A platform for products with no planned obsolescence

Submitted by shanoshamanizum t3_11bgvlw in Futurology

Over the past 5 years we can notice aggressive planned obsolescence applied across pretty much all products. From an all-sealed non-repairable designs to software limitations it's visible even to the non-technical users.

We can differentiate two product cycles. Premium products with no planned obsolescence - higher price, less frequent change of device. Mainstream products - designed to be replaced frequently, lower price.

Ideas

  1. Initial price as low as mainstream. Users pay a fixed additional fee for each functioning year of the product thus reaching premium price if the products lasts longer.
  2. A marketplace where only products with no planned obsolescence are sold based on the above model

Would you switch to such a purchasing model as a user?

Would you switch to such a production model as a company?

104

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Surur t1_j9xtco5 wrote

Can you give us some concrete examples so we can have a better discussion about value, pros and cons?

37

GenoPax t1_j9xv1s7 wrote

Good question that completely went over his head.

22

Emotional-Wrangler75 t1_j9ym30x wrote

My grandmother's floor model television lasting 45 years, versus flat screen television built at the height of human technological development, lasts 5.

8

Surur t1_j9ymcyt wrote

> versus flat screen television built at the height of human technological development, lasts 5.

I wish it lasted 5 years, since then I would have a reason to replace it, but we know that is not really the case, is it. Flat screen TVs last ages.

15

robotatomica t1_ja2ejf9 wrote

yeah, I was considering a second tv for a workout space and measured my model, it was an odd size for Samsung - turns out my tv’s almost 10 years old. Still looks great!

2

PublicFurryAccount t1_j9zy4io wrote

Televisions were way more expensive back then, though, and advances in CRTs was really slow. So you needed it to last a long time to justify the purchase, even for a middle class family, and you could expect that it wouldn't really be behind newer televisions for many years because it took a long time for any significant changes to arrive.

1

mhornberger t1_ja3pzyu wrote

> Televisions were way more expensive back then, though, and advances in CRTs was really slow

Reddit generally has trouble accepting that a) prices have gone down, and 2) products have improved. We want stuff for dirt cheap but also think that if it wasn't for "greed" then things would last basically forever, like the survivorship-bias outlier examples of our relative's washing machine, refrigerator, or television.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xtrh1 wrote

Gladly just let me know what kind of examples do you need?

−16

Surur t1_j9xu57t wrote

Products with built-in obsolescence.

How those products can be changed.

17

Bierculles t1_j9yptap wrote

Coffee machines have a built in counter that turns them off after a set numbers of coffees. Officially it is for quality reasons but you can easily get twice as many coffees out of a machine withoput a drop in quality. You can reset the counters if you know how, it's not that hard.

6

Surur t1_j9yrtkb wrote

I think you need to name and shame.

8

Bierculles t1_j9yt4tx wrote

Oh broh, it's been a decade since then, i don't know if this is even a thing anymore. Sorry i do not remember, it was just a teacher of mine who showed us the trick on his coffee machine, no idea what brand it was, but certainly a cheap one.

3

PublicFurryAccount t1_j9zyw73 wrote

Searching around, it looks like it wasn't planned obsolescence but malfunctions in various sensors. This was pretty common a decade ago as "smart" was just starting; it was a slapped-on feature that wasn't engineered well.

1

Pecheuer t1_ja1vy6l wrote

No fucking way, I knew something happened to my machine.

Legit one day it just stopped working on me, I pulled it apart, put it back together, there was nothing wrong with it, it just stopped working. Fucking cunts

1

RideRunClimb t1_ja0h5ez wrote

My microwave is in the process of dying the exact same way as my previous one. The latches on the door slowly wear grooves into the plastic they run over to latch. At first the door starts sticking and won't close and open properly. Then it stops latching altogether and becomes unusable. Both microwaves were purchased from Costco, I don't remember if they're the same brand.

The fact that this has happened on two microwaves in less than 6 years makes me consider that it's planned obsolescence. Of course I will try to repair the latches myself, but this could easily have been avoided had they used metal or even a harder plastic. I'm sure that people in charge of these decisions are informed about how long the products are expected to last.

4

Surur t1_ja0mjev wrote

I understand microwaves have a finite life in any case due to slow deterioration of the mechanism which produces the microwaves.

The magetron has from 2000 to 8000 hrs of use.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xua32 wrote

It's all about the business model really and the bi-directional incentives for users and producers. The post is not really about how to make them but rather how to make companies make them.

Consider that companies make cheaper products because of decreasing income of population. They can still make everlasting products but they will cost a lot. So making it half price now and recurring payments based on usage incentives both sides.

