Planned obsolescence as an idea for changing the world

Do#nbsp;you know what is#nbsp;planned obsolescence? I#nbsp;heard different explanations, but everything began for the bulbs. In#nbsp;1879 Edison has built a#nbsp;bulb which could serve for 14 hours and before 1930 this time increased up#nbsp;to#nbsp;2500 hours. In#nbsp;the first half of#nbsp;the century there were many small companies who was making them.

At#nbsp;the end of#nbsp;1924, in#nbsp;Geneva a#nbsp;few large bulb producers like Philips, General Electric, Osram and some others created a#nbsp;Phoebus Cartel, which helped them to#nbsp;control a#nbsp;world’s bulb market by#nbsp;territory, so#nbsp;they absorbed all the smaller manufacturers. All of#nbsp;them had a#nbsp;huge fight with the bulb lifetime as#nbsp;occasionally sales started to#nbsp;decline#nbsp;— in#nbsp;1923 Osram sold 23 million bulbs, but could only achieve a#nbsp;sales of#nbsp;8 million bulbs during the following year.

So, the agreement was to#nbsp;limit the bulbs serving time by#nbsp;1000 hours. If#nbsp;someones bulb was serving for a#nbsp;longer time, they paid a#nbsp;fine. The brightest engineering minds begun to#nbsp;create a#nbsp;better product using different materials, making contractors smaller and other degradations which helped to#nbsp;increase sales.

The cartel didn’t last long, but its methods were taken by#nbsp;many fabrics and the important reason was a#nbsp;1929 depression, when 25% of#nbsp;the#nbsp;US population lost their jobs. So, it#nbsp;was necessary to#nbsp;produce more and consume more. People were scared by#nbsp;the fact that technological progress can leave them without a#nbsp;job.

The same story happened with General Motors, when their realised that making a#nbsp;similar model in#nbsp;a#nbsp;new color will lead to more sales and more frequent change of#nbsp;the cars. In#nbsp;1955, they actually dropped this time from 5 to#nbsp;2 years and invented a#nbsp;dynamic obsolescence. They motivated customers to#nbsp;change their cars every year.

I#nbsp;like to#nbsp;give you an#nbsp;example of#nbsp;Mercedes-Benz too…

Nowadays, in#nbsp;Europe and in#nbsp;the US, we#nbsp;have got a#nbsp;new laws of#nbsp;electronic repairability and even Apple allowed to#nbsp;repair their devices in#nbsp;3rd party service centres, but will it#nbsp;lead to#nbsp;a#nbsp;better, long lasting product? No, it#nbsp;wouldn’t, because using software it#nbsp;is#nbsp;possible to#nbsp;make any product old or#nbsp;out-dated. It#nbsp;can be#nbsp;done not only using a#nbsp;software and new technologies, but also using high cost or#nbsp;repair and marketing#nbsp;— new colours, new features, more cool and etc. An environmental impact of#nbsp;this approach is#nbsp;unbelievably extreme.

Why would a#nbsp;manufacturer of#nbsp;some complex device like Apple get away from planned obsolescence? There should be#nbsp;aone important condition, where such manufacturer should be#nbsp;interested in#nbsp;a#nbsp;product which can serve for many many years.

A#nbsp;service model creates a#nbsp;need for more robust and serviceable things. May be#nbsp;it#nbsp;is a#nbsp;way for most of#nbsp;the industries to create less waste?

You remember some time ago Apple shifted their strategy from iPhone ever growing sales volumes to#nbsp;the fact that iPhone lasts for a#nbsp;long time, changing owners and they can make money selling Apps and services during whole drive lifecycle…