Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BoilerButtSlut t1_izp9bfb wrote

Reply to comment by Ronnoc527 in What makes one product cheap junk that breaks in a week and another that lasts a lifetime? by SirCheeseAlot

Planned obsolescence isn't a thing. It is a myth.

I am an engineer and I know dozens of other engineers across multiple industries. None has ever been asked or told to make things fail faster.

Even your own example doesn't really work: the lighting industry moved from incandescent to LED despite LED lasting much much longer. According to planned obsolescence that cannot happen.

It doesn't even make sense: if I have something that breaks immediately after buying it, why would I go out and buy from the same manufacturer? It just sends people to their competitor.

You can also find long-lasting appliances or whatever without issue. Again, planned obsolescence says that shouldn't happen either.

2

dildonicphilharmonic t1_izpq9r1 wrote

Engineering to a price point seems to be mistaken for planned obsolescence often.

6

BoilerButtSlut t1_izpsrys wrote

Pretty much.

It's always the same story: "well this fridge from 1973 worked fine for over 40 years!"

Yeah, and that fridge cost the equivalent of $2k and would be considered super basic today. Buying a giant one with fancy features everywhere for less than $1k means that they had to cut corners somewhere.

1

Buccaneeer t1_izyt1g1 wrote

It absolutely is a thing. Actually the lighting industry came together in the past and agreed upon a limit as to how long a bulb should last...

1

BoilerButtSlut t1_izyysi3 wrote

Engineers are not being told to make thing fail faster. I promise you that is not a thing.

The only proof anyone can ever come up for it is the dumb "phoebus cartel" thing from the 30s. No other proof is ever offered. It also conveniently ignores that you could still buy long life bulbs during that time as well, which planned obsolescence says shouldn't be possible. And as mentioned, which you still didn't address: the lighting industry universally moved to LED. Those last way longer. Planned obsolescence says that's impossible.

The "cartel" was to make a consumer standard: you cannot have both long life AND high brightness bulbs. Those two goals contradict each other. 1000 hours was decided as a compromise, but as mentioned, you could still get 5k or 10k hour bulbs: they were called rough service or commercial. They were also noticeably less bright for the same power hence why they weren't popular.

The idea doesn't even make sense: why would consumers go back to buying the same thing that just broke on them? Like, if I have a washing machine that breaks after 6 months, why on earth would I go out and buy the same thing? The only way this idea ever works is if you have a full monopoly on that item. Otherwise it is just driving people to their competitors.

1

Buccaneeer t1_j011l3l wrote

Alongside monopoly there's something called oligopoly too

1

BoilerButtSlut t1_j015ltl wrote

If there is some kind of collusion, then that is a clear and provable anti-trust violation, and anyone at any of these companies can make a lot of money being a whistleblower.

Yet somehow no whistleblower ever seems to show up. No proof is ever offered.

And for the oligopoly idea to work, you feel full cooperation between everyone. As soon as one company doesn't play along the whole thing falls apart.

Since there are indeed no shortage of long-lasting choices, that leads me to think this isn't really a problem.

1