• it/its

// the deer!
// plural deer therian θΔ, trans demigirl
// stray pet with a keyboard
// i'm 20 & account is 18+!
name-color: #ebe41e
// yeah



wxcafe
@wxcafe

"planned obsolescence" is an awfully bad term for what it's talking about.

it makes it seem like there is a shadow conspiration bent on making consumer goods worse and not last as long, but there isn't. consumer goods are worse and don't last as long, but it's not because of an evil plot by companies, it's a systemic problem where things have to be cheaper to produce both because the parts and the labor have gotten more expensive so you have to compensate for that somehow, and also because consumers want cheaper Things because salaries have not gone up at the same rate as prices, and so to make things cheaper you cut costs and quality. things are made faster by people who are less qualified and have less time to work on them, from worse materials, and thus breaks more quickly and gives you a worse experience. or it's much more expensive. or both!

anyway yeah. systemic obsolescence sounds like a better name


NireBryce
@NireBryce

planned obsolescence does happen (people blocking right to repair under copyright and not "everyone wants waterproof phones which makes it very hard to repair them" as the most blatant) but it's usually only planned obsolescence in retrospect. sometimes it's not even intentional, and instead a case of marketing being completely ignorant to how the field is advancing, and that driving not just production, but what story you the buyer are sold to frame things ("hype")

there's a lot of interplay and grey area that's mostly companies doing what economists claim is impossible, and exploiting their favourable information imbalance compared to the customer. is it strictly planned obsolescence? usually just happy accidents.

your computer/phone needs to be replaced every n years because the internet and or your machine gets loaded with so much stuff that it bogs down. would replacing components be better? deleting the right things? probably, but most people don't know that's an option, or don't know where to look

medicaid-tier medical tech is often absolute garbage because insurance is paying for it and insurance doesn't use it. but insurance never logs complaints about quality from patients. so your pump breaks and insurance replaces it and the medtech company pockets the difference. they also mark it up by at least 2x. this is the most clearcut ones

your car center console, a proprietary design because they were the first to use tablets for it, stops getting software updates a year after buying it. a few thousand down the drain, especially in terms of resale value. the company was dumping stock, and marketing sold it as if it was still relevant. paying the extra 200$ for the new version would have given you five more years. you punch the horn in agonized grief, drowning out your sobs


quat
@quat
This page's posts are visible only to users who are logged in.

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @wxcafe's post:

eh, there's two sides to it. most things we refer to as planned obsolescence are better described as systemic obsolescence, but some things are genuinely intended. intentional design choices to make things harder to repair (not stuff like snap closures, but things like proprietary or rare screws for no reason), or things designed to fail programmatically, like ink cartridges for inkjet printers with arbitrary page print limits despite almost always having plenty of usable ink left.

but yeah, most of it is more systemic obsolescence.

I mean those are also not caused by individual malice but by systemic incentive: if you can't repair your device, you'll buy another one, if you can't print more than a certain number of pages with this cartridge you'll buy another cartridge, etc. that's 100% economic incentive

true, but if we follow that line of thinking, individual malice is effectively impossible. of course there's a systemic incentive for everything, that's how systems work, but systemic incentive is not mutually exclusive with malice. people do bad things all the time because it is incentivized. social security telephone scams are pretty obviously a bad thing to do, but they are very lucrative if you can get away with them. my point is, malice and systemic incentive regularly go hand-in-hand.

Well, I think the issue is less whether it happens but whether it's relevant to talk this much about it, in the sense of trying to solve a problem.

It's interesting, philosophically, how human malice intertwines with the systemic issues of capitalism, and it's helpful to understand this aspect of it, as it is helpful to understand any aspect of it, but when deciding on which issue to focus, when it comes to solving a problem, should we tackle the evils of the human mind? Or the systems?

And it's also not about completely omitting one or the other, it's all about focus and framing.

in reply to @NireBryce's post:

The purpose of a system is what it does and in my view the actual purpose of the system is to employ as many people as possible, regardless of the quality of the product

It's basically our society filling the gap left by the lack of a universal basic income

fwiw this isn't an agitated reply, but I realize it might come off as that:

I don't think those jobs are this. Most of things called planned obsolescence are from eliminating as much of the human labor from things as possible, whether that's intended to obsolete it or it just ends up obsoleting it early.

Imo the jobs that are drudgework to fill the gap you mention, is closer to the SEO middlemen agencies that're just hiring desperate people to brainlessly write nonsense that has vague connection to the words of the topic, so you can boost your winery or used car lot or whatever in the results. it's gig work, call center jobs, retail, etc. Or worse, it's explicitly for a scam: Contrepreneurs - Dan Olson (Folding Ideas)

I don't see that as part of the obsolescence, because it's way more insidious in my view -- it's people using Harvard MBA Brain and exploiting their knowledge vs the average rando, to turn 'spare' labor and 'idle' time into money for them, because the lack of a safety net makes that better than dying. And that part is planned, but it's not obsolescence. If anything, it's keeping the obsolete process around because for the companies it's cheaper in the short term than buying new equipment, and shareholders only care about short term growth in ways that make long term investments very hard, and on the government end, it's keeping people from having time to think about the situation they've been in, no time to self-develop, etc, so they can keep defunding everything they can without people catching on to their plan.

The hustle/gig economy is part of the modern workhouse, but so too are many of the jobs that pay the least and require the most active attention of one's life, wasting the time with nowhere your brain can really go far without being interrupted, or being under immense pressure to never slow down.