Can't we deter planned obsolescence by having stronger consumer protection laws? The USA is so far behind in consumer protection it's crazy. If a company had to warranty up to 5 years maybe they'd be more concerned with keeping the product as good as it can get.
The problem with that is that there are lots of things that don't need to last 5 years because the upgrade cycle is faster than that, and if you have to design them to last that long, they cost more, with little added benefit to the average user.
It's like, the last time I bought a DVD player, it cost $26. They tried to sell me an extended warranty on it, and I laughed, because I didn't expect to actually need a DVD player longer than a year or two. I was right. It lasted a bit over a year, and then I got a bluray player. That's all I needed or wanted for my $26, and I'm glad that there was a cheap little DVD player that could provide it.
Then the question is -- why is the upgrade cycle faster than that? I suspect that we upgrade less because the new feature is something we really need, but because we have a desire to chase after the new for its own sake.
With things like wireless units of all sorts, a short lifetime is better for everyone. Protocol improvements tend to allow better sharing and utilization of the same frequency every few years, along with faster speeds. The issue is one old device can slow all the newer devices down.
Consumer protection laws might help towards things like glued-in batteries, which would already be a big win (but then again you have reviews that praised Samsung for getting rid of theirs as if that was a net positive), but they aren't going to help the software side of things.
If the manufacturer comes out with version +1 and +2 of their OS that still do run on your device, but coincidentally run only badly enough to make it really annoying to use, how can you protect against that? Even if you mandate that any future version of the OS released during the warranty of your device must run on it, you can't mandate that it runs as well as the original.
When new releases come out the manufacturer will just say that "due to all these new features we can't keep the same level of performance on the older devices" and the software ecosystem being incentivized towards moving to these +1 and +2 versions makes holding onto them even more difficult.
In my view, the idea of market forces taking care of things depends on assumptions about public access to information, that probably can't be met. It may be prohibitively hard for consumers to get information on a reasonable expected life span of something like a refrigerator.
My strong belief is that all of them are "more than 10 years". Beyond that, does it really matter? That's a couple dimes to a dollar a day for convenient and safe food preservation in your house.
What would be the basis for predicting the life span of a new design anyway?
My anecdotal experience is that fridges last a few years before requiring repair. In the space of 10 years, my home fridge failed once, ran for a few more years, and then just stopped cooling. Over that time period, I've repaired nearly every appliance in the house. They were all new when we moved in, because we bought a house that was empty of appliances.
Dehumidifier: Defective potentiometer. Repaired, then it ultimately wore out and stopped cooling. Folklore is that the seals in the compressors are short lived, system loses the ability to compress the refrigerant sufficiently. This also causes a gradually rising power consumption until it can no longer hold temperature.
Chest freezer: Starting relay / capacitor failed. Replaced with unit bought online. Currently idle, as we have nothing to freeze.
Microwave: Failed, tried to repair, to no avail.
Cooking range: Loose connection in heating element caused wiring to burn up. Repaired by silver-brazing new wire to Nichrome element material.
Dryer: Repaired twice. First time was an over-temperature sensor. Second time, the motor bearings failed, and the unit was squeaking like crazy.
Waffle iron: Repaired once due to heating of loose connection, second time it was unrepairable.
I've also repaired the furnace, but it was a pretty old unit.
One basis for predicting life span of new design is to base it on known performance of old design. Of course this can't happen if cost reduction results in multiple, radical design changes, including use of lower cost materials.
On the plus side, the Internet has opened up a bonanza of repair information and spare parts, so I have saved a boat load of money by being self sufficient for repairs.
I agree on the "Youtube repair manual" aspect and I've saved a ton of money as well. We've been in our place for 8 years, and in that time, I can only recall fixing the fridge (bad defrost element-$20 or so), throwing out a slow cooker, replacing the igniter on the gas stove, and replacing a working dishwasher and a not working washer (bad bearing seal on a front loader and the bearing was too seized to remove before I damaged it irreparably).
That's in a place with two kitchens, plus a chest freezer, two washer/dryers, and numerous small appliances, plus most of the items were old when we bought the place. I'm sure I'm averaging less than a repair per major appliance per decade.
I don't doubt your contrary experience, but it seems to skew on the unlucky side IME.
Do "normal" markets even exist in the USA? Between the Defense Industrial Base (http://www.dhs.gov/defense-industrial-base-sector), the Department of Defense itself, lobbyists writing laws, industrial espionage by various governmental entities, it seems like all large markets are totally poisoned - there's forces at work that aren't acknowledged, and may be kept secret, that prop up oligopolies.
Comments
Can't we deter planned obsolescence by having stronger consumer protection laws? The USA is so far behind in consumer protection it's crazy. If a company had to warranty up to 5 years maybe they'd be more concerned with keeping the product as good as it can get.
