knightly

A queer linux admin that goes "mow"

One of those furries that makes the internets go.
Loves to argue politics, but sometimes doesn't know when to quit.


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


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.