−9

Initialised t1_j9xv3zy wrote

Those aren’t examples.

11

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xvfap wrote

I don't understand. I am not suggesting a product but rather a business model.

−7

Initialised t1_j9xy455 wrote

I can see that in your answers.

There are manufacturing trade offs between competing qualities: affordability, reliability, longevity, modularity, reparability, environmental resistance, recyclability. No one product can score highly in all areas so each has a balance of attributes and the legislation of the market it is sold in.

It’s not as binary as you suggest, most product segments are split into three regions on a sigmoid curve of quality as a function of price.

Budget, Mainstream and Premium.

To suggest that budget products have built in obsolescence by design vs premium is incorrect, they are built to a lower quality so will wear out quicker. Similarly a premium product may seem overpriced, especially in a rapidly evolving product like semiconductors. True value exists in the linear mainstream section where performance and quality goes up linearly with price. This spectrum exist for buyers too,

We already have leasing and subscription based services, Desktop as a Service, mobile phone contracts, vehicle subscriptions, rental properties. These make sense while a technology is evolving but less so for mature products like furniture where we don’t perceive planned obsolescence as problematic.

11

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xydj9 wrote

Yep, precisely that's mostly about electronics.

Think of it this way - with a warranty you have to prove a product is broken with this model the company needs to prove it's working each year before you make a recurring payment.

0

Initialised t1_j9y1n1v wrote

That’s just a product as a service model and already exists.

5

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9y1ubg wrote

Not really because when the product fails the responsibility changes from the user proving it's not user damaged to the company proving it's still working to get next payment.

1

Initialised t1_j9y64h9 wrote

No, if you lease computers when on fails you get a same or next day swap out.

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9y747x wrote

Not in Europe.

0

Initialised t1_j9y77pv wrote

Which company are you leasing with and did you also buy management with hardware monitoring?

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9ycfvp wrote

Leasing here doesn't work that way. You get a leasing on the money not on the laptop. If the laptop is dead you still owe the money to a financial institution.

0

Initialised t1_j9ydrs3 wrote

I worked for and bought from companies that have lease options in Europe. If a customer has a faulty unit it gets repaired or replaced according to the terms of their SLA unless it’s physical damage. We offer additional tools for device management that can tell when a drive, battery or cooling system might be going bad to proactively target failing machines before end users notice.

The model you propose exists and your last statement is not reflected in how leasing works in Europe.

Again, what are you leasing and who from?

3

Dry-Influence9 t1_j9xzf6y wrote

You seem to have invented the subscription model and we already have that for many different products. For example in cars you can lease one for a few years and replace it with another new one after the lease is done.

A lot of companies have tried and keep trying to innovate with this type of business model but the public do not seem to like it.

2

Initialised t1_j9y1sn0 wrote

It has a place, many people’s phones are part of a subscription service, it’s quite common for cars and leased fleets of laptops in large organisations.

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xzxzl wrote

If I lease it it's in warranty. In warranty you have to prove the product failed not the company. This model is reversing that.

1

Dry-Influence9 t1_j9y0so3 wrote

> In warranty you have to prove the product failed not the company.

what does this mean? I don't get it.

Warranty protects us from factory defects and these cars are designed to survive the warranty period under normal circumstances.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9y0yj1 wrote

I will give you a recent example with a laptop. It ended up with a busted battery. The warranty service claimed it was user damaged. I had to prove it's not. With this model it's the other way around. The company has to prove it's fully functioning in my presence in order to get the next recurring payment. If they can't the plan ends and the device is considered non-functional.

1

Dry-Influence9 t1_j9y1sl0 wrote

In warranties the burden of proof is on them by law, at least in the US. That doesn't stop companies from doing shady shit like this mate.

The model you propose seems to be the same as leases. Where you can lease a new phone with a mandatory insurance, the insurance replacement.

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9y23oj wrote

Not in Europe, here you have to prove it's not user damaged but you can't open it first. With the lease and insurance model it might still end up as "user-damaged".

1

PublicFurryAccount t1_j9zzc65 wrote

That's a problem with your warranty laws, not the products.

These kinds of failures are common because most failures are from a bad draw, i.e., a part that has a defect because some percentage of parts does.

1

jfcarr t1_j9y10iy wrote

I'm not a fan of subscription type services for products like your idea 1 would entail.

I would like to see a return to a greater degree of reparability and longevity in consumer products. There used to be appliance repair shops everywhere. Today, broken appliances are often tossed in a landfill or poorly, partially, recycled. Building them to be repaired, upgraded or recycled easily be useful on many level.

