Have you noticed that your iPhone battery dies quicker after a few years?
Or your refrigerator inconveniently malfunctions right after the warranty expires?
Or the battery in your flashlight can no longer be replaced, forcing you to buy an entirely new one?
This phenomenon is called planned obsolescence. These occurrences are intended by manufacturers to force products to become unusable and unfixable after a certain duration. The lifetimes of technological and nontechnological products alike are perfectly calculated to maximize profit for manufacturers and advance their business plans. This pressures consumers to purchase new items.
The inability to fix products, whether because their breakage is too extreme or the replacement parts are no longer manufactured, introduces the Right to Repair movement. This is directly tied to planned obsolescence and the goal of promoting new purchases, while weaning consumers off of older products.
There are several viewpoints and multiple environmental, economic, and social implications. Depending on the stakeholder, planned obsolescence and the right to repair can be viewed positively or negatively. This blog will detail the differing perspectives on this civic issue.
Manufacturers: Major corporations would support implementing planned obsolescence, believing it is necessary for the financial integrity of the company. They would use it to ensure more consistent purchases, generating revenue. They would oppose the right to repair, since it would limit the number of new customers and purchases they would obtain in the process.
Advertisers: Marketing staff would be in support of planned obsolescence. That process serves as their job security. When there are new, improved items reaching the market, they have new material to creatively advertise.
Inventors: Designers would benefit from planned obsolescence and, therefore, likely support it. Their purpose is to develop new products and improve upon outdated, obsolete designs. Their goal would be for these to reach the market and be implemented in daily usage, as well as erase the utilization of older models.
Environmentalists: Environmentalists would oppose planned obsolescence, focusing on its negative impacts on ecosystems. When products are constantly being replaced, the older models are being haphazardly thrown away. When materials are improperly disposed of, it can wreak havoc on nature. Additionally, environmentalists would support the right to repair movement to reduce the number of products being trashed.
Consumers: Buyers would not support planned obsolescence because it takes advantage of them and manipulates their purchases. It forces them to inconveniently replace products, which they may rather repair, hence probable support for the right to repair movement.
Repair Workers: Repair workers would support the right to repair movement because it ensures their employment. The shorter the lifespan of a product and the quicker it reaches the garbage from its conception, the less necessary the role of repair workers becomes. When products are more deemed obsolete, it eliminates the need for fixing.
Policy-Makers: Legislation has been passed in support of the right to repair movement, as well as against. This reflects varying opinions by several governments globally.
Sources:
tmd6040
January 26, 2024 — 3:26 pm
I like how you discussed the general opinions that several groups have on the issue of planned obsolescence. I definitely agree that most consumers are against it. Unfortunately, as it is simply more profitable, it will continue to happen unless corporations are given an incentive to build longer-lasting and repairable products. The question is where this incentive should come from and what it should be. At the end of your post, you say that legislation has been passed on the issue, and I wonder if this could be the solution. Maybe companies should be required to give longer warranties on products that should be lasting a long time if they are built properly?