Talk:Planned obsolescence/Archives/2011

Opponents?
The main concern of the opponents of planned obsolescence is not the existence of the process, but its possible postponement.

Shouldn't this read 'proponents'? --87.234.84.147 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Opponents is grammatically correct; these people do not like planned obsolescence, hence they oppose it. Bernium (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Planned obsolescence (business)
Should this page be merged with Planned obsolescence (business)? Mokwella 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably. However, there is a massive divide between the 'business strategist / marketeers' POV and the 'product designer / engineers' POV, which may not be reconcilable. --Davémon 13:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, such dispute exists. But I think the two sides must be discussed in a single page, so that readers can get the contrast of each vision. If nobody disagrees, I'm marking both as mergeable. -- Hatredman 17:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the merger as they are two sides of the same coin, the buissness owner's support and the engineers struggle against, the differing opinions should cancel for a neutral article--Scorpion451 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Category:Electronic waste?
user:Vortexrealm just changed this article from Category:Waste to Category:Electronic waste. I don't see a reason for this limitation. Common Man 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I learned about the term when reading about treeware products manufactured by the US college textbook industry.  Let's change it back. MJKazin 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming nobody did so I've done so today. Richard001 09:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced
Rather than deleting the information outright, I've added some cite tags to the "Origins of the term" section. It's almost entirely unsourced. In fact, the only thing approaching a source (the reference to Bernard London's Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence) contradicts most of the rest of the section. How could Stevens have made up the definition on a whim if it already existed decades earlier? The claims attributed to books need to be cited with page numbers and the claims not attributed to books need reliable sources of their own. Kafziel 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

my voice will be heard, bitches
anyhow, I think that this person is right on, whether there exists factual proof of this or not is irrelevant. this is a strategic move that no manufacturing industry would willingly provide, except to their shareholders. I sincerely believe in the evil of corporate leaders. I am not about to justify that claim, but in any case, this is an almost 100% true fact, that only some unrealistic optimist would believe.

additionally, engineers in training have said things of similar effect to me, in different words.

This is an encyclopedia. Your opinions, beliefs and little anecdotes are quite worthless here, if you put something in the article, you have to be able to back it up as fact, or face having it removed. Harley peters 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We still need one of these wiki-type ~pedias that is free and idependent of corporate influence. Until then, we will remain under totalitarianism. Corporations are government entities - historical fact. They are legally constructed privilages that owe government their very existance. They could not function or be without it. Until then we will have to learn to think for ourselves. Outside the corporate box? What box? 67.53.78.15 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your post is full of uncited claims. Until they can be satisfactorily supported, they will remain off this website. Wikipedia supports NPOV, which means that articles cannot be biased against corporations either.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not right!
why should we pay good money for something that will break or become unfunctional in a year or 2. Like a computer u pay alot of money for one and in a year it is outof date and u can't dowload anything on to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.145.203 (talk • contribs).
 * I do not know of a computer that cannot be used to download information after one year. The 10-year old computer I have working as a Linux file server downloads data just fine. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss the ethics of planned obsolescense. This is a place to discuss how to improve this article with good cited information.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to have a section on the ethics of built-in obsolescence in the article though.--Timtak 05:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Consoles
I'm surprised no one brings up built-in obsolescence on video game consoles. Like, ever (not just on WP). I think it might be worth it to do a little research in this area. 63.163.61.3 13:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is so much a built in obsolecence as an obsolecence caused by advancing technology. There are several cases where systems have been designed to be upgraded, for example the Nintendo 64 had ports on the bottom for upgrades like a disk based game system, but it was never popular enough in Japan to see US release. It also had a port for a memory upgrade allowing more complex games to be released, which was utilized. There are also the recient online systems allowing upgrades of the drivers, ect, on console systems, as well as backwards compatability. So while there is obscelence, it isn't really planned obsilecence.--Scorpion451 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this article Relevant?
Found this article here: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/end_of_life/ that speaks on the topic of planning the technical end of things. Is there a wiki article that explains standard practises for incorporating planned obsolesces? Maetrix 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Total bull
"When Japanese and European vehicles with longer lifespans entered the American market in the 1960s and 1970s, the American carmakers were forced to respond by building more durable products."

Many American cars could rack up 300,000 miles or more if maintained properly. I cite the Chevy 283, the Mopar 318, and and the Ford 352. The Jap cars never cited durability as the selling point. It was always economy. The early Jap cars were short lived. It is only since the late 1980s that we find Jap cars with extended life expectancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.26.72 (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, early Japanese cars tended to rust quickly, but their engines soon became more reliable than American engines (and I note you've cited engines, not cars), and then the rest of the car improved greatly as well. This was just a case of better engineering and a willingness to try new ideas and materials, not a case of American manufacturers purposely designing their cars to break down. (And there's just a little racism built into the "how do the Japanese build more reliable cars?" question that planned obsolescence conveniently answers.... "They can't be better than us! We must be slacking off!")


 * The fundamental problem with the concept of planned obsolescence as a pervasive business practice is that your customers may have to buy a new product after a few years, but they probably won't buy yours. They'll buy a competitor's product with a better reputation for reliability, so any competition discourages it. The article reads as tho this is a common and accepted business practice, when nearly all manufacturers try to put out the best product they can. Planned obsolescence is mostly an illusion created by the desire of manufacturers to put out a better product this year than they did last year and consumer desire for something fresh. --Tysto 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any editor who will remove or correct this post with the original ranter's hostility, bias, and especially inclusion of a racial slur? Or are they only focused on calling for a "citation" for every little point, such as the term "planned obsolescence" even though it's been in common usage for decades and has no shortage of books about it?
 * http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=planned+obsolescence&x=0&y=0
 * Wikipedia's ed staff continues to frustrate and disappoint, niggling about minutiae while ignoring things that are blatant.

