The Practice of Planned Obsolescence: A Double-Edged Sword

This practice for one just think of where all the old or obsolete cars end up eventually after their crush, shred, and recycle. The excess materials go to the dump. The more popular planned obsolescence becomes, the more waste it will cause. Also, replacing all these products with new ones takes further energy, resource, and money. Just rewind a step back to 1932, the Great Depression had been going on for about 10 years, and people were tired. There was an American real estate broker named Bernard London who released a pamphlet called "Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence." His idea called for the government to impose a legal obsolescence on personal use items. He believed this would motivate consumers to increase spending.

But the phrase didn't become popular until 1954. Thanks to an American industrial designer and home appliances car, and motorcycle manufacturer named Clifford Brooks Stevens. He was supposed to give a talk at an advertising conference in Minneapolis that year with the title "Planned Obsolescence." From that point on, this became the new catchphrase. In recent years, the term planned obsolescence skyrocketed the mainstream when Apple admitted to purposely tampering with the performance of older iPhones. Users were given a notification to update their phones, and when they did, that update actually slowed down their phones. So, users felt compelled to buy newer iPhones anyway. This came to be known as the "Battery Gate" controversy.

Apple later came out to say the updates slowed down iPhones to preserve battery life and prevent older devices from crashing. Actually, that wasn't the only thing Apple made news for planned obsolescence. Not long ago, the Brazilian Institute of Politics and Law Software filed a lawsuit against Apple. This all started when the fourth-generation iPad was released only seven months after the previous version. The institute claimed that this bizarrely speedy release with its retina display, upgraded processor, facetime HD camera, and lighting connector was an exercise of unfair business practice. They believe that these updates could have been better implemented in the previous model, which would have reduced how quickly the previous iPad became obsolete.

In recent years, because of planned obsolescence, Apple has been slapped with not one, not two, but three lawsuits. The Italian consumer association, Ultra Consumo, launched a massive class-action lawsuit demanding $73 million from Apple. That comes out to about $73 dollars each for each iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, and iPhone 6s Plus owner. This lawsuit is related to the "Battery Gate" between 2014 and 2020. Apple sold around 1 million iPhone 6s and 6s models in Italy alone.

Interestingly, Ultra Consumable launched a platform called TROPE VITO USA which in English means "Trash too fast." The platform enables consumers to report products that are out too quickly. Guess what product was reported the most? You guessed it – smartphones. There are some industries and even countries taking the issue of planned obsolescence into their own hands. Take the European Union for example, they've started to enforce new regulations where companies are being required to provide spare parts and servicing information for up to 10 years on certain products.

Look at the aviation industry, the airline industry has established a reputation for long airplane service life due to continuous maintenance and refurbishment. The 747 plane came in service back in the late 1960s, most people can tell that it looks the same as it did 30 years ago but actually, it's not everything on that plane has been renewed and upgraded. Rather than throwing away a plane and buying a new one, the 747 has a very long service life.

Another plan to limit the practice of planned obsolescence is government-mandated product warranties that require products to last longer. For example, the Italian government guarantees at least two years of service on any new computer. When authorities set these types of quality requirements, companies are forced to use sturdier parts and better technology rather than inferior ones. It sets a minimum bar so consumers are benefited, and if manufacturers don't honor the warranties, they would be sued for fraudulent claims. Oems can face consequences for violating implied warranties.

If a product becomes obsolete too quickly, this kind of mandate to protect consumers is ideal but it's not that simple. Because believe it or not, planned obsolescence is not illegal. That said, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission does have the authority to issue durability standards if they want to. Planned obsolescence blurs the line between business strategy versus deception.

