The myth of planned obsolescence<

Whenever there is a question of deliberately limiting economic growth for environmental or social purposes, a theme is inevitably raised. This is planned obsolescence, a complicated way of saying that manufactured goods would no longer be what they were, and that they would even be designed and manufactured to have a limited lifespan to encourage us to consume more. .

This concept is the delight of environmental movements, which are in favor of economic decline and a certain left, because here we are on trial of an economic system and companies that would act deliberately to sell us bad products for a limited period. for the sole purpose of lining their pockets.

This denunciation is also the delight of all lovers of conspiracy theories, always convinced that occult forces are manipulating us against our will.

Hélène Baril, in La Presse, describes planned obsolescence as follows: “We are all able to see that the useful life of goods is getting shorter and shorter. The effects of fashion and marketing, high repair costs or the impossibility of repair, in the case of certain electronic products, encourage consumption.

In Le Devoir, Alexandre Shields is, as usual, even more categorical: “Examples of electronic devices or household appliances whose lifespan seems too short to us are legion. This obsolescence, programmed in some cases, caused by fads or the poor quality of materials in others, is a reality, so to speak, undeniable.

This “undeniable” reality — which we would “all be able to see” — is never documented beyond the anecdote and even less proven. And there is a good reason why no one has made a scientific demonstration of it: it is that this phenomenon does not exist.

Let us recall three basic principles of capitalism: market segmentation, competition and innovation.

Let's start with market segmentation.

I don't know of a manufacturer who prides himself on selling a bad product. Not all products are created equal, however, as they cater to different markets and different consumer expectations.

When it comes to buying a good, some of us value low cost, variety, or novelty, and others value quality or durability. Normally, an item purchased at Dollarama will not be of the same quality as one sold at Linen Chest.

Some watches will be produced by hand, with the best components and in very limited numbers by talented (and very well paid) craftsmen, in a country where wages are very high. A Swiss watch produced in an artisanal way is a very luxury product which will be very expensive and which will have an exceptional durability.

On the other hand, you can find watches at very low prices, factory-made in an Asian country. I wouldn't gamble on their long-term reliability, but they tell the time just as well, and at a fraction of the price.

You can buy a cotton sweater at Gap that will fade much faster than a cashmere one bought at Simons. In one case, price and novelty are favored and in the other, comfort and durability.

The cotton sweater is not "programmed" to fade: it's just that the fabric reacts naturally to physical and chemical stresses during washing. Considering the acquisition price, you will also pay much more attention to your cashmere sweater.

Let's move on to competition.

For decades, the Toyota Corolla had a reputation as the most reliable and durable car in its class. Toyota even maintains that 80% of Corollas purchased in Canada between 1993 and 2013 were still on the road last year.

The robustness and reasonable prices of Japanese vehicles forced their competitors to improve their reliability and accessibility. North American manufacturers had to adjust because consumers were abandoning them.

The quality of vehicles has improved so much that we could keep them in our possession for decades, because they are literally indestructible. When your car is broken down or being repaired, you will also notice that it is not the engine that is generally at fault, but the electronics or the components that inevitably wear out with use (such as the brake pads) .

So why do we change cars if they can still be driven for years? For all sorts of very valid reasons relating to safety, comfort, performance, fuel economy or compliance with government standards on toxic emissions; to have access to new technologies (such as the electric or hybrid car); or else, quite simply because our needs change. The cars are improving and they are much better than those old times that we idealize.

Yes, there are consumers who are more sensitive to the design, novelty or symbol attached to the ownership of a vehicle, but they do not change cars because their old car was programmed to stop suddenly. at an expiration date.

Let's not forget either that magazines such as Consumer Reports (in the United States), Protégez-Vous (in Quebec) or 60 million consumers (in France) dissect hundreds of products each year and compare them to each other. . A bad vacuum cleaner, an incompetent coffee maker, an inept fridge or a lemon on four wheels are inevitably unmasked.

