First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Should Planned Obsolescence Be Illegal? Possible Solutions?
Posted 9/2/14 , edited 9/11/14
Heh the vast majority of the population supports the companies that thrive off this like Apple.. They built an empire off proprietary hardware and convinced the populace it was smarter than having open hardware that is easily replaced at home... So you spend double or triple the repair costs or flat out have to replace and your happy about it.. Handheld electronics have a definite lifetime and cant be upgraded to large effect due to warranties and lack of parts.. so its another form of we got you by the skin of your bunghole and you will never escape..

So in essence it wont change, people are stupid...
Vodash 
7657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 9/2/14 , edited 9/2/14






I may have been mistaken when I said *all* technology, and my original comment was more focused towards things such as smart phones, tablets, and computers etc... rather than motor vehicles which obviously have to be up to high standards because people's lives depend on it.

However I do hold on to my belief that the previous console generation did overstay it's welcome. Even if it was only for a year on average (or 4 in Microsoft's case) technology evolves at such a rate that even 1 year actually makes a difference in where we are now and where we could be.
42864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 9/2/14
OK, wading deep here into what are murky waters for me, but: while I acknowledge the role of consumer demand in forcing the creation of even faster and more high-powered electronic items, the single most limiting component I witnessed to continued cell phone usage was the degradation and then sudden unavailability of compatible batteries. I've worked security as a second job for as long as I've been a cop, and have spent many hours posted in cell phone stores--of several different companies--listening to sales reps explain that a phone must be updated because the company no longer manufactures a battery to fit a particular model. Indeed, this industry phenomenon has helped give rise to specialized stores such as Batteries Plus (R). Planned obsolescence? Maybe. . .Just always be sure to buy an extra battery when you buy a new phone. I did. And since I'm an old fart who doesn't need touch screens or such, I'm still happily using an old flip phone from many years past.
25521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/2/14

CoffeeGodEddy wrote:


evilotakuneko wrote:

Dropping your phone/laptop/tablet and breaking it is not planned obsolescence. It's clumsiness. It's the nature of portable electronics. Every device has to make a trade off between making the device larger, heavier, and/or uglier, and making the device affordable, smaller, lighter, and/or more attractive.

Given the price of Toughbooks and ruggedized phones and tablets, it's no wonder the majority are lighter, smaller, and more fragile. It's a deliberate design decision, yes, but calling it planned obsolescence as if it were a decision made maliciously is at best naive.

I'm not saying it doesn't occur. The iphone's non-replaceable battery is a perfect example. You'll never see someone with a 5 year old iPhone, much less one as old as the Sidekick 3 (which itself could technically be considered to suffer from planned obsolescence) I keep as an emergency backup phone. However, iphone users happily accept this limitation since it makes the phone that much lighter and sleeker, and the majority of them will replace the phone before the battery becomes useless anyway.



I've had my first phone for 5 years now. I've dropped it, washed it, burned it, thrown it, buried it and it sill works perfectly. The exterior is a little rough around the edges but it works perfectly. In my family, my sister dropped her smartphone from 3 feet onto carpet and the screen shattered. Friends, family, associates - everyone around me is going through smartphones and iphones like crazy because they keep breaking. You talk about trade-offs and making the phone more attractive and lighter and what not, so what's the difference between my phone and theirs? My phone is light, attractive, smaller, but it's virtually indestructible. How come theirs is much more fragile? Is it because the company made a trade-off and used cheaper, inferior metals to make her phone and maximize profit, knowing that if her phone breaks, repairs will cost an arm and a leg? If my phone is durable, why aren't they using the same glass and plastic?

From what I've been reading, numerous articles are pointing to "planned obsolescence" and to rapid growing amounts of E-waste. I took a college environmental science course last year and we discussed E-waste and the financial gain of planned obsolescence. So from what I've been taught and researched, it's being used for profit at the expense of the consumers and the environment. I don't know how much validity there is in that since my textbooks are written in someone's perspective which is another reason I've created this thread.


Jeez. I wish I could have an intelligent discussion like this.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 9/3/14
If somebody hasn't already said it, I actually think 3d printing will fix a lot of this.

Which is good, because they couldn't make it illegal if they wanted to. Capitalism and whatnot.
8830 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/3/14
I like to buy a new video card every year, it gives me better graphicz in ma video gamez D:

Just an example, but I mean to say I very much prefer rapid innovation/tech advances over durable but never changing. It gives us cool stuff!
17765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 9/3/14

Hayagriva wrote:

If somebody hasn't already said it, I actually think 3d printing will fix a lot of this.

Which is good, because they couldn't make it illegal if they wanted to. Capitalism and whatnot.



u sure about that? remember the idiot that 3d printed a lower recever for an m16 rifle. legaly speaking, the lower reciever is the gun.

back then there was talk about the legality of 3d printing certain objects.
35284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 9/3/14

nemoskull wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:

If somebody hasn't already said it, I actually think 3d printing will fix a lot of this.

Which is good, because they couldn't make it illegal if they wanted to. Capitalism and whatnot.



u sure about that? remember the idiot that 3d printed a lower recever for an m16 rifle. legaly speaking, the lower reciever is the gun.

back then there was talk about the legality of 3d printing certain objects.


I think it was meant that they couldn't make planned obsolecence illegal. 3d printing is another story... most likely they'll place restrictions on that at some point, or at least try to. Probably say terrorists will use it to make weapons and bombs and stuff.
17765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 9/3/14 , edited 9/3/14
witch brings us back to the messy issue of supressing information, and how to supress said information on a information network designed to survive armageddon (i.e., the internet, a military network born in the days of the cold war. go figure)

we live in an era unlike any other. 15 year ago, plastic guns (actual fireing, lethal one) were a dream. give me a box of .22 rounds, and a DIY 3d printer, and im pretty sure its possible.

imigine getting sent to gitmo with no lawer cus u downloaded a file.

the world is a scarry place.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/3/14

Vodash wrote:

I may have been mistaken when I said *all* technology, and my original comment was more focused towards things such as smart phones, tablets, and computers etc... rather than motor vehicles which obviously have to be up to high standards because people's lives depend on it.


Ah, but you'd be surprised just how vulnerable something as simple as a smartphone can make someone if not made properly. If its security measures are inadequate everything from your banking information, to your sent and received calls, to your location at any given point in the day may be determined by anyone who knows how to exploit those weaknesses.


However I do hold on to my belief that the previous console generation did overstay it's welcome. Even if it was only for a year on average (or 4 in Microsoft's case) technology evolves at such a rate that even 1 year actually makes a difference in where we are now and where we could be.


I'm concerned you may be treating new things as being inherently better, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 9/3/14 , edited 9/3/14

nemoskull wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:

If somebody hasn't already said it, I actually think 3d printing will fix a lot of this.

Which is good, because they couldn't make it illegal if they wanted to. Capitalism and whatnot.



u sure about that? remember the idiot that 3d printed a lower recever for an m16 rifle. legaly speaking, the lower reciever is the gun.

back then there was talk about the legality of 3d printing certain objects.


I'm pretty sure. What you mention is a different subject. I'm talking about corporations trying to make it illegal to print out your own replacement parts for a million different things that shouldn't have broken so quickly/easily in the first place.
17765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 9/3/14
i blame the japanese for planned obsolesence. in cars any ways. under cuttting american companies, ment they had to change buisness models. there is a reason guys driver around 1973 fords. cheap to fix, reliable. but i digress.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.