21st Century Planned Obsolescence

Factual Questions
1

“In an editorial in Design News toward the end of
the fifties, E. S. Safford asked whether engineers should
resist the philosophy of planned obsolescence if their
management commissioned a ‘short-term product’ and argued
that they should not: “Planned existence spans of product
may well become one of the greatest economic boosts to the
American economy since the origination of time payments.”
What was required, he argued was “a new look at old
engineering ethics”. Instead of trying to build the best,
the lightest, the fastest and the cheapest, engineers
should be able to apply their skills to building shoddy
articles that would fall apart after a short amount of
time, all in the interests of the market.”

Quick question: relative to the quote cited above, has this this attitude changed much in the last 40 years?

What are some products that could be made to last longer with some simple alterations?

What products should be avoided because of their short span of durability?

2

Well, there are a couple of things going on here. First of all, I think the issue is greatly overblown. I’ve worked in engineering, and I’ve never heard of anyone planning obsolescence just for its own sake, as in “Well boys, we better make that thing a little shoddier so it breaks down sooner.”

What HAS happened is an awareness that products in a changing society do have a finite lifespan, and therefore the most efficient way to design something is to use just enough materials to see the thing through its design life. You might hear a discussion along these lines: “Why the hell are you using that expensive part with a duty cycle of 1,000,000 revolutions, when the thing will be in the trash long before it uses even a tenth that many. Put in this cheaper part that only lasts 100,000 revolutions.”

In other words, you are getting something back in exchange for a reduced design life. You’re getting a lighter, cheaper, maybe even better product.

It’s all about efficiency, which translates into a more vibrant economy and better lives for everyone.

3

Sam Stone: SOME products have a finite consumer lifespan, some do not. Granted computer technology is mostly a crapshoot since things are changing all the time – but the vast majority of consumers would be happier with purchasing kitchen appliances, lamps, radios and cars that lasted longer, since most of the only significant changes in these from year to year are aesthetic ones.

I wanted to avoid the ethical issues associated with PO (since that makes it a Great Debate) and approach the concept from the stand-point of someone who might want to 1) avoid certain products or 2) alter certain products.

Funny you should mention ‘revolutions’, tho, since this is what I had in mind when I wrote this topic:

I bought a metal fan three years ago, packaged with a very prominent ‘50 year warranty’ blurb on the outside of the box. Since I was sick of buying, and then throwing out, the cheap-o $12 plastic box fans every summer, I bought this one. The past two years, it’s worked fine.

This year, as I use it in these long hot summer nights, I notice it tends to overheat and shut off after a few hours; it’s noisier than it used to be; parts that originally came with the product, like the rubber stoppers on the bottom, have long since fallen off. There is dust in the back that is difficult to remove because of the design of the cage around the fan blades. Also the plastic knob fell off sometime last year and I’m forced to change the settings in the back with a pair of pliers. I have to do THIS carefully, too, as the switch is also plastic and I don’t want to damage it. None of these design flaws were apparent when I purchased it.

Now: my grandmother is in possession of a oscillating metal fan that is over 30 years old and works BETTER than the three-year old fan I have now. It has a simple broad base, with no stoppers to lose. The on/off switch is metal and has NEVER fallen off. It’s easier to remove the dust from her fan, since the chage has a latch that allows you to remove the guards and wipe off dust from the blades. I understand she had it serviced 10 years ago, to fix a problem with the part that caused the fan to oscillate. Other than that with hums quietly and cools efficiently. Actually, she tends to use her more often than I do mine because she dislikes air-conditioning.

  • It seems to be that a fan built with a fifty year warranty ought to have the same, if not better, basic design features than a fan built thirty years earlier with no such guarantee. The only thing that seems to account for the differences in our fans would be the design. Mine appears to have been made to wear out faster.

  • Which goes back to my question, whether some products could be built to last longer with simple alterations. At the rate this fan is deteriorating I don’t see it lasting much longer than three or four more years.

I hope this example clarifies my thinking.

4

I doubt planned obsolescence has gone away. I remember talking to a guy who worked in the steel industry only a few years back. He told me that the sheetmetal the car manufacturers specified for car bodies could be upgraded to a type that would never rust at an increased cost to the car buyer of less than fifty US dollars per vehicle (sorry I’ve forgotten the actual figure).

I think possibly there is a perception that planned obsolescence has decreased simply because we are using more reliable technologies (ie. a solid state MP3 player is likely to be inherently more durable than a CD player, which in turn have in my experience always outlasted casette players). So, it’s merely been a shift in parameters, but could they make a more durable MP3 player than they do now? Well, then yes, I’m pretty sure they could.

5

I’m reminded of the Monty Python movie Jabberwocky, where Palin’s character says something to the effect of “Hey Dad, you know, we could knock off some flimsy barrels just good enough to last one trip to town. They’d be cheaper and lighter for the customers, be quicker and easier to make, and we could sell more of them”. And then his father gives him a rant about the virtues of quality craftsmanship.

(I searched long and hard for a script of that. Anyone?)

6

“…could they make a more durable MP3 player than they do now? Well, then yes, I’m pretty sure they could.”

The point is whether it’s worth it to spend the extra money – making the item more expensive for the consumer to buy – to make the MP3 player last longer when there will surely be another technology along to replace it in the next ten or twenty years. Durability isn’t free, and the benefit from greater durability has to be balanced against the benefit of a cheaper price.

A piano lovingly hand crafted from the finest natural materials may last 200+ years versus the few decades of the mass-produced model, but most middle-class consumers cannot afford the former, only the latter.

A home computer circa 1985 built to last 50 years wouldn’t make any sense. Few people five or ten years ago, much less now, and MUCH less 10 years from now, would want a computer with such limited capabilities.

It’s like the (apocryphal?) story about $1000 coffee makers intended for strategic bombing planes (B52s?). As the story goes, they were expensive mainly because they had to be built to grueling military specifications instead of using off-the-shelf civilian models. The joke/scandal was that the coffee makers were required by the specs to survive conditions that would kill the bomber’s crew, and therefore the extra durability was wasted.

7

A little OT, but…

The story on the $7,000 coffeepots for C-5 transport planes is that they were not only designed to provide coffee for about 300 or so people the transport can carry, but also to withstand the stress of a belly landing or depressurization of the aircraft, so that scalding coffee burns would not add to the already high likelihood of injury to the passengers and crew in either of those two events. I don’t think it’s such a bad idea. There’s tons of waste in military spending, but I suspect the coffeepot expense was justified.

Cite: Dunnigan, JF. 1990. Dirty Little Secrets William Morrow, p. 334