Lastly, competition requires excellence and innovation.

Also - Try to get the shitty paint stripped off the beautiful red brick fireplace (does anyone know how to take ou… https://t.co/2YqkU177vQ

— kitty foreman Sat Jun 30 18:36:52 +0000 2018

We all benefit from the gains made in performance and efficiency, and this leads us to buy new products that incorporate these improvements.

My mobile phone is an old iPhone 4 which will be five years old this year — as well say a dinosaur. I'm four generations behind in models and microprocessors. I don't have access to recent versions of the operating system and there are a lot of things I can't do with my phone.

My phone may be obsolete by today's standards, but it's still a very good mobile phone that gives me decent internet access. It would, however, be foolish to claim that it was programmed to be obsolete. Over the past five years, technology and needs have evolved. What is commonplace in new smartphones was simply not available five years ago.

If I used my smartphone more for heavier business applications, or if I was a video game addict, I would need a phone like the iPhone 6, with its two billion transistors that give it 50% more power. and efficiency than the previous chip.

This is not a conspiracy, but an evolving need that may require your device to be faster, more capable, and not at the expense of battery life.

In the same vein, it can be said that computers are obsolete from the moment they are designed, given the technological advances and the cumbersome nature of new software. Should progress be halted?

Those who believe in planned obsolescence will often cite the example of which device is better replaced than repaired. This would be the ultimate proof that the evil capitalists want us to spend for nothing.

I don't think that holds up. I fix what is worth fixing. The question does not arise for a relatively new car, but would I want to replace half the parts of a car that is more than 20 years old if I am not a collector?

The case of computers is interesting. Some parts may not be available from my dealer; they can be expensive because they are rare. There are transport costs if my computer needs to be transported to a specialized workshop on the mainland or elsewhere, not to mention the cost of labor.

It could also be that new microprocessors or new batteries sold today just don't work in my old equipment. These parts are generally smaller, as consumers nowadays prefer computers that are lighter and consume less power. It's not a conspiracy, it's the request!

The best economic proposal could be to buy a new computer, especially since the prices, at equal power, do not stop falling.

As a last resort, the "conspiracy theorists" will invariably tell us about light bulbs and printer ink cartridges.

Incandescent bulbs were the result of an unfortunate physical compromise between their luminosity and their durability. To make them burn longer, it would have been necessary to reduce their performance. In this sense, LED bulbs, almost indestructible because they produce less heat, mark a great progress.

Oh, the printers! I replaced mine a month ago and am stuck with unusable cartridges on the new model. Why did I replace a printer that was working well? Because she couldn't print from a mobile device, which was becoming more and more annoying in the performance of my work. Always progress...

As for the ink, know that there is enough technology in each cartridge for the manufacturer to take the trouble to register hundreds of patents. For example, the ink must not dry instantly without ever smudging, and the cartridge must be easy to use and easy to replace – not to mention that it must be perfectly adapted to the model sold.

Additionally, manufacturers have instituted a business model whereby they give away their printers at low prices in hopes of selling multiple ink cartridges. A cheaper cartridge would result in higher priced printers.

Despite everything, some see in this concept of planned obsolescence the ultimate trap of capitalism. Yet I wonder if we would be greener and healthier if we all drove around in old, polluting cars and kept our energy-guzzling household appliances for eternity.

On the contrary, I think that innovations make our lives easier and contribute to our well-being.

* * *

About Pierre Duhamel

A journalist for more than 30 years, Pierre Duhamel has closely observed and commented on economic news since 1986. He has been editor-in-chief or publisher of several publications, including magazines (Commerce, Affaires Plus, Montréal Centre-Ville) and newspapers specialists (Finance & Investment, Investment Executive). A sought-after speaker, Pierre Duhamel has also commented on economic news on the Argent channel, LCN and TVA. He can be found on Facebook and Twitter: @duhamelp.

We do the sorting to extract the essential. Make sure you don't miss anything. News in your inbox, every day.