The problem is that most people don't want this. They want to newest and shiny thing that's out right now and don't care if it can't be repaired and has planned obsolescence baked in. I recently got into a very heated discussion on a hobby forum on this topic. I was critical of a hot new product from a company that had been around since the 1940's. I have their products from the 1960's and 70's that are still operating fine, only needing some maintenance over the years. The hot new product has SMD circuit boards and chips that will be unlikely to last more than 5 to 10 years. But, people got really offended when I brought this up.

19

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9y13yv wrote

It's all about having one more option because we have no options right now.

5

Surur t1_j9y7b6x wrote

The good thing is that we are seeing some response to years of campaigning e.g. less soldered RAM for example.

4

Nakotadinzeo t1_j9xwmka wrote

The problem isn't products... It's money.

These corporations are legally required by their stockholders to show exponential growth forever. Think about that for a minute, exponential growth... forever.

There's not enough matter in the universe to make enough iPhones to meet the demand on Apple to sell exponentially more iPhones. There's only so many iPhones you can realistically use or buy.

On their end, this is a band-aid solution. Make the devices irreparable, and you can sell more of them. It's not going to keep working for many many reasons.

A lot of our world economy is based on the idea that exponential growth is attainable and forever. This is why we're in the situations we're in with housing (making smaller affordable houses aren't profitable), Cars (making a '95 commuter car with '23 safety wouldn't be profitable), and it's why the pool of available wealth is shrinking every day.

The solution is to legislate sustainable financial policy... but our politicians are playing the game, so that won't happen.

So, this will be the status quo until the world economy collapses, which will probably be soon.

18

Surur t1_j9xwvdo wrote

It's easy to criticise from the outside, but if you think about where you work, does it work like that?

In my place of work costs go up because of increasing safety requirements, expectations and standards. What about yours?

7

Nakotadinzeo t1_j9y3zpu wrote

I think that's irrelevant. Your industry sets those standards, and safety is a really stupid thing to complain about.

Although, I will say that all that is again caused by unrealistic expectations of growth. Liability is a force that has to be overcome, but it is every time.

−5

Surur t1_j9y50l0 wrote

> safety is a really stupid thing to complain about

I'm not complaining, I am explaining why things change over time, and why old things become obsolete, and not due to a conspiracy by company employees.

For example - current thinking is that anytime you hit your head while wearing a safety helmet (e.g. from a bike or motorbike) you should replace the helmet, as it's designed to collapse and withstand only one blow.

Is that a conspiracy or due to increased safety expectations?

5

Nakotadinzeo t1_j9ygwu0 wrote

You've got me there, but with a lot of safety equipment regular inspection and repair is necessary anyway.

The helmet should still come apart, so that it can be properly recycled.

This doesn't apply to the vast majority of things we use ether.

−2

Surur t1_j9yhdog wrote

> This doesn't apply to the vast majority of things we use ether.

I would like to examine that idea. Which products do you believe there is a planned obsolescence conspiracy with?

4

Nakotadinzeo t1_j9yknkh wrote

Technology products come to mind immediately. Products are becoming more and more deeply integrated with less serviceability. Phones are obvious, but more insidious are things like soldered on storage and ram in computers, the inability to replace failed storage in game consoles, known defective designs not being addressed, or taking a long time to be addressed (joycon drift, butterfly switches).

There's also software related things, like not being able to get the software or firmware to program a replacement part, even if you have access to it. Putting modules in parts that don't require them, just to flag them as "unauthorized repairs" (ask a farmer about John Deere) that are all put in place to use the digital millennium copyright act to circumvent the magnuson moss warranty act.

Even little things, like integrating the controllers for HVAC and lighting relays into the radio of a car, so that replacing it is more difficult or impossible stand out.

You also end up with fashion companies in the mix too, wanting these same laws to cover knock-offs of their products.

You also see this in the latest wave of appliances as well. A lot of proprietary parts, that do the same job as a generic part that has been standard in machines from the 60's to the mid 2000's. The lifespan of a refrigerator has shortened drastically as well.

I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy, so much as a mass market move. A device that has a long lifespan and is serviceable isn't profitable like a new machine, so make the machines less durable. As old machines are phased out for machines that are drastically better in efficiency and other metrics, those new machines won't last as long.

3

Surur t1_j9ylmrt wrote

We should be grateful to the right to repair lobby. Their message is getting through to legislators around the world.

3

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xwu3e wrote

>So, this will be the status quo until the world economy collapses, which will probably be soon.

I agree with you but while we wait we can ease our pain by pushing for even if temporary solutions. Think of it this way - with a warranty you have to prove a product is broken with this model the company needs to prove it's working each year before you make a recurring payment.