Whatever your opinion is on this one thing everyone agrees about product quality is generally that they just don't make them like they used to. But now you tell me, do you prefer to keep and drive your car all the way to the end of its life or do you prefer trading in after some years to get something new? Should planned obsolescence be deemed illegal? Please share your thoughts on this topic.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enonce upon a time products were built to last a lifetime in fact did you know that there's a light bulb that's been burning for over 120 years and it's still going strong but in the 1920s a cartel was formed in the u.s that limited the lifespan of light bulbs since then industries care less about repairing for longevity and more about planning for replacements and this includes the car industry today we're talking about planned obsolescence and where the line blurs between business strategy and deception planned obsolescence is when a manufacturer is intentionally designing a product to last a certain amount of time and then become obsolete you'll never guess this but they say planned obsolescence actually started with the light bulb today in the us your average incandescent light bulb lasts anywhere from thousand to two thousand hours and led bulbs last between twenty five thousand and fifty thousand hours most consumers accept this as normal and good but did you know there's a light bulb that's been burning for over 120 years it's called the centennial light you can find this miracle bulb dangling from the ceiling of a firehouse in california there's even a website that streams live footage of this very bulb right now as you're watching the video so why don't all light bulbs last that long imagine you buy this type of bulb once in your lifetime you never need to replace it if you guessed planned obsolescence should be right this specific light bulb was designed by the shelby electric company in the late 1890s and has been burning since 1901 this light bulb's filament is eight times thicker than we find in modern light bulbs today these days light bulbs use thinner tungsten filaments that put out more light and burn hotter but they also die quicker so why aren't we all using the centennial bulbs what happened in the early 1900s the major electric companies included osram phillips general electric and a few others in 1924 they met and formed the phoebus cartel usually when we hear the word cartel we associate with narcotics and so forth but yes there was a light bulb cartel supposedly their goal was to standardize light bulbs which sounds novel on the surface but actually what they standardized was the limit they put on the life expectancy of light bulbs they limited a light bulb to a thousand hours and any company that made light bulbs that burned longer than a thousand were fined this was a new kind of evil if you think about it the cartel eventually broke up during world war ii during that time research supposedly stopped thereby preventing the development of longer-lasting light bulbs for nearly 20 years today light bulb companies are focusing on develop more efficient technologies yet that old filament-based centennial light bulb is still burning in california that's how the practice of planned obsolescence started even before the word was coined planned obsolescence is a surefire way to guarantee that consumers will want to replace their product at a later point this keeps product demand continuous and consistent some companies achieve this by making their products with cheaper inferior parts it will just break then successive product releases include incrementally improved versions that make consumers feel that their existing versions are obsolete and this moves consumers to buy the newest release eventually at some point if you try to get technical support for an older product it'll be increasingly challenging to bind just how common is planned obsolescence you might be surprised in recent decades this has become the new normal for product designers but actually this approach isn't new we can find this concept applied in all sorts of industries think of high-tech fashion and even light bulbs and car companies are some of the best experts planned obsolescence out there if you're wondering how planned obsolescence became a strategy we have to go back to the early 1920s back then new car sales are starting to drop and it wasn't just because of economic factors believe it or not car manufacturers were making their vehicles too well why spend hard-earned cash on a new car for your old ones working just fine so car manufacturers had a conundrum on their hands how could they get consumers to upgrade to new cars in 1924 general motors came up with a plan it was based on an idea suggested by an executive alfred p sloan jr first they started releasing cars with limited edition colors all of a sudden the black ford model t started to look boring and outdated compared to these brand new colors actually sloan powered this concept from the bicycle industry this is known today as aesthetic obsolescence henry ford on the other hand still clung to an engineer's value of simplicity economics of scale and design integrity in cars in 1931 gm suppressed ford sales and became the dominant company in the industry so you can see the strategy worked and since then other car manufacturers have followed suit today general motors isn't the only car company that plans for aesthetic obsolescence for example look at the new generation volkswagen jetta and compare the seventh generation previous one all you have to do is look for those sculptured body lines that run along the side windows anytime a company has any sort of special features to make a new model line stand out usually creates one thing an inferiority complex for owners of previous models the irony is that volkswagen is now using planned obsolescence because