In my years in PD, I never saw intentional product obsolescence. Instead, I saw a lot of targets based on use metrics, i.e. design for this many years, exposure

In my years in PD, I never saw intentional product obsolescence. Instead, I saw a lot of targets based on use metrics, i.e. design for this many years, exposure, etc. The problem is testing - you can't actually test for time in real time. Instead, we try to develop elaborate accelerated testing schemes that try to closely capture consumer intent. The problems with accelerated testing schemes are four fold: 1) They're a relative benchmark. They don't represent how the product will perform in absolute terms, only how it will do in this standardized bench test against other products. 2) They might miss some things that are coupled together that don't fully get felt out until you're over longer periods of time. 3) They're imperfect if the use cases for a consumer product will be complex. An easy example is a car. Auto OEMs will try their best with their standardized accelerated testing scheduled for durability, corrosion, etc -> but the consumer will always end up doing shit that is totally reasonable but not in the accelerated testing scheme )or under provisioned). 4) For complex products, a lot of accelerated testing might happen on only a subsystem level and may not fully map to the final product. Although these downsides are real, accelerated testing is still great and, with good planning and experience, can catch a lot of problems.. but it tends to always miss something and the above 4 points can synergistically work together to make a "design big" more obvious when in the field/hands of the customers!