong, inkjet printers aren't nearly as unreliable as you portray them.

fauigerzigerk 3y ago

Whether or not it is planned obsolescence is not a technical question but one of intention. If shorter support periods were motivated by an expectation that customers would feel forced to buy new hardware rather than launching into a complex Linux migration, then that would be planned obsolescence. But I think it's not that simple. Limited support periods can always be justified by pointing to difficulties further upstream along the supply chain and to the fact that longer support periods cause degraded security and higher cost. You could still argue that putting more regulatory pressure on hardware makers and platforms would indirectly lead to longer support periods throughout the industry. On the other hand, you'd have to ask why consumers are not creating this pressure themselves. Has the market converged to a steady state where consumers no longer have a choice? If that was the case I would be all for regulation to create choice. We should be under no illusion though that longer support periods come at a cost. If longer support is mandated by regulators then everyone will have to pay more. If we leave it to consumers then only those who value longer support will pay for it. Buying the cheapest hardware possible and then petitioning vendors to fund longer support periods does not seem like a solution to me. We have to make up our minds on whether using hardware for longer is for the common good and we all carry the costs, or if it is a feature of some products but not others and those who value it have to pay up.

autoexec 3y ago
> Whether or not it is planned obsolescence is not a technical question but one of intention. intention is basically impossible to prove. The impact/effect of planned obsolescence isn't. > On the other hand, you'd have to ask why consumers are not creating this pressure themselves. Has the market converged to a steady state where consumers no longer have a choice? It often seems that way. Sometimes it will be more profitable to refuse to provide consumers with what they want.

wslh 3y ago

One basic idea that came from this thread is to Google to promote and help an event to receive the Chromebooks and install Linux, ChromeOS Flex, whatever, in the day. I think the core problem is not just absolescence but communication. With great power comes great responsability and many times we see the same laws should apply for normal companies and cash cows. This is basically the consumer laws goal.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

> As long as a device can be repaired by the owner as much as practical and allows aftermarket operating systems or software to be installed on it, I don't see why a company should have unlimited liability for something they sold. Unfortunately, most people cannot support devices themselves, even though many of us here can. I do believe a company should have unlimited liability for something they made: why not? At least for 15 years. Most electronics break then so the company should have the responsibility of recycling it should the consumer send back a broken one. This would reduce the environmental impact of electronic devices and make developing new technology less profitable, which is a good thing.