Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Prison Break | Main | Headlines from Consumerist »
Are consumer products made to break? An interview with author Giles Slade
The following interview is part one of a two-part series on planned obsolescence. The second -- about housing construction -- will be posted next week is now online here.
Last year my sweetie and I inherited a microwave from the previous owners of our new (old) house. The microwave looked like a serious piece of equipment, not a cheap plastic number, but wouldn't power on. For months, we let it sit in the kitchen. When we finally managed to deal with it, our first instinct was, naturally, to toss it and buy a new one.
Sure, why not: we could buy a new oven for the same price as fixing the old. Though the new one was perhaps even more likely to break quickly, we could at least leave the old one on the curb, rather than lugging it to the repair shop. When the new one broke we could always, you know, buy yet another.
As it happens, I was internally debating this when I picked up Giles Slade's illuminating history Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Within the first two pages, Slade makes it very clear that microwave ovens are only the the tip of the iceberg when it comes to electronics that common sense tells us to discard. And discard, we do. From cell phones to PCs to computer monitors and televisions, every year sees an exponential rise in the number of machines tossed into landfills. In 2003, over 63 million working PCs were trashed, In 2004, that number jumped to 315 million. The same trend holds over a wide array of consumer electronics.
The reasons behind this are many and complex, but Slade hones in on one: companies profit more when products have shorter lifespans - because they sell more products that way. This is no conspiracy theory but, rather, simple economics. Small wonder, then, that product lifespans are shrinking across the board. In 1997, a PC was expected to last 4 or 5 years; by 2003, only two years, and today the life expectancy is even less. ; today, average life expectancy is two or three years.
As Made to Break documents, planned obsolescence is neither theoretical nor new. In fact, throughout the early half of the 20th century, business leaders openly promoted planned obsolescence in one form or another, calling it "creative destruction," "progressive obsolescence" or "adulteration."
To find out more, I tracked down Slade and talked to him by phone in late 2006.
STAY FREE!: How did book come about?
GILES SLADE: I came back to North America from teaching in the Arab Emirates after 9/11, and every interaction I had in public was very curt, very rude. I wondered where that shortness developed and ultimately became convinced that it has to do with our attitudes toward material culture.
STAY FREE!: Business people in the 1920s and up through the 1950s talked openly about planned obsolescence in trade publications. Are they less likely to talk about it now?
GILES SLADE: They call it different things now: "death dating" or "product lifespan." It's an established strategy. When a junior industrial designer is assigned to a work site and tasked with designing a product, one of the first questions is: How long is this thing going to last? How long does the competition last? How long is the warranty? This kind of planning is common knowledge among design teams.
STAY FREE!: Yeah, I noticed when web surfing that a business school included "product obsolescence" in a course description. One of your critics on the internet, though, wrote, "I'm an industrial designer and I've never heard this!" What do you make of that?
GILES SLADE: The British designer known for creating the iPod, Jonathan Ive, probably didn't have anything to do with the battery inside the iPod. His job was to make the iPod beautiful. But Tony Fadell, the guy in charge of the engineering team and a top executive of Apple, knew very well that the battery would fail after 11 months; it would've been his decision to put it inside, where it couldn't be replaced. On large projects, tasks can be very specialized. But Steve Jobs clearly knows about this. He said in an interview that people should buy a new iPod every year. The old ones scratch very easily, so they don't look as nice after use.
STAY FREE!: Do you have proof that it's intentional?
GILES SLADE: No, but there's currently a class-action lawsuit against Apple in California, focused on the video screens being so easily scratched. The same group filed a lawsuit about the battery life and won a huge settlement from Apple.
STAY FREE!: You discussed Levittown‚ the pioneering housing development on Long Island‚ and how home builders began applying mass production techniques to real estate development in the 1940s. Could you talk a bit about that?
GILES SLADE: William Jaird Levitt said Levittown was just like a Ford Motor plant, except the stationary line was spread across a subdivision. Everything that wasn't immediately cost-effective was eliminated: porches, basements, even sidewalks. In order to sell these houses, they filled them full of brand new appliances—washers and dryers, new refrigerators and stoves. They built the houses to last 20 years, but after 5 years or so, the appliances would break down. Still, the houses were built very well. And many of the buyers were first-time home owners, so they put a lot of sweat equity into them. They added value to houses in a way that defeats obsolescence. The carports were not garages, so they'd wall them in and make it a real garage. They would put in fireplaces or...
STAY FREE!: Add a porch?
GILES SLADE: Sure, add a porch. Build up the roof. Those places go for a lot of money now.
STAY FREE!: Forgive my ignorance, but what does removing the basement do structurally to a house?
GILES SLADE: Frank Lloyd Wright hated basements because they weren't cost-effective. He said they don't do anything, they're just negative storage space. So [in Levittown] they poured a concrete step and added copper coil piping into the concrete; instead of radiators they had radiant heat.
STAY FREE!: How does that effect the longevity of the house?
GILES SLADE: It makes the copper coil unserviceable. Once it corrodes, fills up with sludge, or springs a leak, there's not much you can do about it.
STAY FREE!: Has there been much of a debate among contemporary designers and engineers about the lifespans of products they create?
GILES SLADE: Electronics engineers at IEEE conferences frequently present papers about designing for disassembly, making products reusable and less poisonous. Many of those people are at odds with their industry.
