I stumbled upon an old house the other day that appeared remarkably well-maintained. The wallpapers, furnishings, decor, and carpets all seemed to belong to the 1970s, so visiting it felt like stepping back in time. It seems past generations had a different relationship with their belongings – they tended to take better care of them and were less inclined to discard them as readily as newer generations. Despite its age, the house had an immaculate appearance, suggesting the owner had invested significant effort into preserving it.
I visited my family in my home country this year and felt the same way. They kept so many items, furniture, and even clothes for decades. Younger generations tend to change things more easily.
I began to think about how, when I was younger, things used to be stronger and more resilient. This reminded me of a documentary I saw years ago that discussed something called “Planned Obsolescence.” Back then, products seemed to be designed to last longer compared to today’s standards. As I recall, the documentary explored the concept of manufacturers intentionally limiting the lifespan of their products to drive repeat purchases. This practice, while beneficial for business, can be frustrating for consumers who prefer more reliable and long-lasting goods.
Planned obsolescence is when manufacturers intentionally design products to break, fail, or become outdated quickly, so consumers have to buy replacements. This practice has become commonplace, though it wasn’t always the case. It started gradually and subtly, so you may not have even noticed it happening.
Today, chances are most things in our home were made under this business model. But it wasn’t always like this. The story of planned obsolescence goes back much further than you might think, to the early 20th century.
Manufacturers began using this strategy to boost consumer demand by designing products with limited lifespans, encouraging repeat purchases. The development of the first commercially viable electric light bulb by Thomas Edison in 1879 is often cited as an early example. His invention lasted much longer than later bulbs, leading manufacturers to adopt planned obsolescence to maintain sales.
In 2017, Apple was criticized and sued after admitting that they slowed down older iPhones to address battery issues. This wasn’t the first or last time they faced such a lawsuit. Back in 2003, they were sued over the lifespan of iPod batteries. The company had to reach a settlement with users, offer financial compensation to those who sued, initiate a battery recall, and extend the device’s warranty.
More recently, in 2023, a French prosecutor announced an official investigation into allegations that Apple was investing in a business model based on planned obsolescence. This is because their phones are becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to repair, leading people to give up on fixing them and simply buy a new one.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, industrialization led to mass production. The new machines could churn out many more products, and at much lower costs. However, there wasn’t a strong enough market to absorb all this increased supply. It was too much production for the relatively few consumers at the time.
Industrial designer Brooks Stevens was a pioneer of this approach. He created a wide range of products, from household items to robust ones like cars and trains. Stevens made previous models seem old, slow, and outdated compared to his latest releases, always with planned obsolescence in mind. This encouraged people to buy for pleasure, rather than just out of necessity.
So, What is the impact of Planned Obsolescence on today’s society? And how does it affect the environment?
Things inevitably have an expiration date, whether driven by forced obsolescence or not. Your clothes, appliances, and electronics are not made to last or be repaired, but to be replaced, usually within a short period of time. For instance, your computer – each year, you may feel tempted by new market releases, with updated designs and features, some of which may seem quite unnecessary. Inevitably, your computer parts will start to malfunction, software updates won’t work as before, and new programs won’t be compatible. The situation gradually worsens until you have no choice but to replace a part to upgrade it. However, to upgrade, you often need to replace multiple parts due to compatibility issues, making it more worthwhile to simply buy a new computer altogether.
Over time, the unlimited purchasing also had an impact on the products’ quality. Because they want to buy everything at all times, some people end up prioritizing lower-priced products and usually aren’t willing to pay much more for products they bought some time ago. Unfortunately, I am guilty myself. Who never bought things from Aliexpress?
A few costs may increase with time, including personnel, new technology, raw materials, and production. To keep prices low or steady, manufacturers often need to find ways to save. The go-to solution is usually cutting back on product quality or quantity. While this helps maintain affordability, it can impact the overall value customers receive.
The intentional design of products with shorter lifespans encourages repeat purchases, which has significant implications for the environment. First, it contributes to increased waste as consumers discard products prematurely. With a constant influx of new and often unnecessary purchases, landfills become overwhelmed with electronic waste, plastics, and other materials, posing serious environmental risks like soil and water contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions from decomposition. Moreover, the manufacturing and disposal of these short-lived products require substantial energy and resources, worsening resource depletion and pollution.
Planned obsolescence fuels a culture of overconsumption and rapid turnover of goods. This leads to higher energy use and greenhouse gas emissions throughout a product’s lifecycle. The constant demand for new products drives industries to extract raw materials at unsustainable rates, causing habitat destruction, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. Additionally, the energy-intensive manufacturing and transportation of goods contribute further to carbon emissions, worsening climate change. Ultimately, planned obsolescence perpetuates a linear economic model that prioritizes short-term profit over long-term environmental sustainability, undermining efforts to transition to a more circular and resource-efficient economy.
So, you might wonder if there is a way out of this situation.
Today, there are various efforts around the world fighting against planned obsolescence – the practice of designing products to have a limited lifespan. The “right to repair” movement is one of these efforts, and it is gaining traction, especially in the United States and Europe. Many manufacturers, including tech giants like Apple, make it difficult for people to access and repair certain parts of their products. They often claim that only the manufacturer can guarantee the original quality and that independent repairs violate their intellectual property rights.
Recently, the European Union has proposed a law that would force manufacturers to offer product repairs for up to 10 years after the sale, even if the legal warranty period has expired.
The circular economy is an alternative to the way we currently live. Instead of producing, buying, using, and discarding, the circular economy focuses on repairing, recycling, and reusing items. This changes our consumption habits. Walter R. Stahel, a Swiss architect considered the father of the circular economy, believes that extending the lifespan of consumer goods is key to transitioning to a sustainable economy. The business models in the circular economy can be divided into two groups: one that restores and extends the life of products, and another that turns goods into resources for making new products.
Previous generations may have been less active in purchasing gadgets, likely due to their different backgrounds and realities. In the past, acquiring new things was much more difficult, more expensive, and not as easy without the internet. After considering this, I’ve come to the conclusion that newer generations not only take less care than older generations, but the easier access to products online, combined with planned obsolescence, has led to increased consumption and waste generation. However, I’m hopeful that we can find more alternatives to address this issue.