Skip to content

Comment on Will Planned Obsolescence Kill Silicon Valley? [video]parent

Comments

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.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.