Truddick (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What about planned obsolescence in organisms by natural selection
By natural selection, you could argue something analogous to it would be present. (ie. Salmon dying after spawning, human health decline after reproductive age) no need to litter the article with fringe theories79.176.49.28 (talk) about everyone who can read will go to aging

Model T 2.0?
Who introduced planned obsolescence into production? I'm thinking it was Harley Earl at GM, but... Add it here, here, & here, if you can name him. Thanks. (We can safely rule out Henry...)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article reeks of conspiracy theory
This article seems to view the subject of obsolescence and reliability as a concerted, conscious effort by industry to extract more money from consumers. However this is not really the case. In the example of VCR's vs. DVD players the reason that DVD took over isn't because VCRs all broke down and people had to buy new equipment, it's because DVD was superior in every way and took over the market. The reason that equipment makers sold VCRs in the 1970's and 1980's until DVD players were introduced in the late 90's isn't because they wanted to sell you something low-tech so you'd have to eventually upgrade, it was because the technology either wasn't around or it just wasn't economically feasible to produce something like a DVD player back then.

Car makers don't intentionally build cars that break down after x number of years so you have to build a new one, it's that a car engineered to last much longer would cost too much and it wouldn't sell.

Compare the reliability of consumer devices to that of government-spec devices used by the military or the space program. Even in devices where price isn't an issue it's still difficult to engineer something that lasts a long time. You'll find that consumer devices often exceed the reliability of specialized devices that costs multitudes more.

91TwinTurboZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.83.121 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between Feature creep and planned obsolescence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeiki Rebirth (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Automotive engineers plan not only for a market lifespan, but also for a safe-use lifetime
"The design of most consumer products includes an expected average lifetime permeating all stages of development. For instance, no auto-parts maker would run the extra cost of ensuring a part lasts for forty years if few cars spend more than five years on the road"

An automaker may very well over-engineer a part for safety issues (suspension and undercarriage) and to reduce the costs associated with future warranty claims. They may also wish to over-engineer a structure to lessen the damage and any needed repairs associated with accidents involving their vehicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DisposableID001aa (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Planned vs. perceived obsolescence
I think there is a confusion here. The article talks about "obsolescence of desirability" and "obsolescence of function". I have heard obsolescence of desirability referred to as "perceived obsolescence" such as in the film The Story of Stuff. It is my understanding that planned obsolescence is when a product is intentionally manufactured to break so that it needs to be replaced. Perceived obsolescence is what is called obsolescence of function or "psychological obsolescence" in this article. So which is this article about? or is it about both, and if it is, shouldn't it be named something more general that encompasses both concepts? --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's scope is very murky. Some examples (VCR vs DVD) are just about technical progress and inherent, not deliberate, lack of backward compatibility. Of course companies develop new products while still selling the old ones. How is that comparable to deliberately making products that last less?--94.222.209.165 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Light bulbs
Please don't re-add that idiocy about light bulbs. I can sympathize—you just saw a bullshit documentary on TV and were filled with righteous anger and immediately stormed off to edit Wikipedia, but this is a really old and tired myth. You can read all you want about light bulb longevity in Light bulb and Lamp rerating. Briefly summarized, the design of an incandescent light bulb is a trade-off between manufacturing cost, electrical efficiency and longevity. There is no point in making a light bulb that lasts twice as long if it costs more than twice as much as a regular bulb, or in making a bulb that consumes less power if the added manufacturing cost exceeds the amount saved on electricity in the bulb's lifetime. The light bulb market is competitive enough (the Phoebus cartel is long gone, and the Chinese have no qualms about undercutting their competitors) that anyone who could offer a light bulb that lasted significantly longer or consumed significantly less electricity without costing more would make a killing. DES (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh rly? I think lightbulbs are indeed a good example of historical planned obsolescence, especially in reference to the Phoebus cartel of the early 20th century that you mention. Many of the examples currently given in the article are really bad examples... For example, I don't think mobile phones have planned obsolescence in the sense of what the term really means. Models of mobile phones that are just a couple years old are becoming obsolete because of genuine advances in technology, ranging from display LEDs to more advanced microchips. But for some reason, some editor thought that this represents a "planned" obsolescence? 71.62.112.195 (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft
I removed the reference to Microsoft's website that Marin M. added to the Planned obsolescence in software section. It is not a relevant citation, since it simply documents the fact that Microsoft no longer supports Windows 98. A relevant citation would point to an article or book by a third party explaining why this is a case of planned obsolescence. Drawing a conclusion from Microsoft's web site to the claim made in the section would be WP:OR—not to mention bullshit, unless Marin M. and his fellow conspiracy theorists are also prepared to claim that Ford stopped making replacement parts for the Model T to force people to buy Crown Vics instead. DES (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Beanie Babies in the Style obsolescence section?
Ty still makes beanie babies. So it's probably not accurate to say they dropped the product. They may have cut down production, but you can find them in toy stores and airport gift shops and such still. There is no citation for the example either, should it be removed? Raine (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)