1

Nakotadinzeo t1_j9y3bit wrote

Define "working"

Think of every sneaky slimy way that could be misused.

Your car's head gasket is mixing coolant and oil like a toxic vinaigrette, but the radio still plays music and the brake is holding the car firmly.

Also, your 200 feet past your oil change, so your contract is void.

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9y3l6m wrote

It's quite easy. They have functional lists with 100 points marked. You have to agree to it at time of purchase.

1

imakenosensetopeople t1_j9xvrd4 wrote

Could you please define planned obsolescence and provide an example other than the light bulbs?

9

Bigram03 t1_ja0hhg8 wrote

Some printers are set to disable themselves after a certain number of pages, also ink cartridges will show no ink even though they still have plenty. Apple also got busted a few years back for slowing device performance of older units to get people to but new ones.

Manufacturers have also intentionally designed products with failure points in household items... there is a youtube channel that disassembles electronics and points these out. I'll have to go dig it up.

7

imakenosensetopeople t1_ja0x0ud wrote

Printers are actually the cartridges themselves having shitty timeouts. The printer itself isn’t prematurely “choosing” to not function, it’s the supplier of the consumable consciously choosing to restrict the life of the consumable. I’d give a half point for planned obsolescence of a consumable because it’s shitty behavior but it’s also a consumable.

Apple getting “busted” was actually an intentional move they were doing to protect the battery life of their devices in the field as they aged. It’s arguable they should have let the consumer decide whether to have their battery drain faster or phone perform worse, but it wasn’t a measure to drive sales of new devices. If anything it probably drove more people to Android (who has an even worse track record for maintaining software on their older devices).

4

Bierculles t1_j9yq60v wrote

Many coffee machines have a built in counter that shuts them down after a set numbers of coffees. Officially it is for quality reasons but you can easily get twice as many coffees out of a machine withoput a drop in quality. You can reset the counters if you know how, it's not that hard. Especially cheap full coffee machines do this so people have to constantly buy new ones every few years.

0

imakenosensetopeople t1_j9yr473 wrote

Where can I read more about this? I’ve had exactly one coffee machine fail on me, due to a crack in the tubing causing a leak (and I was able to fix it). I drink at least a pot a day, so if I was going to hit one of those counters I definitely would have done so by now.

3

Bierculles t1_j9ysop2 wrote

Maybe you got lucky, i think this was a discussion around a decade ago. I don't know how widespread it was and if it's even still legal but there were certainly coffee machines that had this or simmilar features.

2

imakenosensetopeople t1_j9yt53h wrote

Is there any documentation anywhere? Can I read an article about it or something?

2

Bierculles t1_j9yv6py wrote

For coffee specificly, i don't know, this specific case just stuck with me because i've seen it firsthand.

2

femmestem t1_j9z24ex wrote

Without any kind of documentation, this sounds made up or not at all widespread.

4

imakenosensetopeople t1_j9z6ccv wrote

Agreed. Last time I posed this question I got a hundred people telling me about light bulbs but not one single person could cite another example. A lot of folks misunderstand how products are engineered and how much the relentless pursuit of Shareholder Value forces design compromises, but the intent is never to make something fail; simply to last through the warranty period as cheaply as possible.

1

PublicFurryAccount t1_ja00hgn wrote

There wasn't any such thing.

The issue was that, a decade ago, companies were adding smart features without really grokking the implications of a sensor which can halt operation. This led to lots of products becoming useless because the sensor had failed.

This can be counteracted in some systems with a hard reset. The machine will sometimes have code to mark a sensor as bad when it runs the first-run diagnostic and will ignore the sensor thereafter. Other times the issue was just a routine that wanted the user to perform some maintenance task years later, long after they'd lost the manual, and they would not know how to reset the flag. (E.g., by powering on the coffee maker while holding the brew button or whatever.)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to be your source for the cause. I work in IOT and this sort of stuff was among the war stories told by coworkers from the early days of the market.

2

imakenosensetopeople t1_ja0c3q7 wrote

Thank you - that was informative! Seems that no matter the actual explanation; whenever a product doesn’t work perfectly forever, people just jump right to “planned obsolescence.”

In your opinion, if you don’t mind me asking, is security getting any better in relation to IOT? My layman’s understanding was a lot of early IOT was just “set up and abandon” and stuff just went online without getting security patches, or only got patches for a short period of time.

1

PublicFurryAccount t1_ja0d6oj wrote

Analytically, security is vastly improved. Higher standards all around.

Constructively? I don’t know. There are more devices and more users, which means a larger attack surface and more targets.

