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 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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.