Planned Obsolescence

paranoid fuck can't keep up with technology

yes planned obsolescence is a thing.
grow up
deal with it.

>>52355755
It's an inherently cynical way to run a business, to go against humanity in every way with the fake face of improving shit when you're just milking profits.

>>52355095
>mde-tv
Fuck off sam, go back to shitposting /tv/

>>52355095
making durable shit is more expensive

>>52355926
Fuck you ugly

>>52355943
Fuck you, too, they have money.

Planned obsolescence has been a thing since the seventies, and it's beneficial to everyone involved. Instead of companies spending twice as much to make a product that lasts 1.5 times as long, they sacrifice cost at the expense of durability. Because technology has moved so fast since then, by the time the products go bad for consumers, they either want to upgrade because of new features, or they wind up saving in other ways because of advances in engineering (power consumption, productivity, etc.)

If you're not happy with the money you're spending on products vs. their durability, buy cheaper shit but the issue with apple is one of price gouging, not planned obsolescence.

>>52356009
I think you meant to say 1.5x the cost for something that lasts 3x longer.

>>52356009
This doesn't make sense when these companies literally have so much money that their CEOs and etc. make way more money than they need, and the company itself just has...so much fucking money. It used to be what you're saying - but I don't think it's like that anymore. The companies are not morally good, doing what's best for the world.

would you either carry a t60, an obrez, a dumb phone
or a chink smartphone and a pre ban chink colt commander

>>52355989
>Fuck you, too, they have money.

but are people willing to pay more to have durable shit?
even if they know something more advanced will come up in 2 years?
retard

>>52356041
What are we talking about here, smartphones? Because the man hours necessary to maintain software versions for old devices is also very expensive. The hardware already far outlasts software on high end devices.

>>52356086
Rarely, the difference is so big that you can't skip a cycle or two.
I'd rather buy something that lasts 5 years, and skip one or two upgrade cycles, than buying something that's 40% cheaper every cycle.
I only buy stuff I know is good and fits my needs. If it's good now, it'll still be good in two years.

>>52356129
Phones, fridges, monitors, printers, does it really matter?

>>52356049
no company is "morally good" not even the ones who donate to charities, they only do that to run a marketing campaign. If you think otherwise you're naive.

File: 200_e973ff_5439588.jpg (62KB, 497x732px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 497x732px

I can't believe I just listened to this shit.

What a paranoid twat.

There may be such thing as planned obsolescence, but frankly, not all of it is intentional. Tech companies cannot make money without pushing new software and hardware, and you can't just keep spending precious money and man hours keeping old hardware in line with software advancements. Does he expect his old ass phone to run the latest apps written for the latest software forever?

Fuck, there are sub-$100 phones that are leagues more powerful than the original 4 right now. He has no one to blame but himself for being an Applefaggot.

>I almost snapped my phone in half like a cracker
He doesn't sound like he's very concerned about his money after all.

>>52355884
>consumertard buys a beautifully over-engineered work of art guaranteed to last 20 years minimum in the 90s
>tosses it after 3 years because AOL loads slower after they've loaded it up with malware and are too dumb to fix it

>consumertard buys a limp dick shitbox that won't last more than five years at most, but it's way cheaper and has BIG NUMBERS
>tosses it after two years because facebook loads slower, their shitty manchild games get 4 less fps and it's not as trendy as the latest meme product

It's ultimately just businesses designing their product more towards their users.

>>52356086
what use is having a phone that works for 20 years if it is outdated after 2 - 4? Old nokias are still viable to use yet no one does. Durability is simply not a priority for customers.

>>52356049
What apple is doing is purposely gimping old phones with new software releases on the sly, and not letting consumers run old versions of iOS like they'd be able to OS X in order to force them to upgrade every 4 years as opposed to say, every 6. That is wrong and probably illegal, but getting paranoid and upset about planned obsolescence in general is retarded. It's literally planned in software release schedules when companies stop supporting old versions of operating systems.

>>52356192
>what use is having a phone that works for 20 years if it is outdated after 2 - 4?

that's what I'm trying to say. The average consumer discards perfectly functioning hardware for better versions, it's a waste of money to make them very durable.

>>52356201
you mean that software gets more intensive as it develops in the same way it has for the past 50 years and as a result old hardware is slower at running new stuff? wow, what a fucking surprise.

>>52356165
You think you can build a fridge or a monitor that lasts 3x as long for 1.5x the materials cost? They already last 10 years at least.

>>52356192
There is such a thing as over-engineering as well. There is no reason a phone shouldn't last you 5 years, though, save for wear parts like the battery, which will need a replacement half way through. 5 year old phones today still do the job perfectly. And there is no reason why today's phones wouldn't do their job any more in 5 years.

>>52356243
Monitors rarely last that long. The panel degrades with time, and is ultimately the part with decides usable lifetime. All the parts around it should be engineered to outlast it, which doesn't add significant cost.

>>52356221
No shit, the point is that customers aren't allowed to downgrade to old versions to make use of the last year or two of official support.

>>52356289
>what is restoring from a backup
you can't stop consumers from being dumb and not using what is available to them.

>>52356049
>>52355095
Planned obsolescence is somewhat fine. Technology is always being improved etc. Would you still want to be using a phone from 20 years ago? The average consumer doesn't.

What DOES need to be done however, is that these devices need to be able to be recycled, or at least the majority of it.

>>52356285
Ok, I'll be generous and give you seven. Say a $500 monitor costs $300 to make, even though I'm sure it's less. Design a monitor with $500 worth of parts that doesn't lose a pixel over 21 years.

>>52355095
He tried to treat cancer with yoga and carrots. Of course he's not right.

>>52356319
Are you a literal retard? It has nothing to do with it being possible in certain circumstances, it's that there's no official method of downgrading provided, and that it is clearly intentional given that there is no way they didn't know the new software would run poorly on old devices.

>>52356479
is there any official method of downgrading anything? in everything you use a backup.

>>52355095
LE PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE MEME

People who believe this are genuinely retarded. It's called manufacturing efficiency. Everything is built down to a price, you get what you pay for.