in the past they specifically made fun of it this concept was so widely known in 1950s that in 1959 volkswagen mocked in its advertising campaign in fact one of their advertisements said we do not believe in planned obsolescence another said we don't change a car for the sake of change and one of their most famous advertising campaigns was designed by doyle dane birmbach it showed an almost blank page with the line no point in showing his 1962 volkswagen it still looks the same ha well times have definitely changed and volkswagen 2 has changed its mind on this today consumers expect technology better lights grills bodies you name it everything is constantly being upgraded to make you want something new but planned obsolescence can also be very subtle it could be anything from purposely having parts wear out quicker to even raising the price of repair costs critics have planned obsolescence valid reasons for resisting this practice for one just think of where all the old or obsolete cars end up eventually after their crush shred and recycle the excess materials go to the dump the more popular planned obsolescence becomes the more waste it will cause also replacing all these products with new ones takes further energy resource and money just rewind a step back to 1932 the great depression had been going on for about 10 years and people were tired there was an american real estate broker named bernard london he released a pamphlet called ending the depression through planned obsolescence his idea called for the government to impose a legal obsolescence on personal use items he believed this would motivate consumers to increase spending but the phrase didn't become popular until 1954. thanks to an american industrial designer and home appliances cars and motorcycles his name was clifford brook stevens he was supposed to give a talk at an advertising conference in minneapolis that year what was the title of his talk planned obsolescence from that point on this became the new catchphrase in recent years the term planned obsolescence skyrocketed the mainstream when apple admitted to purposely tampering with the performance of older iphones users were given a notification to update their phones and when they did that update actually slowed down their phones and so users felt compelled to buy newer iphones anyway this came to be known as the battery gate controversy apple later came out to say the updates slowed down iphones to preserve battery life and prevent older devices from crashing actually that wasn't the only thing apple made news for planned obsolescence not long ago the brazilian institute of politics and law software filed a lawsuit against apple this all started when the fourth generation ipad was released only seven months after the previous version the institute claimed that this bizarrely speedy release with its retina display upgraded processor facetime hd camera and lighting connector was an exercise of unfair business practice they believe that these updates could have been better implemented in the previous model which would have reduced how quickly the previous ipad became obsolete in recent years because of planned obsolescence apple has been slapped with not one not two but three lawsuits italian consumer association ultra consumo launched a massive class action lawsuit demanded 73 million bucks from apple that comes out to about 73 dollars each for each iphone 6 iphone 6 plus iphone 6s and iphone 6s plus owner this lawsuit is related to battery gate between 2014 and 2020. apple sold around 1 million iphone 6s and 6s models and that's just in italy alone interestingly in 2017 ultra consumable launched a platform called trope vito usa which in english means trash too fast the platform enables consumers to report products that we're out too quickly guess what product was reported the most you guessed it smartphones there are some industries and even countries taking the issue of planned obsolescence into their own hands take the european union for example they've started to enforce new regulations where companies are being required to provide spare parts and servicing information for up to 10 years on certain products look at the aviation industry the airline industry has established a reputation for long airplane service life due to continuous maintenance and refurbishment the 747 plane came in the service back in the late 1960s most people 747 looks the same as it did 30 years ago but actually it's not everything on that plane has been renewed and upgraded though you can't tell much by looking at it because of continuous maintenance and upgrade rather than throwing away a plane and buying a new one the 747 has a very long service another plan to limit the practice of planned obsolescence is government mandated product warranties that require products to last longer for example the italian government guarantees at least two years of service on any new computer when authorities set these types of quality requirements companies are forced to use sturdier parts and better technology rather than inferior ones it sets a minimum bar so consumers are benefited and if manufacturers don't honor the warranties they would be sued for fraudulent claims and oems can face consequences for violating implied warranties if a product becomes obsolete too quickly this kind of mandate to protect consumers is ideal but it's not that simple because believe it or not planned obsolescence is not illegal that said the u.s consumer product safety commission does have the authority to issue durability standards if they want to planned obsolescence blurs the line between business strategy versus deception whatever your opinion is on this one thing everyone agrees about product quality is generally that they just don't make them like they used to but now you tell me do you prefer to keep and drive your car all the way to the end of its life or do