When buying an expensive product, I usually tend to consider the price, usage and effectiveness the product will bring me. Just last year, I along with a group of mine purchased Macbooks. Given that the total sum of each Macbook we purchased was priced around $2000 we had to think the decision well. One factor that I did not think about was, what is the life expectancy of this product, will it last me a year or two?
A while later I watched a video, titled " Are Apple Product Made To Break?. Within the video the topic of planned obselence is discussed. The concept of planned obsolescence dates back to 1932, when it was used to identify a scheme by which the government would impose a limited shelf life on products in an attempt to help the world emerge from the Great Depression. For now, the term is used to refer to the practice of continuosly improving and reinventing products in an attempt to influence consumsers into replacing their purchases more often. In the video, many tech experts accuse Apple of building products that consistantly need replacing on an annual bases so Apple can keep sales and profits at a high level. New York Times columnist Catherine Rampell notes that Apple's software updates make older products run slowly. This happened to be the case for Marco Tabini, when he upgraded his iPhone 4s to the new iOS7 update but could'nt help but notice that the user interface felt sluggish and that the battery did not last as long as it used it. Furthermore Rampell, notes that the releases always coincide with the release of a new product and that the cost of replacing batteries within Apple products or a screen repair are nearly the same as buying a new product. Rampell isnt the only one to point out planned obselence within Apple.iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens agrees, saying Apple uses its own patented five-point screws which prevents users from repairing product themselves. He says when Apple introduced the new screws in 2009 they replaced normal screws in old products taken in for repairs without warning or getting the permission of customers. Personally I believe planned obselence is a matter of regular wear and tear along with advancing technological advancements. In the case of Marco, I know a battery is supposed to hold it maximum charge for about 400 or so charge cycles. This means within a year, the battery will begin to hold less and less charge eventually needing to be replaced. Furthermore, for the upgrades, it makes sense that an older device is not able to operate the same pace given that the software was written for different features and the new update has new features. What do you think? Do companies utilize planned obselence for profits?
11 Comments
Luigi
5/17/2017 06:52:34 pm
Absolutely these companies do! It is all designed to self destruct, and anyone who doesn't believe it is living in a delusion. And you know what? It's ok. Because just like everything else we humans "build" it is always evolving and that is what keeps us going and wanting more. Great blog!
Reply
James Barquera
5/20/2017 04:02:03 pm
This a good thing though. It not only pushes companies to advance and develop better products but it's what helps businesses stay afloat.
Reply
Hugo Argueta
5/17/2017 11:14:03 pm
Hey Joseph,
Reply
Martin Almaraz
5/18/2017 07:23:06 pm
I completely agree with the idea that companies almost need to force planned obsolence to increase revenue to continue to innovate. I also have a small theory that companies may be way ahead of their time in regards to tech that they sell, and are intentionally holding back in order to save something for the next release of their product.
Reply
James Barquera
5/20/2017 04:10:14 pm
I agree with you Hugo. I always hated the idea of upgrading to new devices but now since I thought it through, it's understandable from both a business perspective and consumer perspective.
Reply
Alan Garcia
5/18/2017 02:52:19 pm
24
Reply
Martin Almaraz
5/18/2017 07:20:25 pm
I think that planned obsolescence is very prevalent within our current economy. It simply is a means to allow companies to sell more products every year without the need to innovate enough to influence customers to really want to buy again.
Reply
Akoni
5/19/2017 02:40:18 pm
This was an interesting post as it really made me think. I hadn't thought much before about planned obsolescence. Now that I have, it makes sense.
Reply
Pearce Reinsch
5/19/2017 05:01:30 pm
I think that planned obsolescence does exist, but that this term gets over applied to the products out in the marketplace especially when it comes to new technologies. I feel that many products are made with wither cheaper materials to increase profit margins which reduces durability, or that a device is made with such precision that it borders on fragility. Either of these situations will result in a short lifespan, but this reduced lifespan is not necessarily due to intentional planned obsolescence.
Reply
5/21/2017 01:01:13 am
At the end of the day, they need to make sells to make means. It is horrible that companies do this, and that we pay so much already for products but I am a huge apple person and I love all apple products. theyre simple, elegant and its hard to find that with other companies, However, when buying apple products you're paying more for the name than the technology itself, so thats when you have to decide what is better for you.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFirst generation computer scientist that loves football. Archives
May 2017
Categories |