3 ms·

Planned obsolescence in the modern day is a real problem rather than a meme of course. There is no insurmountable physics at play when a phone stops receiving s

Planned obsolescence in the modern day is a real problem rather than a meme of course. There is no insurmountable physics at play when a phone stops receiving security updates. I wonder if anyone has actually looked into what the real first instance of planned obsolescence was.

masklinn 3y ago
> There is no insurmountable physics at play when a phone stops receiving security updates. There is the “insurmountable physics” problem of needing to spend money on something perceived as having no ROI worth speaking about (if it’s even positive). This is what most “planned obsolescence in the modern day” is about, not spending money you don’t absolutely have to. The precision of modern manufacturing and the progress of material science similarly allows very low tolerances, because you don’t need to account for anywhere near as much manufacturing variance. Therefore you can hew much closer to what you need to provide, and lower your costs as a result. An other factor is the market cycling, why would you design a phone to last for 10 years when pretty much none of your target market will keep the phone 3, and it will net you no brand loyalty whatsoever? Finally there’s time to market, pretty much all foldable phones seem to suffer from cracking or delamination, because it’s a super popular idea which commands a huge premium, so as soon as that was an option manufacturers started releasing device with limited real-world durability testing.
- armada651 3y ago
  You've perfectly summarized why the only way we'll reduce e-waste is by introducing legislation that requires our electronic products last longer. This is exactly why the issue of planned obsolescence can't be left up to the market: making short-lifespan products presents a better ROI. Some may argue that this would stifle innovation and we would likely not have foldable phones today if such requirements were in place. But in my opinion if such innovations can't be made durable, then the world would be better off without them.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    You've perfectly summarized why the only way we'll reduce e-waste is by introducing legislation that requires our electronic products last longer. Well, that would be one way to reduce e-waste: make phones so expensive that a lot fewer people buy them. Because whereas before that test matrix had five phones, but legislation increased that to seven, including two that can't run the latest OS so we have to back port the fixes to the previous OS. None of that is free, in fact, it's quite expensive. Beside, how many people do you know that base their phone buying decisions on whether or not their current one is still supported? Of the folks I know, no one does that (granted, I live in Redmond, WA, which has some techy types living in the area). They just buy a new one when they are tired of their old one, or they have New Phone Fever.
kube-system 3y ago
Even in the modern day, it is (often, but not always) a meme. The reason your phone stops getting security updates isn't physics but the economics of selling phones. People buy new phones, not old phones, and OEMs allocate their labor to work on those phones. There is no conspiracy to force you to upgrade. If you could somehow release an HTC Hero today with Android 13.0.0_r66 on it, it wouldn't be a viable business. People don't make purchasing decisions based on security updates.
lapetitejort 3y ago
> I wonder if anyone has actually looked into what the real first instance of planned obsolescence was. I would love to see a short comic about a smith who creates swords out of gallium for cheap, only for them to literally melt in your hand shortly after walking away.

masklinn 3y ago

> There is no insurmountable physics at play when a phone stops receiving security updates. There is the “insurmountable physics” problem of needing to spend money on something perceived as having no ROI worth speaking about (if it’s even positive). This is what most “planned obsolescence in the modern day” is about, not spending money you don’t absolutely have to. The precision of modern manufacturing and the progress of material science similarly allows very low tolerances, because you don’t need to account for anywhere near as much manufacturing variance. Therefore you can hew much closer to what you need to provide, and lower your costs as a result. An other factor is the market cycling, why would you design a phone to last for 10 years when pretty much none of your target market will keep the phone 3, and it will net you no brand loyalty whatsoever? Finally there’s time to market, pretty much all foldable phones seem to suffer from cracking or delamination, because it’s a super popular idea which commands a huge premium, so as soon as that was an option manufacturers started releasing device with limited real-world durability testing.

armada651 3y ago
You've perfectly summarized why the only way we'll reduce e-waste is by introducing legislation that requires our electronic products last longer. This is exactly why the issue of planned obsolescence can't be left up to the market: making short-lifespan products presents a better ROI. Some may argue that this would stifle innovation and we would likely not have foldable phones today if such requirements were in place. But in my opinion if such innovations can't be made durable, then the world would be better off without them.
- mikestew 3y ago
  You've perfectly summarized why the only way we'll reduce e-waste is by introducing legislation that requires our electronic products last longer. Well, that would be one way to reduce e-waste: make phones so expensive that a lot fewer people buy them. Because whereas before that test matrix had five phones, but legislation increased that to seven, including two that can't run the latest OS so we have to back port the fixes to the previous OS. None of that is free, in fact, it's quite expensive. Beside, how many people do you know that base their phone buying decisions on whether or not their current one is still supported? Of the folks I know, no one does that (granted, I live in Redmond, WA, which has some techy types living in the area). They just buy a new one when they are tired of their old one, or they have New Phone Fever.

kube-system 3y ago

Even in the modern day, it is (often, but not always) a meme. The reason your phone stops getting security updates isn't physics but the economics of selling phones. People buy new phones, not old phones, and OEMs allocate their labor to work on those phones. There is no conspiracy to force you to upgrade. If you could somehow release an HTC Hero today with Android 13.0.0_r66 on it, it wouldn't be a viable business. People don't make purchasing decisions based on security updates.

lapetitejort 3y ago

> I wonder if anyone has actually looked into what the real first instance of planned obsolescence was. I would love to see a short comic about a smith who creates swords out of gallium for cheap, only for them to literally melt in your hand shortly after walking away.