Most people have the general idea that manufacturers deliberately use low quality materials and inferior designs with the express purpose of creating a product that will fail within a particular time frame. Specifically, this is done so that the consumer will be essentially 'forced' to purchase another product from the manufacturer if they want to continue using that product[1].
Planned obsolescence, in this way, guarantees a steady stream of income for the manufacturer as products are sold, used, break and are replaced.
It is specifically this[2] post which I feel dispels this myth. Essentially, manufacturers are responding to consumer demand and providing a cost-effective product. Take printers, for example. You could build a printer out of solid steel milled parts and welded frames. But such a thing would be astronomically expensive and no one would be able to afford it. And since there is a large market and steady demand for printers (especially affordable ones), manufacturers do what is absolutely logical: they produce a product that is affordable to the average person so that a larger audience can buy their product. The problem with this is that such a product must, by necessity, be made of low-quality parts. In order to supply the quantity of demanded product and still derive a profit to continue making products, certain materials and production techniques must be used.
Many people will point to older products that have survived as examples of how "times were better." But it's important to remember that during the times when these legacy items were made, cheaper versions simply weren't available. If you wanted x, you had to save and buy one of the few examples of x that were present on the market. To say nothing of survivor's bias -- the shitty products from that age are long gone, and only the really well-cared-for or durable ones linger.
If anything, the fact that the average person has a toaster, a blender, a printer, a refrigerator, a computer, an AC unit, a DVD player, a Roku, a TV, a home sound system, security cameras, a closet stuffed full of clothes, a vacuum, a garage full of power tools, and a driveway full of cars -- the list goes on -- is a testament to the ability of manufacturers to produce affordable products. It's not their fault that in order to bring the price down to a level you could afford, they had to make everything out of plastic where possible.
The final nail in the coffin for the myth of planned obsolescence is that there are products that are worth the money and will last a long time. Going back to printers, there are printers that are built like tanks. And their price reflects that. But people have been conditioned to feel entitled to particular luxuries but at the same time don't want to spend an arm and a leg because we've also been told that "things are supposed to be cheap!" Then we wonder why the 200$ printer we got last month didn't perform the same as the 600$ one. Maybe now a quality printer should cost 600$. Billig wird teuer.
This is not to say, of course, that shitty products don't exist. They do, in abundance. But you, the consumer, have a choice. You can buy the the first thing you see when you walk into Target, or you can ask around to see what a good alternative might be. Especially in the age of the internet, it is fantastically easy to do research and see what other people are saying about a particular product. I don't remember the last time I made an uninformed purchase -- sites like Amazon are not only convenient places to buy from, but also fantastic repositories of reviews and information about the quality of goods. If I want a particular thing, it is a simple matter now to do 5 minutes of research to find an example that is well received and won't break immediately and purchase that one. Even if vastly cheaper/more expensive alternatives exist.
In short, it is people's unwillingness to acknowledge that their impulse purchases are just that, impulsive and poorly thought out. Especially when more expensive options exist, it is illogical to assume the product stuffed in a bin at the checkout line is of the same quality as the similar product behind a locked cabinet deeper in the store. If it is that important to you, save up, do your research and make an informed purchase. But don't blame the manufacturer because you were too cheap to get a good model and too lazy to do your research.
tl;dr: most people use "planned obsolescence" to deflect attention away from the fact that they didn't take the time to seek out a quality product and then save money to buy it.
[1] I should take the time to differentiate between planned obsolescence and a product simply becoming obsolete over time as technology advances -- I'm not suggesting a manufacturer should predict every single technological innovation that will come after the launch of their product, but it is the concept of malicious planning that I am referring to here.
[2] The link above does mention an actual example of manufacturers doing shitty things in order to continue selling their products. Namely, textbooks. I am referring to products on a much larger scale, all across the board. Hence why I am arguing that it doesn't exist on the epidemic scale that some people suggest. Ironically, this is one area that receives little attention from anyone other than college students.
Submitted September 23, 2017 at 10:23PM by saltedfish http://ift.tt/2xYw94o changemyview
No comments:
Post a Comment