News + Trends
Deadphones: the ten most common headphone deaths
by David Lee
Built-in obsolescence: is there truth behind the tales?
14.6.2019
Translation: Patrik Stainbrook
When your device gives up the ghost at the same time as your warranty comes to an end, most people wouldn’t think it was a coincidence. But do manufacturers really build an expiry date into their products? It’s usually hard to prove. The good news is that there are other ways to combat a short lifespan.
Things do break and often way too soon and for inexplicable or silly reasons. For instance, a little plastic bit might break off. Or a transistor could burn out and blow. Or the power supply could bail on you. Or a washer could break. And although the rest of the device is still technically OK, it can’t be repaired – or if it can, it requires a ridiculous amount of time and effort.
These kinds of cases quickly arouse suspicions that the manufacturers have done this on purpose. At least that’s how I felt when the button on my device snapped off, as you can see in the header image above. It’s made of a fixed piece of plastic that has no hinge and gets jostled every time I use it. You sort of had to expect that it would break off at some point. In fact, material fatigue tests could probably determine with a fair amount of certainty when it would break.
And yet, a lot of our users are under the impression their device will expire shortly after their warranty has. That includes user BasementKid, whose review of an Apple Macbook can be seen on a lot of our ads.
But are these instances really just by chance or is it planned? Intentionally shortening the lifespan in order to sell more replacement products is called planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence. You’ve probably heard the phrase before. It’s certainly become a favourite talking point in pubs around the country – even though no one can get their tongue round the phrase after their third beer.
It’s also a hot topic amongst users in our comments section. At the time of writing, Google gives 186 results for «planned obsolescence» (in German) from digitec.ch. Our users smelt a rat when it came to printers, graphics cards, computer mice, keyboards and chargers – so pretty much everywhere then.
Planned obsolescence can take various forms. To give you just a few examples: wear and tear parts can be added in such a way that they can’t be upgraded and changed; known weaknesses or flaws are sometimes not strengthened intentionally.
In spite of this vast array of examples, there’s always one that comes up again and again. And that’s the light bulb cartel between the First and Second World Wars. At that time, leading lamp manufacturers such as Philips, Osram and General Electric agreed amongst themselves to limit the lifespan of each bulb to 1,000 hours. And it worked.
Almost impossible to prove
So why does the light bulb example keep coming up? The answer is quite simple. It’s one of the few cases of planned obsolescence that can be proven. The group of light bulb manufacturers kept a note of it and had fines imposed on them for violating the agreement. There are also written documents and the companies were convicted.
But in normal circumstances, in-built obsolescence is impossible to prove. While you can gauge if a device is built to last or not, you can’t prove that the flaws were included intentionally. After all, there are almost always other explanations as to why a manufacturer might built their product a certain way. In any case, that’s certainly how it works in the complex world of high-tech products.
Let me show you what I mean:
The snapped button in the header image, for instance, could also have been attached as one piece without any hinges because that was just the cheapest and simplest construction.
A battery that has been solid mounted and can’t be replaced (or is really difficult to replace) could be considered planned obsolescence. That’s because the device is rendered useless once the battery gets too old. However, you could look at it another way and say the fixed design gives the device its smooth surface and therefore a better looking design. What’s more, it gives the casing improved protection from damp and dust.
Meanwhile, a lot of electronic devices contain cheap capacitors that are kaput after one year. A more durable capacitor would be more expensive but not a great deal more. In which case, does that make it in-built obsolescence or purely cost optimisation? Why should manufacturers design devices to last 20 years when they’ll be outdated after five? And why should it bother a company if their sat navs stop working after 15 years? Hardly anyone keeps devices for that long anyway.
As for smartphones, most don’t have replaceable components. Would you call that planned obsolescence? Not necessarily: switching in new components can sometimes be a pointless exercise. This can be because you get a bottleneck when not all the parts are of the same technical level. As nice as the Fairphone idea is, it does highlight the problems that could occur if as many components were replaceable.
But it isn’t just components that play a part in usability and lifespan; there’s also the issue of software. Once older devices don’t get the latest updates, they’re rendered obsolete. It would be easy to assume bad intentions are at play here as well. And yet, it could just be that processing power isn’t strong enough for the current software. There’s also the possibility that it’s just too costly for the manufacturer to support all the old models.