2

Bierculles t1_j9zg18r wrote

Could be the case, my only source is a single anecdotal case

1

mhornberger t1_ja3qjji wrote

What system is this? Some Keurig or Nespresso model? You already can buy drip coffeemakers, moka pots, espresso machines etc that don't have any of that technology. I don't know which system you're talking about, but the timer may have been to encourage de-scaling.

1

more_beans_mrtaggart t1_j9xynls wrote

People don’t want (for example) phones that can be upgraded. They don’t want modular replaceable parts. People want a brand new phone every few years.

How do we know this? Because there are breakthrough companies all the time popping up with products that offer this, and more. Swappable cameras, storage, etc etc, and literally nobody is interested. Nobody buys them, and the companies fail.

Samsung have always offered the XCover which has memory slot and replaceable battery, and easily removeable shell, and modular components…. and not one fucker buys them outside enterprise.

The current XCover 6 Pro has fast processor, 8gb of ram, decent screen, removable battery, etc etc for around $650 and nobody is buying it.

Literally nobody really cares about this “planned obsolescence shit apart from a few noisy whiners. If buyers cared, the corporates would too.

4

femmestem t1_j9z2q05 wrote

This seems like a marketing issue. For example, I had no idea this existed.

2

more_beans_mrtaggart t1_j9z42ij wrote

My kids first phones were proper agricultural. They make Nokias look flimsy.

The modern version is the Zebra TC57. They are used by supermarkets, ambulance people, police etc and are okay with being bounced around and kicked up the road etc.

Plus you can swap the batteries out like the old days. They turn up cheap on eBay or local classifieds.

1

PublicFurryAccount t1_ja00v8n wrote

Marketing is wildly expensive. Companies rely heavily on their flagship products bringing people in to learn more and word of mouth from those who have learned more.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xz0pp wrote

Yes because modular lasting products are more expensive to make. If they are the same price as non-lasting products it will be a different story. That's why small companies may benefit from this model to make a breakthrough.

0

more_beans_mrtaggart t1_j9xzqz3 wrote

The XCover 6 Pro is cheaper than it’s competitors, yet nobody buys it.

Nobody buys it, because nobody wants it, apart from business and healthcare. Everybody wants a Galaxy/iPhone.

Without customer demand, there’s no sales. And no sales is why these companies fold.

Again, if enough people wanted repairability/upgradeability, Samsung and Apple would make these products. They both consistently tap the markets to see what people want.

And what people actually want is longer battery life, better camera, faster processor, more camera features etc etc. Repairability isn’t even in the top 20 of customer wants.

4

Reddit-username_here t1_j9y3nlm wrote

I would love a phone like that, but I'm not paying $650 for a fucking phone lol. That's absurd. If a phone is over $200, I'm not interested.

2

PublicFurryAccount t1_ja01fb7 wrote

Pretty much.

The market for upgrades in every product area is limited to enthusiasts and business. It's just not worth doing, honestly, unless the device is hideously expensive and the market is fast-moving but inconsistent like PCs in the 1980s and 1990s. Otherwise either upgrades don't give enough value to be worth buying an upgrade or you basically need to upgrade everything anyway.

Battery life is a solved issue with a lot of things, now, though. Because phones and laptops aren't increasing in capability as fast, manufacturers have started to offer free or nominal cost replacement services for those components.

1

Sad-Corner-9972 t1_j9ydkvp wrote

Interesting discussion. I’m understanding major appliances (generally) are improving in terms of energy efficiency, so advice is to replace if over 7 years old. I’ve used incentives from electric utilities to recycle old operating refrigerators.

Very mixed feelings about subscription model to get long term durability. Kind of like buying an extended warranty (full of fine print weasel words).

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9ykul3 wrote

>Very mixed feelings about subscription model to get long term durability. Kind of like buying an extended warranty (full of fine print weasel words).

Rather a user feedback loop. Each time you can decide to scrap the deal or not. Unlike now where we have no feedback loop to incentivize producers.

1

Sad-Corner-9972 t1_j9yl903 wrote

I’m already overwhelmed with “choices” to be selected from a menu written by marketing professionals and legal. Minefield.

1

my-final-bellyache t1_j9yr19h wrote

I would definitely buy an electric car like that. Generational car that has easy to replace batteries, motors etc. Software upgrades or just make the computer system replaceable

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9yr6sl wrote

And most importantly with a user feedback loop based on longevity :)

1

rileyoneill t1_ja02wm3 wrote

Some things need to be expected to have a longer service life. I despise the idea of smart washing machines and smart refrigerators because it locks them into a fairly brief period of time. Something like a refrigerator should be designed for at least 25 years, especially a very well built one like a Subzero or Thermadore.

