4 ms·

With sufficient competition, the incentives of companies would change if consumers would be willing to rent instead of owning products. Then planned obsolescenc

With sufficient competition, the incentives of companies would change if consumers would be willing to rent instead of owning products. Then planned obsolescence is not to their benefit.

alansaber 19d ago
...some kind of subscription as a service model? looks up dramatically
Devasta 19d ago
Why would planned obsolescence not be to their benefit in a world where things are rented? You still renting the old Xbox? Try renting this new Xbox instead, the verification cans come in additional flavors!
- daveoc64 19d ago
  That would apply more to things like a washing machine or microwave - things that don't become obsolete quickly.
matsemann 19d ago
I do think our consumer rights in Norway help a bit on this (the article is a page to the consumer agency here). We have 5 years mandated "warranty" on almost all purchases. Which means selling a cheap blender that breaks after two years, you as a shop/producer/importer have to eat the cost to provide a new one if it happens. Which means that the chance of something breaking becomes priced in, so you can't really get away with selling something flimsy a bit cheaper to trick the consumer.
- stabbles 19d ago
  5 years is great, but I'm sure in Norway they advertise "no flip" / "no turn" / "single-sided" mattresses as a feature too ;)
Saline9515 19d ago
Most cars are rented nowadays and they are less durable than ever. It's better for the manufacturer to lease and then get you to upgrade periodically to keep you as a novelty-seeking consumer. Long warranty is better as there is no other incentive who has to pay if the product breaks down. Cars should have a 7 years warranty by default for instance.
- loloquwowndueo 19d ago
  Aren’t newer cars more reliable than older ones? Back in the day it was a feat to get a 200000 km car and these days it’s like not that big a deal. I wouldn’t really know, I’ve only used car share for the past 10 years shrug
  - mschuster91 19d ago
    well, if you religiously maintain the car, it was easy even back then. The dirty secret is keeping rust out of the car - in the winter, regularly wash it to avoid salt ingress, and generally store it in a dry (both physical and humidity) garage, to routinely change engine and transmission fluids and to only run good quality fuel. Oh, and don't subject your car to constant short start-stop cycles (i.e. drives of less than half an hour), warm up the car prior flooring the gas pedal on a highway, and for turbocharged cars, take it easy on the last 5 minutes so the hot side of the turbo can cool down. Ignoring any of that can kill modern cars just as fast as it could kill old cars. Even electrical cars need their love - don't always go for the HVDC charger, use trickle AC chargers instead whenever you can, and look what needs lubrication and maintain that (e.g. transmissions).
    - loloquwowndueo 19d ago
      > Oh, and don't subject your car to constant short start-stop cycles (i.e. drives of less than half an hour) So if my commute is only 20 minutes I shouldn’t own a car? :)
      - mschuster91 19d ago
mathgeek 19d ago
Planned obsolescence is absolutely to the benefit of corporations if those goods are being rented. Non-durable goods are inherently profitable to rent out at above the cost of outright ownership, because then the companies involved can double dip on the consumers paying the costs of producing the good as well as claiming depreciation on the good the company still technically owns. It's a similar concept to why owning durable goods and renting them out to consumers is so viable. I imagine you're looking at it from the avenue of "if those goods last longer, they can be rented for longer", but having to manage and store more durable goods after consumers have moved on to newer and better things is a considerable cost. A good that has to be returned is often better discarded, from the company's point of view.

With sufficient competition, the incentives of companies would change if consumers would be willing to rent instead of owning products. Then planned obsolescence is not to their benefit.

alansaber 19d ago

...some kind of subscription as a service model? looks up dramatically

Devasta 19d ago

Why would planned obsolescence not be to their benefit in a world where things are rented? You still renting the old Xbox? Try renting this new Xbox instead, the verification cans come in additional flavors!

daveoc64 19d ago
That would apply more to things like a washing machine or microwave - things that don't become obsolete quickly.

matsemann 19d ago

I do think our consumer rights in Norway help a bit on this (the article is a page to the consumer agency here). We have 5 years mandated "warranty" on almost all purchases. Which means selling a cheap blender that breaks after two years, you as a shop/producer/importer have to eat the cost to provide a new one if it happens. Which means that the chance of something breaking becomes priced in, so you can't really get away with selling something flimsy a bit cheaper to trick the consumer.

stabbles 19d ago
5 years is great, but I'm sure in Norway they advertise "no flip" / "no turn" / "single-sided" mattresses as a feature too ;)

Saline9515 19d ago

Most cars are rented nowadays and they are less durable than ever. It's better for the manufacturer to lease and then get you to upgrade periodically to keep you as a novelty-seeking consumer. Long warranty is better as there is no other incentive who has to pay if the product breaks down. Cars should have a 7 years warranty by default for instance.

loloquwowndueo 19d ago
Aren’t newer cars more reliable than older ones? Back in the day it was a feat to get a 200000 km car and these days it’s like not that big a deal. I wouldn’t really know, I’ve only used car share for the past 10 years shrug
- mschuster91 19d ago
  well, if you religiously maintain the car, it was easy even back then. The dirty secret is keeping rust out of the car - in the winter, regularly wash it to avoid salt ingress, and generally store it in a dry (both physical and humidity) garage, to routinely change engine and transmission fluids and to only run good quality fuel. Oh, and don't subject your car to constant short start-stop cycles (i.e. drives of less than half an hour), warm up the car prior flooring the gas pedal on a highway, and for turbocharged cars, take it easy on the last 5 minutes so the hot side of the turbo can cool down. Ignoring any of that can kill modern cars just as fast as it could kill old cars. Even electrical cars need their love - don't always go for the HVDC charger, use trickle AC chargers instead whenever you can, and look what needs lubrication and maintain that (e.g. transmissions).
  - loloquwowndueo 19d ago
    > Oh, and don't subject your car to constant short start-stop cycles (i.e. drives of less than half an hour) So if my commute is only 20 minutes I shouldn’t own a car? :)
    - mschuster91 19d ago

mathgeek 19d ago

Planned obsolescence is absolutely to the benefit of corporations if those goods are being rented. Non-durable goods are inherently profitable to rent out at above the cost of outright ownership, because then the companies involved can double dip on the consumers paying the costs of producing the good as well as claiming depreciation on the good the company still technically owns. It's a similar concept to why owning durable goods and renting them out to consumers is so viable. I imagine you're looking at it from the avenue of "if those goods last longer, they can be rented for longer", but having to manage and store more durable goods after consumers have moved on to newer and better things is a considerable cost. A good that has to be returned is often better discarded, from the company's point of view.