@ sacham: if you get access to the best, why the hell would you need more options?
off-course the best for someone might not be the best for all, so variations of the same product should exist, but the quality is still the best possible.
@100ncr Since we don't know everything today, today's devices aren't "the best" or, more accurately, the best today is not the best tomorrow. This is not planned obsolescence, this is innovation.
Any company that fails to produce the best it can will be quickly outcompeted by a company that does. Of course there are situations where a company gets a temporary advantage by not competing, but those always turn out to be worse for the company in the long run.
@sachamm sure that is not planned obsolescence, i did not say it was.
if we know mobile phones become "obsolete" in 18 months, why are they made out of hard to recycle parts? because it's cheaper.
If a company could produce a "phone" out of the best possible materials, using the best known methods and design, reclaiming all the materials in a close technical cycle, so that they could be reused in the next generation phones, it would be to expensive, and so no one would buy one. but it is doable
@100ncr Doable, but such a company would be gambling that the increased recyclability would be attractive enough to some consumers that the increased price wouldn't matter. The fact that we don't see recyclable phones on the market is an indication that recyclability is not attractive enough for consumers at this time.
@sachamm of course it is not attractive to customers, they'll have to pay more for it.
so companies plan their products to be as cheap as possible, as a result, crap comes out. It is what our system produces. And this is called consequential planned obsolescence.
@100ncr Planned obsolescence implies to me that a company is deliberately designing something to become obsolete before its time (wikipedia seems to agree with me). This happens, but companies that do this tend to fail. The system itself is set up to reward valuable production, and planned obsolescence runs counter to that.
If you're saying that producing crap is a result of market pressures, then I can agree with that, but that concept doesn't seem to jive with "planned obsolescence" to me.
@sachamm yes, but that would qualify as intentionally planned obsolescence
the wiki article does not address the ramifications of monetary economics in product design, which can lead to consequential obsolescence.
i would acknowledge that, when companies make products that are not the best they could actually be in relation to the available technological know-how, it is planned obsolescence. on this issue i recommend you to read waste makers by vance packard or made to break by giles slade.
Speaker gets the pressures exactly wrong. The fact that phones are changing so fast is an indication of a changing market, as participants try to fill all niches in a changing landscape; not a market where participants drag their heels and plan obsolecense. He advocates a market monoculture, instead of messy organic markets, less efficient perhaps, but more dynamic and certainly far more robust and overall better for everyone.
@ sacham: if you get access to the best, why the hell would you need more options?
off-course the best for someone might not be the best for all, so variations of the same product should exist, but the quality is still the best possible.
planned obsolescence is a big topic by itself.
100ncr 1 year ago
@100ncr Since we don't know everything today, today's devices aren't "the best" or, more accurately, the best today is not the best tomorrow. This is not planned obsolescence, this is innovation.
Any company that fails to produce the best it can will be quickly outcompeted by a company that does. Of course there are situations where a company gets a temporary advantage by not competing, but those always turn out to be worse for the company in the long run.
sachamm 1 year ago
@sachamm sure that is not planned obsolescence, i did not say it was.
if we know mobile phones become "obsolete" in 18 months, why are they made out of hard to recycle parts? because it's cheaper.
If a company could produce a "phone" out of the best possible materials, using the best known methods and design, reclaiming all the materials in a close technical cycle, so that they could be reused in the next generation phones, it would be to expensive, and so no one would buy one. but it is doable
100ncr 1 year ago
@100ncr Doable, but such a company would be gambling that the increased recyclability would be attractive enough to some consumers that the increased price wouldn't matter. The fact that we don't see recyclable phones on the market is an indication that recyclability is not attractive enough for consumers at this time.
sachamm 1 year ago
@sachamm of course it is not attractive to customers, they'll have to pay more for it.
so companies plan their products to be as cheap as possible, as a result, crap comes out. It is what our system produces. And this is called consequential planned obsolescence.
100ncr 1 year ago
@100ncr Planned obsolescence implies to me that a company is deliberately designing something to become obsolete before its time (wikipedia seems to agree with me). This happens, but companies that do this tend to fail. The system itself is set up to reward valuable production, and planned obsolescence runs counter to that.
If you're saying that producing crap is a result of market pressures, then I can agree with that, but that concept doesn't seem to jive with "planned obsolescence" to me.
sachamm 1 year ago
@sachamm yes, but that would qualify as intentionally planned obsolescence
the wiki article does not address the ramifications of monetary economics in product design, which can lead to consequential obsolescence.
i would acknowledge that, when companies make products that are not the best they could actually be in relation to the available technological know-how, it is planned obsolescence. on this issue i recommend you to read waste makers by vance packard or made to break by giles slade.
100ncr 1 year ago
@100ncr I think I can get behind the phrase "consequential obsolescence" more than "consequential planned obsolescence". :-)
I will check those book out. Cheers.
sachamm 1 year ago
Deserved an ovation at 2:40!!
StuLuminos 1 year ago
Speaker gets the pressures exactly wrong. The fact that phones are changing so fast is an indication of a changing market, as participants try to fill all niches in a changing landscape; not a market where participants drag their heels and plan obsolecense. He advocates a market monoculture, instead of messy organic markets, less efficient perhaps, but more dynamic and certainly far more robust and overall better for everyone.
sachamm 1 year ago