The Expiry Date of Innovation: Unpacking Planned Obsolescence

Planned obsolescence, in the context of technology, refers to the deliberate design or manufacturing strategy where a product is created with an artificially limited useful life or functionality. This means that after a certain period or use, the product will become obsolete, non-functional, or no longer compatible with newer systems or software.

Today, it seems as if every other month there is a new Android smartphone model. While annually there is also a handful of new iPhone models. New products replace monthly old model’s swift. There are new Android models that far exceed the benchmarks of models released just a few months prior. This leads to many consumers feeling that their older devices are no longer up to par and in need of replacement, even if their devices are still functioning well.

The concept is often criticized as it promotes a throwaway culture, contributes to environmental waste, and can be seen as a way to manipulate consumer demand and spending by forcing consumers to upgrade or replace their devices more frequently.

Yet, it’s essential to consider specific examples to understand the full scope of this issue. One such instance that has been widely discussed and debated involves a major player in the technology sector: Apple.

Apple has made minimal changes to its OS in recent years. The company is known for not releasing certain features or waiting for a few iterations of a new model to release. The first iPhone was incapable of sending an MMS Message. It sent a message with a link to the photo in a very small resolution. This was a headache to deal with while using Apple’s first-ever flagship.

Beyond software limitations, Apple’s approach to hardware design also plays a significant role in shaping the user experience and the perceived lifespan of their devices, particularly when it comes to the crucial aspect of battery life.

The battery life is a crucial component of the device’s performance. Lithium-ion batteries, which are used in most smartphones, including iPhones, have a limited number of charge cycles and over time, their ability to hold a charge decreases. This can lead to slower performance and reduced battery life.

To address this issue, Apple has released software updates that reduce the performance of older iPhones, which is intended to preserve the health of the battery and prevent unexpected shutdowns. However, this decision has been criticized by some as an example of engineered obsolescence, as it encourages users to purchase newer models.

As a result of these practices, discussions, and debates about the ethicality and impact of such decisions on consumers and the market at large have found their way into popular discourse.

The controversy has been discussed by several high-profile individuals, including Joe Rogan and Marques Brownlee (known online as MKBHD), who have offered differing opinions on the issue.

Joe Rogan, in his podcast, expressed skepticism about this decision by Apple. He felt that Apple’s motivation was simply to force users to purchase newer models, rather than to preserve the health of their batteries. He argued that if the company was truly concerned about the health of its batteries, it would have provided users with a better solution, such as replaceable batteries.

On the other hand, Marques Brownlee, also known as MKBHD, has a different perspective on the issue. He acknowledges that while the reduction of performance in older iPhones may seem like a cynical move on Apple’s part, it is actually a necessary step to preserve the health of the battery. He explains that by reducing the performance of the device, Apple is able to slow down the rate at which the battery degrades, which ultimately leads to a longer lifespan for the device.

Apple has since acknowledged that it did indeed slow down the performance of older phones, but the company has stated that this was done for a specific reason. According to Apple, the slowdowns were necessary in order to preserve the overall performance and stability of the phone as its battery aged.

The reason for this is that as batteries age, they begin to degrade and are less able to hold a charge for an extended period of time. This can lead to a number of issues, including unexpected shutdowns and decreased overall performance. In order to prevent these issues, Apple implemented software updates that would limit the performance of older phones and extend their battery life.

Despite Apple’s explanations, many users remain frustrated and feel that the company was simply trying to manipulate them into upgrading to a newer phone. Some have even gone as far as to call the practice unethical and a violation of consumer trust.

This sentiment isn’t unique to the smartphone industry, as consumers across the technological spectrum have echoed similar concerns about their devices, ranging from computers to software.

Another example of engineered obsolescence is in the computer industry, where new models are constantly being released with faster processors and improved graphics cards. This leads to older computers becoming slower and less efficient, making them seem outdated and in need of replacement. Additionally, software companies also often release new versions of their products that are not compatible with older systems, further contributing to the idea that older devices are no longer relevant.

And it’s not just phones and computers. The printer industry is notorious for its ‘buy more ink’ game. Printers are designed to be picky about their cartridges, often refusing third-party alternatives. This leaves customers no choice but to shell out for the pricier, branded replacements.

On the positive side, it drives innovation by encouraging manufacturers to constantly improve their products and release newer and better models. This can lead to improvements in the user experience and increased customer satisfaction. Additionally, engineered obsolescence can create jobs and boost the economy by increasing the demand for new products.

On the negative side, engineered obsolescence can lead to wastefulness and environmental harm, as consumers are encouraged to frequently replace perfectly functioning products with newer models. This can contribute to the growing problem of electronic waste and the depletion of valuable resources. Additionally, engineered obsolescence can be seen as a form of planned obsolescence, which can be unethical and harm consumer trust in a particular brand or manufacturer. It can also be a financial burden for consumers, as they are forced to continuously purchase new products to keep up with the latest technology.

1. The United Nations has reported that globally, up to 50 million tons of electronic waste — mainly computers and smartphones — are discarded every year. This e-waste contains valuable metals such as gold, silver, copper, and platinum, but less than 20% is officially recycled. The rest is often dumped in landfills or incinerated, leading to the loss of these valuable resources and the release of harmful toxins into the environment.
2. The impact of electronic waste on human health is another significant concern. Electronic waste often ends up in countries with less stringent environmental regulations and is handled improperly. For instance, in certain regions, children are often involved in the process of burning electronic waste to extract valuable metals, exposing them to toxic fumes. It’s estimated that in Ghana, a major destination for electronic waste, over 200,000 people are directly exposed to harmful e-waste toxins every day.

What’s Happening Currently:

A recent development in this discourse has been a move towards right-to-repair laws. In a significant step, the Quebec government has introduced a bill that aims to ban the sale of products with planned obsolescence and enforce the availability of affordable replacement parts and repair services for products sold in the province. If passed, this bill will also require that products be repairable using ordinary tools without causing irreversible damage. A “warranty of good working order” will be established, requiring manufacturers to repair certain products at no cost to the consumer for a specific period.

This bill also proposes that car manufacturers ensure their vehicles can be repaired by any mechanic, not just at affiliated dealerships. It includes an “anti-lemon” measure, allowing customers to have their vehicle declared “seriously defective” by a court and cancel their purchase contract if major issues persist after multiple repair attempts. The bill even aims to establish a universal charger compatible with all electronic devices, a step already taken by the European Union.

Violators of this proposed law could face fines up to $125,000 for a first offense, with fines doubling for a second offense. Businesses could also be fined four times any profit made from violating the law. While this proposal is the first of its kind in Canada, similar measures exist in all 50 U.S. states. Despite the anticipation that manufacturers will resist this bill, it signifies an exciting step forward in the fight against planned obsolescence.

As we stand on the precipice of ever-advancing technology, it’s more important than ever to recognize the double-edged sword of innovation and planned obsolescence. This push-and-pull between technological advancement and consumer rights, between economic growth and environmental sustainability, challenges us to find a path forward that respects both sides. The steps taken by governments around the world, such as the right-to-repair laws, signal a shift in this direction. These laws remind us that while innovation is exciting, necessary, and often beneficial, it should not come at the expense of consumer rights, financial stability, and, crucially, our environment.

The technology industry must strike a balance between creating newer, better products and ensuring the longevity of the ones we already have. This involves a commitment to sustainable practices, ethical decision-making, and transparency with consumers about the lifespan and repairability of their devices.

While it’s easy to get swept up in the excitement of the latest model or software update, let’s not forget the cost of such rapid change. After all, in the race for innovation, we need to ensure that progress doesn’t have an expiry date.