Max Bottaro

Designed obsolescence, also known as planned obsolescence, is no novel concept. In fact, it’s roots can be traced as far back as the roaring 20’s and the then sprouting auto industry in the U.S. Henry Ford, the original U.S. auto manufacturing powerhouse, loathed the idea of planning product obsolescence. His position came from one of providing a reliable, plain, and cheap form of transportation for U.S. citizens. GM, however, did not have this strategy in mind, and differentiated itself by making more stylish, less reliable cars that would inevitably have to be replaced by a newer, more stylish model.

And so the concept of designed obsolescence was born. It seems counter intuitive to try and make your own products seem obsolete, but it is actually quite brilliant, because it reduces the time between repurchase (a concept known as shortening the replacement cycle). This increases sales and revenue, and it also allows a company to intentionally use cheaper parts that have a lower mean lifespan. This driving down of cost of goods sold (COGS) along with increased sales is a recipe for profitability.

Whether or not designed obsolescence is ethical from a corporate standpoint is definitely arguable. On the one hand, this is a capitalistic country, and often companies like GM are supposedly giving the costumers what they want. After all, the model T was cheaper and more reliable, yet the more colorful Chevrolet took off in the free market despite its short life span. On the other hand, designed obsolescence is very wasteful, and something about it seems underhanded.

The real moral issue arises when consumers are unaware of the designed obsolescence involved. It is one thing to want the latest, most stylish model of some widget. That choice was in the hands of the (supposedly) knowing consumer. But when a costumer buys a product for long term use and it mysteriously “breaks” right around the time the same company is releasing its next product line, the ever fluctuating and subjective line of business ethics has been crossed- all in the name of profits.
The Apple iPod is probably the most disgustingly awesome example of designed obsolescence. Apple has both the psychological obsolescence down with its ever improving design style, and incrementally improved features. It also has the physical obsolescence down to a T. For example, my new video Ipod broke the day after my one year warranty ran out (weird). This was also the same time that the new sleek 8 GB nano was released (weirder). I would think this might be some sick coincidence but the same thing happened with my second generation wheel iPod before that. My friends tell me similar anecdotal stories as well. In an attempt to avoid this expensive cycle, I bought the warranty for my new shiny sky blue nano. It cost me a pretty 39.99, doesn’t cover theft, and cannot be renewed after the 2 year period runs out. Can anyone say new iPod release in 2010?

My personal feeling on planned obsolescence is that it is both wasteful and deceitful. It is also genius the way apple did it. Because Apple seems to have aligned their products’ failure date so uncannily with the next versions release date, people don’t seem be outraged at all (except for me, of course). In my opinion, people have the mentality that they would have bought the new version anyways, so the loss of the earlier generation product is not a huge issue. The thought of getting a “better” newer version seems to mitigate peoples sense of being ripped off.

Enough of a difference for you to part with a few hundred dollars?

In many ways, iPod consumers attribute their expensive new purchase to a psychological obsolescence rather than a physical deterioration. And since Apple has such immaculate design, psychological obsolescence is often stronger than physical obsolescence. In the few rare instances (only a minor exaggeration) where people’s iPod’s survive subsequent generations, people will often buy the newer version anyway. Why? They both play MP3’s, which is the reason you bought it, right? Not necessarily. Apple has branded itself in being stylish and a fashion statement, which only acts as a catalyst for psychological obsolescence. If this were the only type of obsolescence Apple employed, I wouldn’t be writing this blog; I’d be listening to my ugly, plain, toothpaste white wheel iPod. Apple does make their product incrementally better every generation. You get it smaller, more colorful, more memory, and “Vortex” instead of regular old brick pong. Apple adds in these features not just to entice new costumers, but also to give a purchase rationale to repeat costumers with still working iPods. I personally am not willing to pay 239.99 to upgrade to a color screen. Apparently, most other iPod consumers disagree- at least on a visceral level, although probably not a rational one.

If this one breaks, I swear I am buying a Zen.