When you think about it, the light bulb case really isn’t as clear cut as it may seem at first glance. In the ARTE documentary «Kaufen für die Müllhalde» (Buying for the landfill), they show a light bulb that has been on almost constantly for way over 100 years. This «centennial light» is world famous and should be considered proof of the longevity of bulbs. However, there is a slight snag. What’s not mentioned is that the filament from this 60 W bulb hardly provides any light. The brighter a bulb shines, the faster it burns down the filament when you base it on the same electricity use. Evidently, we need to find a sensible compromise between lifespan and light output.
Even if there’s no rational explanation for a flaw or weakness, that’s still not proof the company has bad intentions. The product developer might just have been a bit stupid.
The legal situation
As it’s hard to prove any flaws were deliberate with intent to cause in-built obsolescence, it’s hardly surprising that many countries don’t have anti-obsolescence laws. Even the members of the light bulb cartel weren’t convicted of planned obsolescence but of price rigging and unfair competition. Certainly, in Germany and Switzerland, in-built obsolescence isn’t specifically banned. The Swiss National Council rejected a parliamentary motion on this in 2012.
Meanwhile, in France and Italy there have been attempts to hold manufacturers accountable for a few years now. For instance, Apple was hit with a ten million euro fine in Italy because the CPU in older iPhones get throttled with ageing batteries.
Then again, even in this instance, it’s not black and white. After all, it’s in the best interests of the user for the processing power to be throttled if it keeps the smartphone running until the end of the day. But equally, if the user isn’t informed and isn’t allowed to decide for themselves if they want that or not, this could push them to buying a new device ahead of time.
Intentional or not? It doesn’t matter – it’s the upshot that counts
Experts such as Christoph Hugi, lecturer in sustainability and development at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, don’t think there’s an underhand masterplan in most cases. It usually just comes down to a lack of interest in longevity on the part of the manufacturer. In other words, the manufacturers don’t get any reward for building durable products so they don’t make any effort to do so.
And ultimately, you no longer need to prove the manufacturer’s intention. What matters is the result or rather the effect on your device. It’s quite simply not acceptable for a device to break within two years of normal use. It’s irrelevant whether the company intended this to happen or not.
Long warranty periods are therefore the more effective solution than protracted and complicated legal proceedings about planned obsolescence. In 2013, Switzerland took a step in this direction by extending the warranty period from 12 to 24 months.
It’s conceivable that other measures could emerge. Perhaps something along the lines of manufacturers having to provide security updates for smartphones for at least five years. But these kinds of laws would have to be coordinated globally, or at least within Europe. Were Switzerland to make a go of it alone, manufacturers might not supply our small market anymore.
Broken versus not good enough
It’s actually hard to prove that a device has had a below-average lifespan – whether that was by chance or design. There would need to be a way of extracting enough reliable data from each individual product to be able to build up a picture. And there don’t seem to be many of those kinds of studies. The German consumer organisation and foundation Stiftung Warentest occasionally conducts large-scale user surveys about device lifespan. But they’re not all that up-to-date. Take the last notebook survey (in German) for instance – that data is from more than ten years ago.
What’s more, this 2016 study from the German Environment Agency maintains that the average lifespan of appliances has dropped. And interestingly, not because the devices weren’t useable; in fact, they still worked perfectly. It was just because users lost interest in old devices and wanted to buy something new.
Then again, that is a mindset manufacturers can encourage – thereby making it intentional. Given constant advances in tech, a five-year-old notebook is no longer attractive. You can’t really argue with developments like that. But it’s a different story entirely if a company intentionally withholds its innovations and only releases them bit by bit, meaning you have to buy every single new device to make the most of each innovation. I suspect something similar happened to me with the first mirrorless system camera Panasonic G1. It didn’t come with a video feature even though every cheap camera could and despite the fact this was one of the main advantages over single-lens reflex cameras (SLRs). Fast-forward six months and the GH1 was released. With a video feature. But of course, there’s no real proof that innovation was held back in this instance either.
So what have we learnt? Not everything can be governed by statutory warranty periods, even though this is an effective way of combating the short lifespan of devices. It’s clear that even you as a user have a certain responsibility. You have an influence on deciding what makes it to market. If your smartphone still works well and you’re still getting security updates, keep on using it. Or if you do want to treat yourself to a new one, at least sell your old one so someone else can get some use out of it.
David Lee
Senior Editor
David.Lee@digitecgalaxus.chMy interest in IT and writing landed me in tech journalism early on (2000). I want to know how we can use technology without being used. Outside of the office, I’m a keen musician who makes up for lacking talent with excessive enthusiasm.
Smartphone
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
Computing
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
Audio
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
Movies and series
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
73 comments
later