The problem with that is that there are lots of things that don't need to last 5 years because the upgrade cycle is faster than that, and if you have to design them to last that long, they cost more, with little added benefit to the average user.
It's like, the last time I bought a DVD player, it cost $26. They tried to sell me an extended warranty on it, and I laughed, because I didn't expect to actually need a DVD player longer than a year or two. I was right. It lasted a bit over a year, and then I got a bluray player. That's all I needed or wanted for my $26, and I'm glad that there was a cheap little DVD player that could provide it.
Then the question is -- why is the upgrade cycle faster than that? I suspect that we upgrade less because the new feature is something we really need, but because we have a desire to chase after the new for its own sake.
With things like wireless units of all sorts, a short lifetime is better for everyone. Protocol improvements tend to allow better sharing and utilization of the same frequency every few years, along with faster speeds. The issue is one old device can slow all the newer devices down.
Consumer protection laws might help towards things like glued-in batteries, which would already be a big win (but then again you have reviews that praised Samsung for getting rid of theirs as if that was a net positive), but they aren't going to help the software side of things.
If the manufacturer comes out with version +1 and +2 of their OS that still do run on your device, but coincidentally run only badly enough to make it really annoying to use, how can you protect against that? Even if you mandate that any future version of the OS released during the warranty of your device must run on it, you can't mandate that it runs as well as the original.
When new releases come out the manufacturer will just say that "due to all these new features we can't keep the same level of performance on the older devices" and the software ecosystem being incentivized towards moving to these +1 and +2 versions makes holding onto them even more difficult.
Is Apple a monopoly? In a normal market, competition and market forces should take care of this.
In my view, the idea of market forces taking care of things depends on assumptions about public access to information, that probably can't be met. It may be prohibitively hard for consumers to get information on a reasonable expected life span of something like a refrigerator.
My strong belief is that all of them are "more than 10 years". Beyond that, does it really matter? That's a couple dimes to a dollar a day for convenient and safe food preservation in your house.
What would be the basis for predicting the life span of a new design anyway?
My anecdotal experience is that fridges last a few years before requiring repair. In the space of 10 years, my home fridge failed once, ran for a few more years, and then just stopped cooling. Over that time period, I've repaired nearly every appliance in the house. They were all new when we moved in, because we bought a house that was empty of appliances.
Dehumidifier: Defective potentiometer. Repaired, then it ultimately wore out and stopped cooling. Folklore is that the seals in the compressors are short lived, system loses the ability to compress the refrigerant sufficiently. This also causes a gradually rising power consumption until it can no longer hold temperature.
Chest freezer: Starting relay / capacitor failed. Replaced with unit bought online. Currently idle, as we have nothing to freeze.
Microwave: Failed, tried to repair, to no avail.
Cooking range: Loose connection in heating element caused wiring to burn up. Repaired by silver-brazing new wire to Nichrome element material.
Dryer: Repaired twice. First time was an over-temperature sensor. Second time, the motor bearings failed, and the unit was squeaking like crazy.
Waffle iron: Repaired once due to heating of loose connection, second time it was unrepairable.
I've also repaired the furnace, but it was a pretty old unit.
One basis for predicting life span of new design is to base it on known performance of old design. Of course this can't happen if cost reduction results in multiple, radical design changes, including use of lower cost materials.
On the plus side, the Internet has opened up a bonanza of repair information and spare parts, so I have saved a boat load of money by being self sufficient for repairs.
I agree on the "Youtube repair manual" aspect and I've saved a ton of money as well. We've been in our place for 8 years, and in that time, I can only recall fixing the fridge (bad defrost element-$20 or so), throwing out a slow cooker, replacing the igniter on the gas stove, and replacing a working dishwasher and a not working washer (bad bearing seal on a front loader and the bearing was too seized to remove before I damaged it irreparably).
That's in a place with two kitchens, plus a chest freezer, two washer/dryers, and numerous small appliances, plus most of the items were old when we bought the place. I'm sure I'm averaging less than a repair per major appliance per decade.
I don't doubt your contrary experience, but it seems to skew on the unlucky side IME.
Agreed on access to information. In a competitive market, such as cars, most people know that Toyotas generally last longer than Jeeps.
Do "normal" markets even exist in the USA? Between the Defense Industrial Base (http://www.dhs.gov/defense-industrial-base-sector), the Department of Defense itself, lobbyists writing laws, industrial espionage by various governmental entities, it seems like all large markets are totally poisoned - there's forces at work that aren't acknowledged, and may be kept secret, that prop up oligopolies.
if the "normal market" is geared towards giving you a "free" cellphone every two years, the market forces aren't going to help much