The idea of a super tech lover smart refrigerator that is expensive and needs to be replaced in 5-6 years. A really good refrigerator should be kicking for decades. I would trade smart features over long term robustness. Hell, I would give up cold settings, in unit water filtration, in unit ice maker an a ton of other shit if the refrigerator was built to last 40 years.

HVAC and Water heaters should also be 25+ year appliances.

I think with computers, it is reasonable that due to things like Moore's law they are not relevant forever. No one would expect a computer from 2003 to operate in today's world, and the computers 20 years from now will be the same jump in performance. I know people who feel the need to replace their computer every year or two, which i find to be silly. I use my computer more than they do, mine is over 5 years old and is still a total champion. I feel it will be rolling with the times when it is 8 years old. Computer service life should be like $400 per year. $2000 computer should last 5 years. High end computers that have very high price tags have their own cost structure, some $50,000 workstation I would not expect to last 100+ years.

I am not a phone guy, but my mentality is that a phone should last 1 year for every $100 spent on it. I use an iPhone SE2. I paid $450 or so for my model. I have had it for almost 3 years, I expect it to last until it is 4.5 years old. Granted, while the phone was $100 per year, the stupid phone bull was much, much more than that.

2

ratyoke t1_ja3wuyk wrote

I would pay more for a better product that should last longer, but I wouldn't pay it as a yearly fee.

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3x0hx wrote

I would prefer that scenario too but they already know there is not enough people in that segment to bring back the old quality. They simply adapted to the changes of the system so we need a new business model to lure them into making it while also giving us a tool to quit the scheme if the promise is not met.

1

ratyoke t1_ja3xs3j wrote

Feels like another subscription and I have too many subscriptions already. I guess it would depend on what the product was and how much the fee was.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3y77i wrote

It's all about the principle. The details can be tweaked until it works for the targeted audience. I imagine it as follows:

Year 2: the laptop is broken

The dealer: it's user damage

Me: Then I don't pay

I lose the product, they lose 50% in potential revenue.

If they want they can fix it and I will continue the payments.

Right now warranties don't give me that. I pay 100% in advance and pray. Eventually everything expensive ends up as "user damage" with no way for me to prove it's not. In the case of lease it's the same thing - even if the device is broken if it's considered user damage I have to continue paying. I understand insurance solves that but it doesn't incentivize the producer to make lasting products and as importantly doesn't give the user control in the process.

1

Initialised t1_j9xv2a7 wrote

If a device is overbuilt and hardened to the point where it is unlikely to fail in your lifetime does design for reparability matter?

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xv8tf wrote

In sectors with quick innovation cycles this is quite impossible. It's all about being modular so you can upgrade and repair. In sectors with slower innovation it doesn't matter that much I agree but you can still up-sell with add-ons.

1

Initialised t1_j9xvegv wrote

If a device is overbuilt and hardened to the point where it is unlikely to fail in your lifetime does design for reparability matter?

2

lllorrr t1_j9yrai1 wrote

Eh, you can't make a truly modular product with long life in a quick innovation industry.

Take electronics for example. Your modules need some standardised bus protocol to communicate with each other. This is the base of any modular product. The problem is that those protocols are developing also. So any fixed modular architecture will drag your product behind non-modular competitors. Take storage for example. Phones evolved from parallel NAND flash to embedded MMC to UFS. Imagine that your modular product will always be limited to speeds and storage capability that were available 20 years ago.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9yrlg0 wrote

We are talking about 5-7 year cycles. My last 2 laptops failed in less than 3 years beyond warranty and repairability. A socketed CPU can easily last 5 years today.

1

PublicFurryAccount t1_ja01wzw wrote

Maybe buy a better laptop?

My 2012 MacBook Air was used for a decade, five years by me and then five years by a friend after I switched to using the iPad for everything instead for a while.

1

Nakotadinzeo t1_j9xvyu1 wrote

Yes, for three reasons.

One, is that "unlikely" is still a greater than zero chance. It also doesn't allow for unexpected failure modes, like lightning strikes or solar flares.

Two, is upgradability. Imagine if you had your first car today, would you be happy with the radio it had in 2023? I don't know your age or level of affluence, but that could be anything from an 8-track player, to Bluetooth 1 (which modern phones will not connect to)

Three, is disposal. There's a finite amount of raw materials on this planet, and we just happen to be lucky enough to be able to extract it from the earth. There's a potential of tens of thousands of generations that could come after us, and they will want to make our old crap into new crap. One lifetime isn't really that long, when all matter is as old as the universe.

1

Initialised t1_j9y2eex wrote

One: that’s what insurance is for.

