🧵 Planned obsolescence
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:10:20 UTC No. 16218039
Is planned obsolescence real or bullshit? Is there actual non-anecdotal evidence that old things last longer than new things? Are there theories in economics, psychology, and other fields explaining why a company would want to sell cheap crap that breaks fast? After all, what's the difference between this and just selling stuff that lasts twice as long but also costs twice as much? It seems like everyone takes planned obsolescence as something obviously true but I'm not seeing much research on the topic when looking up Google Scholar.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:34:00 UTC No. 16218083
>I'm not seeing much research on the topic when looking up Google Scholar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGD
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:41:11 UTC No. 16219510
>>16218039
>t seems like everyone takes planned obsolescence as something obviously true but I'm not seeing much research on the topic when looking up Google Scholar.
Look, friend. Things like that aren't researched. No, this isn't some conspiratard statement. I mean it that way: is it being researched what pasta shape is the best? Or which country has the best tourist spots? Or how about uncovering war crimes, do you need to publish a scientific paper to do that?
There are just things you don't "research" in a formal paper. But that doesn't make them a) less true (trivially), more interestingly it doesn't make them b) less pertinent, and c) it doesn't make such statements less interesting.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:58:34 UTC No. 16219539
>>16218039
Yes, it's built into everything now. Even things like
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:43:06 UTC No. 16219615
>>16218039
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pho
This is one starting point
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:02:54 UTC No. 16219654
>>16218083
>>16219510
Actually, the reason I'm asking is precisely because I'm brainstorming for a way to research the question as an econ PhD. From a perfect competition and perfect rationality standpoint, planned obsolescence doesn't really make sense. If I'm a consumer, there should be no practical difference between consuming a $5 good for 1 year and a $10 good for 2 years. Knowing this, firms shouldn't have any preference for producing goods with lower lifespan. Unless there's some market inefficiency and/or cognitive bias that makes planned obsolescence a more profitable strategy. I'm surprised no one seems to be looking for ways to explain the phenomenon and maybe even think of policies to address it when it's the sort of thing everyone seems to be unhappy about.
>>16219615
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll read the sources and see if one of them explains the profit motive for planned obsolescence. Maybe it'll help me set up a model in my head I can work with.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:09:33 UTC No. 16219669
>>16218039
It's a legit thing, but it's less-so done maliciously (designing something to fail deliberately) as it is designing something as cheaply as possible with the intent of it being replaceable as a source of secondary income.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:11:04 UTC No. 16219673
>>16218039
>Is planned obsolescence real or bullshit?
If it wasn't real then nobody would be using windows 11, yet here we are
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:14:15 UTC No. 16219677
>>16219654
Amortized expenditures have to be factored against inflation and various other regulatory or tax policies in determining such profit statement. In general, two dollars right now > one dollar now and one dollar later. Where everything else is equal, the consumer is giving edge to the producer by being on the bad side of the trade.
Firm expenses are also not account for in a simplified argument.
>market inefficiency
This is pseudoscience as efficient market theorem is pseudoscience.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:15:44 UTC No. 16219684
>>16218039
Probably, but I don't even think producers need to rely on it that much. Take the smartphones for example, rarely do I see people buying a new one because old one is dead, no they want new more shiny stuff. So marketing alone is enough. Manufactures offer more and more years of suport, updates but when they release new model people go apeshit anyway.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:23:56 UTC No. 16219704
>>16219654
So you want people to do the mental and temporal labor for your research project with no authorship or acknowledgement? Fuck off and fuck you, brownoid
Vard at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:25:06 UTC No. 16219707
>>16219704
Look, retard. You are a locust. Science doesn't belong to anything, especially you.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:42:30 UTC No. 16219754
>>16219707
Shut up revard
Vard at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:44:04 UTC No. 16219761
>>16219754
Passing that.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:57:13 UTC No. 16219798
>>16219654
>I'm surprised no one seems to be looking for ways to explain the phenomenon and maybe even think of policies to address it when it's the sort of thing everyone seems to be unhappy about.
