21–30 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can buy stuff that lasts, it just tends to cost a lot more than the mass market products. Consumers have voted with their wallets and the markets have responded. If consumer behavior changes, the markets will to.
It is more complicated than this. Many do not have enough in their wallet to 'vote' based on their values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really think planned obsolescence is the future for everyone. Why build things to last when you can 1. save money by cheaping out and 2. ensure a future customer by cheaping out? There's no reason for them to build high quality, long lasting things. So why would they? They don't care about the waste.
You can buy stuff that lasts, it just tends to cost a lot more than the mass market products. Consumers have voted with their wallets and the markets have responded. If consumer behavior changes, the markets will to.
It's a problem of the bottom the market raced to being placed too low.
Honestly, there’s another explanation that I think makes a lot more sense even though it’s less beautiful : the product team wasn’t sure they wanted to ship a battery with the device in the first place. Or at least they wanted to keep the option of shipping the device without a battery. Removing the battery makes the device cheaper (you can also remove the power brick if any) and removes a supplier from the chain. Ke…
Similarly, Windows Mixed Reality VR controllers run off AA batteries instead of the more traditional built-in LiIon battery. The downside is you have to buy batteries for it, the upside is you can swap battery packs and you're not beholden to a custom power source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is more complicated than this. Many do not have enough in their wallet to 'vote' based on their values.
Which is why the "cheap" products are important. Without them many people would not have access to a wide variety of goods.
Give it a read if you are interested in topics like planned obsolence or product design in general.
Durable isn't timeless, that's for sure, for that product looks pretty average. What I'm more looking out for are companies that create sustainable products, with replaceable batteries and/or a return program that involves the recycling and proper disposal of those batteries/products.
Dieter Rams’ 10 principles include long lasting (7) and environmentally friendly (9). Aesthetic is there (3), but it’s just 10% of it :)
This is my main issue with the locked-down, glued-shut nature of modern electronics: it's a lie. A phone is not one thing, it is composite. There are different components inside and their individual functions and relations can be understood - and yes, when they break, they can be individually replaced. But manufacturers have decided that is in their interest that consumers do not understand the things they consume, so they build things that lie to us.
Honestly, there’s another explanation that I think makes a lot more sense even though it’s less beautiful : the product team wasn’t sure they wanted to ship a battery with the device in the first place. Or at least they wanted to keep the option of shipping the device without a battery. Removing the battery makes the device cheaper (you can also remove the power brick if any) and removes a supplier from the chain. Ke…
It's also a pragmatic move for a mobile device which might need to work for long periods of time away from power sources. As strange as it may seem to some of us, not everyone has a USB port available at all times. You could take one of these things and a couple of packs of AA batteries on a camping trip without worrying about finding a power point. Similarly, Windows Mixed Reality VR controllers run off AA batteries…
That said, it's still great they did that, and they deserve praise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why the "cheap" products are important. Without them many people would not have access to a wide variety of goods.
The fact that "cheap" products are important does not reinforce your first statement that "if consumer behavior changes, the markets will to". When a family can afford a swimming pool because there are now ones you can buy for 8 dollars I won't call it a vote. In my opinion, buying can be assimilated to a vote when your wallet is big enough to let you consider several market options.
And also, and I keep repeating this, if there even are options.
The problem with voting with your wallet is the same as the problem of voting in a typical western democracy. You never get to vote on a feature/issue in the abstract; you can only choose out of what's available on the market/ballot, and that's always a very large bundle of features/issues, so you have to make trade-offs when voting.
For instance, I very much want to have a replaceable battery in my smartphone, but my current one doesn't have this feature. That's because I had to choose a whole bundle and the replaceable battery lost with considerations like "won't turn into unsupported and underpowered garbage in 2 years", "still has audio jack", "support SIM cards" and "I trust the manufacturer". There's no way for the market to pick up on my preference for replaceable batteries here.
I heard this a while back from somewhere and it's something i've taken forward when trying to design complex systems in code.
Where possible fallbacks and fail safes should be part of the design, not after thoughts.
Nice article.
Are there any established companies that design products like this? Every story I see about consumer friendly design is either the first product from a company that stopped being consumer friendly down the line, or the only product from a company that's now dead.
I really think planned obsolescence is the future for everyone. Why build things to last when you can 1. save money by cheaping out and 2. ensure a future customer by cheaping out? There's no reason for them to build high quality, long lasting things. So why would they? They don't care about the waste.
A slightly different thing is happening with Apple. When you bought your phone, you didn't receive full ownership. Instead, you bought a seat in a theater. Apple's incentive is to keep the phone working so they can sell you more apps/movies/songs.