Two: Upgradability assumes I’m talking about something that is still in development, not a mature technology.

Three: that’s recyclability which is a different attribute.

1

phine-phurniture t1_j9z6i47 wrote

Planned obsolescence is mostly about greed but there certain products like Iphones and computers that have been going obsoleye due to increasing computational power... we are reaching a point where we could actually make a go of #2 but the likelihood of upper management seeing a benefit is low....

profit is the only goal for investors in general and fiduciary responsability to that goal guides the decision making process.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9z73yv wrote

>Planned obsolescence is mostly about greed

Unfortunately it's about decreasing purchasing power. They simply can't sell premium machines en mass like 10 years ago unless they go for new models and installments. We are still buying laptops that are 10-12 year old and that tells the whole story.

1

phine-phurniture t1_j9zbii9 wrote

What market? I am speaking of the us... They have managed to use the OS upgrade stream to force purchase... Here you can get a decent laptop for under 500$.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9zbq9z wrote

Europe. Here a decent laptop doesn't exist let alone under 500$ :D

1

phine-phurniture t1_ja0y64z wrote

Your online.... do you have a good postal system?

If so buy it thru cdn... newegg.... b and h photo.

If you have restrictions due to your governments actions or its own paranoia I dont know what you can do.

goto the us embassy and ask them...

1

nicolasworth t1_j9zxqvg wrote

The EU is discussing legislation to ban planned obsolescence. They’ve already made progress with right to repair… government getting involved in anything is unpopular these days but it’s the only way stuff that doesn’t directly lead to profits gets done….

1

UniversalMomentum t1_ja0loc7 wrote

I don't see how that is possible or necessary. You have a clandestine view of how products are made.

It's more like these things up an idea and maybe gets it to Market and through many cycles of iteration the product improves while also every new generation of Engineers want to have their chance to try to design a product or add new features and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

What about the damage it might do to Innovation and Engineering if you plan for your products to essentially never get upgrades?

Sorry nds like less jobs and less Innovation to me.

What Is the supposed upside here?

Think if the supposed upside is like waste you should just plan for robotic automation to clean up most of the waste that your business models can't.

If it's just a way to better products for consumers keep in mind a lot of people need that lowest possible purchase price option to for the product to be within their comfortable price ranges.

Cuz you make a product that lasts longer doesn't mean people are going to buy that product if also made the product cost more and normally to make a product last longer it also does cost more.

And see how there's some motivation to do this, but what you're talking about is I will complete Logistics nightmare where you also have to take away a lot of the decision making from the actual companies making the products.

First system where business is act more independent and kind of make their own decisions within and agreed framework of rules and laws versus kind of hurting everyone into the same mindset in an attempt to force a result.

Soo need to have a pretty good incentive on these long-lasting products for consumers and where the business is making them or it's like you're asking the government to take over all manufacturing take the profit out of it and make the products last as long as possible.

Sounds great at first but you have to keep in mind your Innovation Cycles would go down and your rate of progress would also go way down when you do that.

Some products are kind of just suited to be disposable because they're changing rapidly or they get used really hard.

Part of the reason we have batteries this good and screens this good is because people bought so many cell phones they theoretically didn't really need.

Prove the Innovation cycles and now we have cheaper screens and batteries for everything else so the waste did wind up having a payoff that you might be overlooking.

1

6EQUJ5w t1_ja0ubco wrote

Note that planned obsolescence isn’t inherently bad. It‘s responsible to plan for the end of a product’s lifecycle. What’s problematic (by which I mean a total scam) is planned, arbitrarily-premature obsolescence that necessitates the purchase of new products when the old ones’ lifecycle could have been extended. That is indeed increasingly common.

Are there any regulatory statutes that attempt to curtail this practice (perhaps in the EU or California)?

1

Two_takedown t1_ja18sfp wrote

Just buy old stuff. Old tools, old cars, it all has higher build quality. They literally have computer programs so they can design car parts to fail after a certain amount of heat cycles and miles. I'm balls deep in replacing a 2012 wrangler oil filter housing/ oil cooler assembly and I realize how much more put together my 88-98 chevy is

1

Decumulate t1_ja34ndm wrote

Idea one is basically just a “rent to own” type model. The net cost would need to be much more expensive than the cost without using the paying given the amount of additional cost added by the model (more people replacing, more staff, more complicated distribution model).

So if you think someone would pay $300 for a backpack that fits the rent to own model versus $200 without, then perhaps it’s not a horrible idea.

