When Technology Expires

Solheim, Eirik

Planned obsolescence is the artificial shortening of the lifespan of a product to create a consistent and unending stream of income for the seller. As technology improves and humans develop innovations to improve durability, it is expected that products will reflect this change. However, when the market eventually becomes saturated with long-lasting goods that rarely need replacing, companies can no longer maintain the same level of profitability. To prevent the loss of income, products are designed to break after a certain amount of time or use, and the need to replace them brings the buyer back to the seller.

The industries that utilize planned obsolescence manipulate both function and product desirability. Fashion experiences high product turnover due to the cultural obsolescence of brands and clothing styles; textbook manufacturers constantly release new editions with rearranged chapters, new homework questions, and single-use codes to prevent books from being resold and reused. The first well-known historical example of the phenomenon was the Phoebus cartel in the early 20th century: the international coalition of lightbulb manufacturers conspired to set the lifespan of incandescent bulbs at one-thousand hours, supposedly to optimize energy efficiency (but allegedly to defy what they called “socket saturation” and artificially stabilize demand). In 1932, one real-estate broker even suggested that the American government mandate a maximum lifespan for products to encourage consumerism and stimulate the economy, a policy suggestion that did not end up being implemented.

Recent debate about the phenomenon has often been centered around technology, especially smartphones. Contrived durability is the most iconic and relevant example, in which a product is deliberately designed to deteriorate faster than its potential capacity; during the manufacturing process, the use of cheaper and suboptimal materials causes devices to wear down quickly. Companies also release new versions of apps and software updates that gradually cause older devices to run slower or develop glitches. If repairing a device is time-consuming or expensive and the tools required are inaccessible, consumers will often just give up and replace the product. Even when repairs are offered, they are often price-matched or pricier than buying a new version, the latter of which has the appeal of new features. Non-user-replaceable batteries, software and app lockouts, and the threat of voiding the warranty make it exceedingly difficult to defy the whims of the company and avoid replacing a device.

Currently, there is a battle over the “right to repair” – with the goal being for companies to be required to make repair instructions, spare parts, and tools available to individuals and repair shops. Advocates argue that many of the negative externalities that result from planned obsolescence (landfill waste, emissions, and pollution) can be mitigated by making repairs accessible and affordable. It is estimated that if Americans resist replacing their smartphone for even one extra year, it will have a similar environmental impact as taking 636,000 vehicles off the road. Massachusetts recently passed right-to-repair regulation for personal vehicles, overcoming automotive industry warnings about hacking and data theft that may result from consumer access to protected technology.

This is not to paint corporations as solely malicious, exploiting the innocent consumer through deception and manipulation. Without Western materialism, parsimony, and the rise of the convenience premium, it would not be easy to implement planned obsolescence. Even though in general it is more cost-effective in the long run to buy pricier, higher-quality products and invest time and energy into repairs, consumers tend to prefer simply replacing cheaper products rather than addressing their decreased functionality. This cycle is more profitable for the company, and it is in their best interests to go along with it. Planned obsolescence also helps to maintain jobs and encourages innovation in product design and functionality. On a macroeconomic level, there are enormous gains in GDP to be had from a constant stream of output. Furthermore, at a time when technology is seeing huge strides in short timeframes, it is a boon for the consumer to see those improvements in real-time with the easy and relatively cheap replacing of “old” devices.

However, there is a point (and many believe we have already arrived at that point) at which innovation cannot keep up with the speed of new product releases needed to reach companies’ revenue targets; there was a much bigger difference between the first and second iPhone than between the fifth and sixth (unless you consider the rose-gold exterior to be revolutionary). The aforementioned externalities cannot be easily argued away when the benefits of quick turnover are reduced and the need for accountability through regulation increases.

Regulation of the sort needed to curtail the negative impacts of planned obsolescence can go beyond the right to repair and doesn’t have to diminish the motivation to innovate. For example, mandating that companies are transparent about product lifespans and repairability, adhere to durability standards, and continue to provide support for devices for a certain length of time after purchase may encourage some consumers to put off replacing their devices as soon as a new version is released. It would also reinforce the right to repair and reduce e-waste if copyright law did not allow companies to keep repair manuals classified and prevent people from pursuing independent servicing for their devices.

Charging fees or taxes for mining and emissions will offset some of the cost of negative externalities, though it does not affect the root cause except to the extent that it discourages ultra-high levels of production. Research that allows future devices to handle critical software updates without slowing down is already being done, which in the future may provide the option to download or pay for new features without having to purchase new hardware. However, this relies on companies seeing value in disincentivizing the purchase of entirely new devices for each round of product improvements, which could require creative subsidization.

The costs are high when it comes to planned obsolescence. If you’ve ever heard someone say, “They don’t make ’em like they used to,” they might be right. The reason companies can be profitable under this system is because they are not accounting for its environmental impact. They (and we) are complacent with the way things are, even if it costs more in the long run. But if we can regulate and innovate to make obsolescence obsolete, it would revolutionize the technology industry.