VIDEO: "The Light Bulb Conspiracy"

[ghosthunter]

Anyone from the APPLE camp would like to share?

[Chinoi]

gotta keep the economy moving

imagine if stuff were made to last forever

nobody's gonna buy new stuff

Pero bad for business. Ano nangyari sa US company na Singer Sewing Company. Ang tibay ng gawa nila. Pero nawala na sila.

To really profit from a brand, you have to make products that will become "obsolete" either by function or through styling in a year or so. This will force consumers to buy the product again & again but in it's newer form, even if the improvements are only slight when compared to the previous design. This is one reason why we have a fashion industry. Even if last year's shirts, pants and dresses are still in excellent condition, we are driven to buy the latest clothes to stay in fashion.

[ghosthunter]

Pero bad for business. Ano nangyari sa US company na Singer Sewing Company. Ang tibay ng gawa nila. Pero nawala na sila.

That is the problem. You make a product that is so durable, it will last for decades without breaking down. Although nearly every household has a Singer sewing machine, the company itself has not benefited from it's products' success.

[uls]

Pero bad for business. Ano nangyari sa US company na Singer Sewing Company. Ang tibay ng gawa nila. Pero nawala na sila.

To really profit from a brand, you have to make products that will become "obsolete" either by function or through styling in a year or so. This will force consumers to buy the product again & again but in it's newer form, even if the improvements are only slight when compared to the previous design. This is one reason why we have a fashion industry. Even if last year's shirts, pants and dresses are still in excellent condition, we are driven to buy the latest clothes to stay in fashion.

kaya nga

ano ba sinabi ko?

gotta keep the economy moving meaning people have to keep buying news stuff

[Monseratto]

Di lang new, but also cheaper. Look at America, wala ng company gumagawa ng TV like RCA or Magnavox, they lost out to the Japanese like Sony and Panasonic. Now the Japanese are also feeling the pinch from the Koreans like Samsung and LG. Next would be the Chinese turn...

[safeorigin]

The old Galbraithian canards are back again, as many commentators have noted that kitchen appliances, and many other things, just don’t seem to last the way they used to. In the old days, you got a blender as a wedding gift and your daughter would use it when she came home from college. These days we are lucky if a blender or hand mixer lasts a few years. The same seems true of washers and dryers, lawn mowers and edgers, clothing, electronic equipment, and even homes. Nothing lasts like it used to.

But is this a case against the market or merely a reflection of consumer preference for values (lower price, the newest technology, and different amenities) other than longevity? The latter, I submit. As materials have fallen in price, it makes more sense to replace the good than to create it to last forever. Do you want a $200 blender that last 30 years or a $10 blender that lasts five years? Whatever consumers prefer in the long run is what dominates the market.

How can we be sure? Competition. Let’s say all manufacturers make blenders that die in 5 years only, and this fact is widely loathed. One manufacturer could beat the competition by providing a product that emphasizes longevity over other features. If consumers really value longevity they will be willing to pay the difference. The same logic applies to cars, computers, houses, and everything else. We can know what preference dominates (in a free market) by simply looking at what practice is most common in the market.

Imagine if a computer manufacturer produced a machine that was advertised as a lifetime computer, the last computer you will need as long as you live, complete with software that will similarly last forever. Anyone with savvy would be skeptical, realizing that this is the last thing you want. Ideally your computer should only last as long as you want it to last before you are ready to upgrade to a new model. Far from being a rip-off, then, obsolescence is a sign of rising prosperity.

In times of massive and frequent technological improvement, it would be sheer waste for manufacturers to dump resources into making products last past their usefulness. In computers, for example, to have made them durable enough to last more than 6 years would be a big mistake in today’s environment. The same could be true of houses too. Everyone knows that old houses can be charming but bears to grapple with in terms of heating, cooling, plumbing, wiring, and everything else. The efficient solution might well be to level a house and rebuild rather than attempt an upgrade.

This would only be a waste if you push longevity ahead of technological improvement. Individual consumers are free to do that, but we have no basis for declaring this value set as fixed and unchanging. We do not live, nor do we wish to live, in a world that is static, where development never occurs, where what exists has always existed and always will.

The Free Market: How Long Should Things Last?

[en3rgy]

Anyone from the APPLE camp would like to share?

I think it is not fair to single out Apple in this case. Most, if not all companies follow a similar direction and have their own ways of generating money. Just refer to what Microsoft did with the Windows Operating System. My two cents on this matter

[mda]

I think it is not fair to single out Apple in this case. Most, if not all companies follow a similar direction and have their own ways of generating money. Just refer to what Microsoft did with the Windows Operating System. My two cents on this matter

Except apple makes it a point iterates every year, maybe less.

[en3rgy]

Except apple makes it a point iterates every year, maybe less.

If you're talking about latest product updates from apple, the option to buy is always on the consumer.

Not everyone have experienced what others have experienced with Apple.

Others just need to realized that our world is filled with profit driven companies. That's just way things go.

[niky]

Apple doesn't need to build in planned obsolescence. Their customers will gladly change up even if nothing's wrong with their products.

Aside from the fact that Apple batteries are built-in and can't be serviced outside, their products are mostly solid. In fact, Apple warranty and customer support is incredible. If something breaks that isn't supposed to break, they'll replace it for free, no matter when you bought the product. Hell... even if it's your fault (some broken iPod/iPhone screens), they'll replace it.

Customer service, product quality and durability help keep Apple entrenched. Their advantage is that they can charge a big premium for their products, so they can fund this otherwise extravagantly wasteful business model.

Try saying "HP" or "Compaq" in the same sentence as Apple. Their computers are crap. We once had three HP Pavilions bought at the same time all burn out within six months, and only one was replaced under warranty. The quality sucked, despite Apple rivalling price. We haven't had a single Apple device break down over the past several years... not even the iMac my brother dropped down the stairs.

-

Planned obsolescence only works as long as the customer doesn't mind trading longevity for low price. But, as the crash of the American automotive and electronics empires show: If somebody builds it better and more durable, word of mouth will shift the winds of the market away from you.

Light bulbs are a perfect example. Sure, there many new companies selling cheaper bulbs. But longevity concerns mean that many people are still willing to pay more for bulbs that will last longer.