>I'm surprised
That's probably because you haven't fucking looked yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ber
Literally two clicks away from the previous Wikipedia link.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:06:18 UTC No. 16219818
>>16219798
Don't be so hard on the retard. He's an econ major. They never learned critical thinking and are in the same category as social scientists who conflate opinions with research
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:58:15 UTC No. 16221208
>>16218039
>>16219654
Most of it was actually done by slowly rolling out the advanxes, instead of selling the done thing. The kind of how you had 1080i screens before 1080p screens, even though the former is much more difficult to achieve, while the latter is better. Now that is mostly iver as they are running out of their plans.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:11:55 UTC No. 16221231
>>16219798
He was wrong though, the real solution was to ban loans, or at least enforce full reserve banking (the Chicago plan). The problem is that debts don't diminish when technology improves, and become unpayable, and distort all the metric so that interventions that damage the economy seem to imptove it, because scarcity increases, and debts become repayable again.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:29:23 UTC No. 16221263
Basically loans always distort the market. The fact that you needed a loan to buy it means that it was probably needed elsewhere. Or the resources were needed elsewhere. That's how you end up with an excess of tractors and combine harvesters, goods that you can't sell, and unemployed people unable to afford basic things.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 04:30:55 UTC No. 16221266
>>16221263
Basically loans always distort the market. The fact that you needed a loan to buy it means that it was probably needed elsewhere. Or the resources were needed elsewhere. That's how you end up with an excess of tractors and combine harvesters, food that you can't sell, and unemployed people unable to afford basic things. It always destroys the marked so that on average there isn't enough money, customers, and jobs.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 05:27:06 UTC No. 16221345
>>16218039
>Are there theories in psychology
Yes, the point is to get people hooked on products that are consumed often.
It's more profitable to produce many things that are needed very often, than produce one thing that is consumed once. Both business niches exist, but one is more profitable than the other.
For example, that's why you both have brands that still produce good quality clothing, that lasts, but costs $$$, and then you have the cheap, fast-fashion chains that are always shoving new "trends" in your face, where artificial demand is created by enhancing your insecurities and then presenting you with products to appease them, and whose clothing lasts but a few years before it starts decaying (or they convince you not to wear it anymore.*Fashion!*, *Trendy!*) and there you go on buying more. That too is a form of planned psychological obsolescence, but not technological/engineering obsolescence, but others have already gone into that.
The marketing industry fundamentally works like that: the produce inadequacy and insecurities in the consumer minds, and them present them with "solutions" to their mental discomfort.
They're pushers, basically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4c
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 05:40:36 UTC No. 16221371
>>16218039
>consumers want a cheaper phone
>producers start building them with the most low quality hardware they can make
>they only last around 3 years
Yes but it's not as planned as you think, if you abuse this tactic you risk to lose customers.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 05:45:46 UTC No. 16221384
>>16219684
Vidya pre-orders and EA franchises are a prime example
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 07:20:58 UTC No. 16221489
>>16218039
its not always planned. but organized none the less.
Apple send out a software update who;se only goal was to slow down the older model phones.
>https://www.bbc.com/news/technolog
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:21:42 UTC No. 16221545
>>16219654
It absolutely exists in printers. Not only did the older printers last longer, they were cheaper and easier to fix, and even have much cheaper ink
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:32:40 UTC No. 16221557
>>16221345
>They're pushers, basically.
Capitalism has been hacked.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:37:43 UTC No. 16221647
>>16218039
Old things don't have to last longer than new things for it to be real.
It's real and prevalent, for example in phones and that you can't replace simple parts of things like a mop.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 12:47:25 UTC No. 16221795
Android phone makers stop updating their phones OS to force ppl to buy a new one, despite the hardware working fine. This is the primary reason why FOSS OSs based on AOSP exist, so ppl can extend the life of their phone.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 12:52:26 UTC No. 16221801
>>16221647
>phones and that you can't replace simple parts
indeed, and it's nice to see that some are trying hard to undo that
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:05:16 UTC No. 16221903
>>16221801 It needs policy for that, not really any new products. I can't even get a screw nut for a thing I bought, should be easy to standardize it and eg require products with > x sales to have either replacement parts or use standardized components.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:16:33 UTC No. 16221917
>>16221903
>It needs policy for that
Absolutely. Agreed.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:34:00 UTC No. 16222255
>>16221801
>Fairphone
They removed the headphone jack to sell their pricey bluetooth earbuds. Most of their used parts market are conviently sold out so you can't do much with your fairphone 2 if you want to keep the headphone jack. Defeats the point really. Framework isn't much different either.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:35:25 UTC No. 16222261
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:35:39 UTC No. 16222265
>>16219654
Do you really not understand why <100 IQ people would prefer to buy one printer for 30$ that breaks in 2 years vs. buying one for 60$ that breaks in 4 years?
Hell, in some cases the first instance still makes sense even as a general strategy, rather than just being the result of stupidity and lack of foresight.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:39:38 UTC No. 16222488
>>16221557
>Capitalism has been hacked.
You don't live in free market capitalism, but in a bank run planned economy.