you prefer trading in after some years to get something new should planned obsolescence be deemed illegal please share your opinion by commenting below if you like this video please like and subscribe thanks for your supportonce upon a time products were built to last a lifetime in fact did you know that there's a light bulb that's been burning for over 120 years and it's still going strong but in the 1920s a cartel was formed in the u.s that limited the lifespan of light bulbs since then industries care less about repairing for longevity and more about planning for replacements and this includes the car industry today we're talking about planned obsolescence and where the line blurs between business strategy and deception planned obsolescence is when a manufacturer is intentionally designing a product to last a certain amount of time and then become obsolete you'll never guess this but they say planned obsolescence actually started with the light bulb today in the us your average incandescent light bulb lasts anywhere from thousand to two thousand hours and led bulbs last between twenty five thousand and fifty thousand hours most consumers accept this as normal and good but did you know there's a light bulb that's been burning for over 120 years it's called the centennial light you can find this miracle bulb dangling from the ceiling of a firehouse in california there's even a website that streams live footage of this very bulb right now as you're watching the video so why don't all light bulbs last that long imagine you buy this type of bulb once in your lifetime you never need to replace it if you guessed planned obsolescence should be right this specific light bulb was designed by the shelby electric company in the late 1890s and has been burning since 1901 this light bulb's filament is eight times thicker than we find in modern light bulbs today these days light bulbs use thinner tungsten filaments that put out more light and burn hotter but they also die quicker so why aren't we all using the centennial bulbs what happened in the early 1900s the major electric companies included osram phillips general electric and a few others in 1924 they met and formed the phoebus cartel usually when we hear the word cartel we associate with narcotics and so forth but yes there was a light bulb cartel supposedly their goal was to standardize light bulbs which sounds novel on the surface but actually what they standardized was the limit they put on the life expectancy of light bulbs they limited a light bulb to a thousand hours and any company that made light bulbs that burned longer than a thousand were fined this was a new kind of evil if you think about it the cartel eventually broke up during world war ii during that time research supposedly stopped thereby preventing the development of longer-lasting light bulbs for nearly 20 years today light bulb companies are focusing on develop more efficient technologies yet that old filament-based centennial light bulb is still burning in california that's how the practice of planned obsolescence started even before the word was coined planned obsolescence is a surefire way to guarantee that consumers will want to replace their product at a later point this keeps product demand continuous and consistent some companies achieve this by making their products with cheaper inferior parts it will just break then successive product releases include incrementally improved versions that make consumers feel that their existing versions are obsolete and this moves consumers to buy the newest release eventually at some point if you try to get technical support for an older product it'll be increasingly challenging to bind just how common is planned obsolescence you might be surprised in recent decades this has become the new normal for product designers but actually this approach isn't new we can find this concept applied in all sorts of industries think of high-tech fashion and even light bulbs and car companies are some of the best experts planned obsolescence out there if you're wondering how planned obsolescence became a strategy we have to go back to the early 1920s back then new car sales are starting to drop and it wasn't just because of economic factors believe it or not car manufacturers were making their vehicles too well why spend hard-earned cash on a new car for your old ones working just fine so car manufacturers had a conundrum on their hands how could they get consumers to upgrade to new cars in 1924 general motors came up with a plan it was based on an idea suggested by an executive alfred p sloan jr first they started releasing cars with limited edition colors all of a sudden the black ford model t started to look boring and outdated compared to these brand new colors actually sloan powered this concept from the bicycle industry this is known today as aesthetic obsolescence henry ford on the other hand still clung to an engineer's value of simplicity economics of scale and design integrity in cars in 1931 gm suppressed ford sales and became the dominant company in the industry so you can see the strategy worked and since then other car manufacturers have followed suit today general motors isn't the only car company that plans for aesthetic obsolescence for example look at the new generation volkswagen jetta and compare the seventh generation previous one all you have to do is look for those sculptured body lines that run along the side windows anytime a company has any sort of special features to make a new model line stand out usually creates one thing an inferiority complex for owners of previous models the irony is that volkswagen is now using planned obsolescence because in the past they specifically made fun of it this concept was so widely known in 1950s that in 1959 volkswagen mocked in its advertising campaign in fact one of their advertisements said we do not believe in planned obsolescence