Planned obsolescence
[1] The rationale behind this strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").
To maintain unit sales, General Motors executive Alfred P. Sloan Jr. suggested annual model-year design changes to convince car owners to buy new replacements each year, with refreshed appearances headed by Harley Earl and the Art and Color Section.
Henry Ford did not like the constant stream of model-year changes because he clung to an engineer's notions of simplicity, economies of scale, and design integrity.
They are listed in the order of increasing severity: Contrived durability is a strategy of shortening the product lifetime before it is released onto the market, by designing it to deteriorate quickly.
A possible method of limiting a product's durability is to use inferior materials in critical areas, or suboptimal component layouts which cause excessive wear.
The short life expectancy of smartphones and other handheld electronics is a result of constant usage, fragile batteries, and the ability to easily damage them.
[14] Samsung AMOLED displays used in mobile phones have suboptimal ribbon cables that deteriorate over time, resulting in the screen turning completely white.
Throughout normal use, batteries lose their ability to store energy, output power, and maintain a stable terminal voltage, which impairs computing speeds and eventually leads to system outages in portable electronics.
[25][26] The ultimate examples of such design are single-use versions of traditionally durable goods, such as disposable cameras, where the customer must purchase entire new products after using them just once.
[27] Other products may also contain design features meant to frustrate repairs, such as Apple's "tamper-resistant" pentalobe screws that cannot easily be removed with common personal-use tools, overuse of glue, as well as denying operation if any third-party component such as a replacement home button has been detected.
[30] Bosch, despite the up to 10-year availability of spare parts declared on websites,[31][32] assembles in the popular MaxoMixx mixers an easily breaking plastic latch, refusing to sell the replacement latch to the user and instead proposing to replace the entire drive consisting of many elements as a single spare part, which is almost equivalent to buying a new device.
Common examples of planned systemic obsolescence include changing the design of screws or fasteners so that they cannot easily be operated on with existing tools, thereby frustrating maintenance.
[citation needed] In some cases, notification may be combined with deliberate artificial disabling of a functional product to prevent it from working, thus requiring the buyer to purchase a replacement.
For example, inkjet printer manufacturers employ smart chips in their ink cartridges to prevent them from being used after a certain threshold (number of pages, time, etc.
[39] Another example of programmed obsolescence is making older versions of software (e.g. Adobe Flash Player or YouTube's Android application[40]) deliberately unserviceable, even though they would still technically, albeit not economically, be able to function as intended.
However, because some devices, despite being equipped with appropriate hardware, might not be able to support the newest update without modifications such as custom firmware, this could pose a severe inconvenience and undue stress upon the user.
Software companies sometimes deliberately drop support for older technologies as a calculated attempt to force users to purchase new products to replace those made obsolete.
Several cities such as London, Berlin, Paris, Antwerp and Brussels have introduced low-emission zones (LEZ) banning older diesel cars.
By continuously introducing new aesthetics, and retargeting or discontinuing older designs, a manufacturer can "ride the fashion cycle", allowing for constant sales despite the original products remaining fully functional.
Motor vehicle platforms typically undergo a midlife facelift —a primarily cosmetic rather than an engineering change for the purpose of cost effectively increasing customer appeal by making previously manufactured versions of the same fundamental product less desirable, though sometimes these also introduce updated or new powertrains.
Some smartphone manufacturers release a marginally updated model every 5 or 6 months compared to the typical yearly cycle, leading to the perception that a one-year-old handset can be up to two generations old.
Sony Mobile utilised a similar tactic with its Xperia Z-series smartphones, and Samsung usually releases a Fan Edition (FE) model of its Galaxy phone at the midlife cycle with some less important features omitted and at a lower price point.
[citation needed] In 2015, the French National Assembly established a fine of up to €300,000 and jail terms of up to two years for manufacturers planning the failure of their products.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), an advisory body of the EU,[48] announced in 2013 that it was studying "a total ban on planned obsolescence".
[53] In 2024, the EU Council clarified the liability of retailers with regard to information, unnecessary software upgrades and unjustified obligation to purchase replacement parts from the original manufacturer.
[57] Quebec adopted this Bill in October 2023, prohibiting the creation or sale of an item with planned obsolescence through any technique which would reduce its normal operating life.
[58][59] In the US, planned obsolescence is being tackled through Right to Repair laws which have been enacted by several states,[60] including California, Minnesota, New York and Colorado.
Miles Park advocates new and collaborative approaches between the designer and the purchaser to challenge obsolescence in fast-moving sectors such as personal-use electronics.
[64] Some people, such as Ronny Balcaen, have proposed to create a new label to counter the diminishing quality of products due to the planned obsolescence technique.
[65] Bisschop et al. (2022) have said that the practice limits the "usable life of products to bolster private profit at the expense of consumer interests and environmental sustainability", stating it should be considered a corporate crime against the environment.