Note that this isn’t much different from a standard warranty service that you can add to most purchases.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja356v8 wrote

On the surface it seems like a rent to own but the big difference is that the user is in control and rewards the company for fulfilling its promise. Warranties require you to prove that it's not a user damage while here the company needs to prove the product is still functional. It's warranties reversed with payments in the hand of the user not the company. These are not the same products sold via different model but rather a forgotten class on its own. Products with no planned obsolescence.

On the other hand companies regain their beefiest market from 10 years ago - the most reliable and most expensive machines which were rebranded into consumer goods with planned obsolescence and sold at a fraction of their prices back then.

Same happened to cars in the 90s , same happened to laptops in the post 2010s.

1

Decumulate t1_ja37ch8 wrote

Well then I’m confused and the model seems very broken. If you are selling a product under its “value” with the idea that users will keep paying additional (on goodwill) after some period of time, you’ll find that users will just resell these products at high prices and buy another product at the “under valued” price. This will cause supply and demand issues, and the undervalued price will just shoot up to the original price anyways.

If you’re saying they will never actually own the product and the subscription will go on for perpetuity, then this is just a simple rental model with requirement of an upfront payment. It’s viable but I’m not sure it does much to solve the obsolescence issue as phones have been following this model for many years and it seemed to do nothing to stop people from upgrading. In fact, before most carriers shifted more to “rent to own” models, people anxiously waited to upgrade after 2 years, meaning your model might actually be making the obsolescence problem worse.

A more efficient way to solve the problem of obsolesce is to make trash and disposal very expensive such that people are cautious about what they purchase. This would also reduce trash intake and profitability from trash to a point where we could implement a very high expectation of recycling with all trash. Consumers will buy things that last longer across the board, and manufacturers will design for longevity.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja37mt4 wrote

>If you are selling a product under its “value” with the idea that users will keep paying additional (on goodwill) after some period of time, you’ll find that users will just resell these products at high prices and buy another product at the “under valued” price.

Users are not paying on goodwill but upon inspection that the device is still functional. If it doesn't work then and only then they don't pay. Also if it's non-working they return it so they can't resell anything.

There is no under-valued price it just builds up with the longevity of the product. Failed promises failed payments. Unlike now where user damage saves the day every time.

1

Decumulate t1_ja39z0u wrote

At what point do users have the right to resell? When do users own the product? If the answer is “never” then I don’t think you’re doing to have a lot of love here. People are getting tired and frustrated with subscription models.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3a770 wrote

After a negotiated period. Anywhere from 5 to 7 years for standard users and 7 to 10 years for enterprises.

Compare that to my last 2 laptops which failed after 1 to 3 years of use.

On a macro level this model slows down the production/consumption cycle at both ends by reintroducing maximum quality paid for in installments.

Great for the environment too.

1

Decumulate t1_ja3adha wrote

Ok that’s rent to own, and yes in rent to own the user is still in control. The consumer being able to terminate rights of use is the benefit of rent to own.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3ay8a wrote

Thanks! Can you direct me to an example?

1

Decumulate t1_ja3d8aw wrote

Yeah - this site. https://www.aarons.com and before you say “but those products aren’t the long lasting type I imagined”, I think it’s because this model isn’t inherently going to solve this issue. You’re appealing to buyers that want to get in cheaper, not buyers that care about obsolescence

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3dndd wrote

It's not about getting in cheaper. In fact the first down-payment will be equivalent of a mainstream product. It's the only way to sell premium products to customers with decreasing income. Rent to own can have many variations. The one presented here is designed specifically to reward longevity and to guarantee no planned obsolescence.

1

Decumulate t1_ja3l1dz wrote

I’m still missing how longevity is rewarded though outside of a typical rent to own system

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3mn0r wrote

You simply stop paying if it breaks. You lose the product the company loses 40-50% of potential revenue. For each operational year you reward the company.

1

Decumulate t1_ja3nuco wrote

There’s absolutely nothing different with that versus what I posted above. That’s nearly every rent to own model. That doesn’t incentivize obsolescence - it would have to be direct incentive.

1

Technical-Conflict54 t1_ja41xi5 wrote

To my skeptical mind, that just sounds like a brand label and an extended warranty.

1

obesetial t1_ja4ppej wrote

I disagree about your premise. More expensive products are the ones that are planned to break. It takes a lot of money to make something work for a whole year and then breakdown. Apple is known for being more expensive than comparable products. It also leads the way in planned obsolescence.

I myself found that the mid tier prices give me good quality products without all the trojan horses associated with big companies.

1

FormerHoagie t1_j9xxma0 wrote

Chargers. Apple makes a fantastic charger. That should be the standard which any portable electronic device has to use. Im not hawking for apply BTW. start small

−1