another said we don't change a car for the sake of change and one of their most famous advertising campaigns was designed by doyle dane birmbach it showed an almost blank page with the line no point in showing his 1962 volkswagen it still looks the same ha well times have definitely changed and volkswagen 2 has changed its mind on this today consumers expect technology better lights grills bodies you name it everything is constantly being upgraded to make you want something new but planned obsolescence can also be very subtle it could be anything from purposely having parts wear out quicker to even raising the price of repair costs critics have planned obsolescence valid reasons for resisting this practice for one just think of where all the old or obsolete cars end up eventually after their crush shred and recycle the excess materials go to the dump the more popular planned obsolescence becomes the more waste it will cause also replacing all these products with new ones takes further energy resource and money just rewind a step back to 1932 the great depression had been going on for about 10 years and people were tired there was an american real estate broker named bernard london he released a pamphlet called ending the depression through planned obsolescence his idea called for the government to impose a legal obsolescence on personal use items he believed this would motivate consumers to increase spending but the phrase didn't become popular until 1954. thanks to an american industrial designer and home appliances cars and motorcycles his name was clifford brook stevens he was supposed to give a talk at an advertising conference in minneapolis that year what was the title of his talk planned obsolescence from that point on this became the new catchphrase in recent years the term planned obsolescence skyrocketed the mainstream when apple admitted to purposely tampering with the performance of older iphones users were given a notification to update their phones and when they did that update actually slowed down their phones and so users felt compelled to buy newer iphones anyway this came to be known as the battery gate controversy apple later came out to say the updates slowed down iphones to preserve battery life and prevent older devices from crashing actually that wasn't the only thing apple made news for planned obsolescence not long ago the brazilian institute of politics and law software filed a lawsuit against apple this all started when the fourth generation ipad was released only seven months after the previous version the institute claimed that this bizarrely speedy release with its retina display upgraded processor facetime hd camera and lighting connector was an exercise of unfair business practice they believe that these updates could have been better implemented in the previous model which would have reduced how quickly the previous ipad became obsolete in recent years because of planned obsolescence apple has been slapped with not one not two but three lawsuits italian consumer association ultra consumo launched a massive class action lawsuit demanded 73 million bucks from apple that comes out to about 73 dollars each for each iphone 6 iphone 6 plus iphone 6s and iphone 6s plus owner this lawsuit is related to battery gate between 2014 and 2020. apple sold around 1 million iphone 6s and 6s models and that's just in italy alone interestingly in 2017 ultra consumable launched a platform called trope vito usa which in english means trash too fast the platform enables consumers to report products that we're out too quickly guess what product was reported the most you guessed it smartphones there are some industries and even countries taking the issue of planned obsolescence into their own hands take the european union for example they've started to enforce new regulations where companies are being required to provide spare parts and servicing information for up to 10 years on certain products look at the aviation industry the airline industry has established a reputation for long airplane service life due to continuous maintenance and refurbishment the 747 plane came in the service back in the late 1960s most people 747 looks the same as it did 30 years ago but actually it's not everything on that plane has been renewed and upgraded though you can't tell much by looking at it because of continuous maintenance and upgrade rather than throwing away a plane and buying a new one the 747 has a very long service another plan to limit the practice of planned obsolescence is government mandated product warranties that require products to last longer for example the italian government guarantees at least two years of service on any new computer when authorities set these types of quality requirements companies are forced to use sturdier parts and better technology rather than inferior ones it sets a minimum bar so consumers are benefited and if manufacturers don't honor the warranties they would be sued for fraudulent claims and oems can face consequences for violating implied warranties if a product becomes obsolete too quickly this kind of mandate to protect consumers is ideal but it's not that simple because believe it or not planned obsolescence is not illegal that said the u.s consumer product safety commission does have the authority to issue durability standards if they want to planned obsolescence blurs the line between business strategy versus deception whatever your opinion is on this one thing everyone agrees about product quality is generally that they just don't make them like they used to but now you tell me do you prefer to keep and drive your car all the way to the end of its life or do you prefer trading in after some years to get something new should planned obsolescence be deemed illegal please share your opinion by commenting below if you like this video please like and subscribe thanks for your support\n"