Talk:Planned obsolescence/Archives/- 2006

2004
I urge the person who added the snide remarks to this page ("large software company", "great euphemism!") to read the NPOV page before changing any other articles. This article might be merged with the page on obsolescence.

This article has been turned into shit. It now says very little of value to a business strategist. I am taking it off the lists of business subjects until it becomes useful again. mydogategodshat 03:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think an article needs to contain blatant NPOV violations to be of value to a business strategist or anyone else.


 * There is nothing POV about giving examples of industries or companies that follow these strategies. And the technique is called value engineering whether you think this is NPOV or not, and it is a great euphemism because while it is creating value in the sense of a potential price reduction, it is also reducing the value of the product. Please don't go to value engineering and destroy that article to. mydogategodshat 04:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * An example is OK, if it includes specifics rather than just innuendo. VHS vs. DVDs is a very poor example of planned obsolescence, as is any other case where the better technology did not exist when the older product was introduced. Same goes for any case where the newer technology could not be added expeditiously, or was left out specifically to avoid making legacy products obsolete. Aesthetic judgements like "great [anything]!" are basically non-neutral.


 * I have no problem with the Value Engineering page. It's far better than this one was.


 * You seem to be saying that for planned obsolescence to occur, new technology must already exist that makes the old product obsolete. This is not the case. There only needs to be a reasonable expectation of new technology within the life cycle of the old product. Companies that are doing R&D on DVDs while selling VHSs are engaging in planned obsolescence. The VHS is being made obsolete by their planning and actions.


 * If your complaint is that the examples of the fashion industry, Microsoft, and the home electronics industry is to vague (You call it innuendo), then I can fill in the details. Much has been writen on all three of these examples.


 * If your only complaint about the value engineering paragraph is the use of the word great then delete that word. I would agree with you. But you deleted the whole paragraph. mydogategodshat 06:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I get the impression that user:mydogategodshat feels some sense of ownership over this page. I get that feeling too, sometimes when I work hard on an article and then someone changes it in a way that I think is wrong. But I've come to the conclusion that any one should make his or her contributions and then back off for a while. If new contributions are really incorrect, another user will catch the errors and fix them. Things just get ugly when users 'care too much' about any particular page. My 2 c. ike9898 22:30, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am quite happy when there are positive contributions to a page that I have writen. I have seen significant contributions to literaly hundreds of the articles that I have written. What bothers me is when people trash an article by replacing factual material with inaccurate nonsense. I have had to delete about 10 errors from this page in the last 2 days. mydogategodshat 23:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I am not working for any company in their marketing department, and I just want to say: Thanks for the excellent article! Regards, Somebody Else.

=2006=

Anthony the Box's microscopic Penis
I'm going to remove or modify that particular section header in the article. As it stands it seems like vandalism and/or a personal attack. Changed to ==Types of obsolescence == -- Tim Fowler 6:24 (UTC), 12 October 2006