STAY FREE!: Even Martha Stewart has complained about planned obsolescence—about the number of cords and chargers required for digital devices. Here in the States, there's no standard for those things. Have other countries tackled this problem?
GILES SLADE: In Germany, there's something called the Institute for NORML that standardizes electronic devices. I think there's something similar in Japan.
STAY FREE!: Have you looked at consumer warranties at all? They seem to be shrinking. I saw some headphones the other day that had a 30-day guarantee!
GILES SLADE: Ha! All I know is that I went to the industrial standards board in Washington and they told me that the standard for durable goods was fixed at three years around the beginning of WWI. I guess that three years came from the three-year product cycle of General Motors. They figured a new GM car would come out every three years, so a car only needed to last three years. The funny thing is that three years now sounds like a long time. The average cell phone lasts only 18 months in North America and maybe 8 months in Japan, Finland, and Norway.
STAY FREE!: Lately I've noticed that inside the box of new electronic products, there's a note saying DO NOT return this item to store; instead, return it directly to manufacturer. I wonder if that is a way discouraging people from returning things in general; the more confusing the process, the less likely people are to do anything about it.
GILES SLADE: There was a watch—"the "Yankee"—called "the watch that made the dollar famous." It was stamped out of steel and came with a lifetime guarantee. All you had to do when the watch stopped was mail it back to the company and it would send you another one free. But because the watch only cost a dollar, only 3 percent of consumers ever took advantage of that offer. I think Apple has the same thing in mind with its takeback program. Most customers would have to write to them, box up the equipment, and pay to ship it. Statistically, very few people take advantage of that.
STAY FREE!: Also, Apple doesn't promote takeback at all. You have to dig for it on their website. Have you looked at repair services and how those have changed?
GILES SLADE: No, but that's an another interesting question. I do know that there is a booming aftermarket industry that has grown up around the iPod. IPods break so often and, after the warranty period, you can't get them serviced from Apple, but you can trade them in. They're very small, so it's easy to chuck them. They are designed to work only for a specified amount of time, which an Apple rep initially said was four years, but then she was challenged on that and said she meant "for years."
STAY FREE!: On Mac blogs, everyone took Apple at its word and published that as a correction. . . . I recently bought a Patagonia coat because it has a lifetime warranty.
GILES SLADE: They say that for Sears' Craftsman tools also. I haven't had a problem with Sears' tools, but I have a Kenmore dryer and it burst into flames! It was still under warranty—it was less than two years old—Sears came and repaired it, but now I'm afraid to use it. I thought Kenmore was a respectable brand but it's just some cheap model that Sears buys in lots and slaps its name on.
STAY FREE!: I have a conspiracy theory. Sometimes I think stores have intentionally bad customer service because it encourages people to buy something new rather than dealing with customer service for a return.
GILES SLADE: I think that's certainly the case with rebate programs. They make it very difficult to actually collect the rebate.
STAY FREE!: When you talk to people about your book, do you notice a generational divide in how older people and younger people feel about these issues?
GILES SLADE: Yes, younger people don't want to hear anything negative about the iPod. I might as well put a turban on and grow a long beard. It comes down to the social value of consumer goods as icons. If I'm saying something negative about your tribe's icon, it's as if I'm attacking you personally. Also, younger people have much less sense that things should last. I find that really disturbing.
STAY FREE!: It makes sense, though. If you're born into a world where things aren't made to last, naturally you won't expect them to.
GILES SLADE: Sure, but then things less than 20 years old become what we think of as antiques. So your sense of duration, of history, of culture has collapsed and evaporated. If your favorite toys are constantly updated and replaced, how is that going to effect your relationships with people? I think you're less likely to have lasting commitments to people, to family, to a country, even. There's a well-known book called Bowling Alone, and I think this is where it comes from. We've become so accustomed to things only lasting for a few years we don't invest in them anymore. We don't see beautiful things like paintings and rugs as lasting.
STAY FREE!: James Twitchell, an historian of advertising, has said that the problem with Americans is not that we're materialistic, but that we're not materialistic enough. We don't genuinely love our things; what we love is exchanging them for newer things.
You write that the rise of computers has led to the rise of information obsolescence. Could you give an example?
GILES SLADE: One way to make electronic products obsolete is to design them to not be backward compatible. Apple changed the operating system on the Nano about a year ago, and it requires an advanced physics degree to put the new operating system on the old Nano, so you can't use iTunes anymore if you have an older model.
STAY FREE!: You've gotten a lot of criticism on the web. Any thoughts on that?
GILES SLADE: I remember being called a "conspiracy theorist" in the Times Literary Supplement and puzzling over it because there's not much that is "theoretical" about my book. It has all been substantiated by people other than me. Online, a particular group of critics started to lump me in with environmentalists, and I started getting a lot of criticism on right-wing blogs. When I started talking about the iPod, technology blogs started going. Apple has an extensive informal network of pro-Apple blogs . . .
STAY FREE!: True, but there are thousands of diehard Mac fans that have no actual connection to the company.
GILES SLADE: Yes, but let me give you an example. There was a leak about conditions at an iPod factory in China. In the week following the leak, reports appeared all over the web saying that a crack investigative team looked into it and found that the rumors weren't true; there was no injustice. Well, a week or so later, all of these claims are in fact confirmed: the workers can't leave the iPod factory, they're working long hours for sweatshop wages. Apple is the champion of creating a spin cycle before anyone knows what's going on. I think they're smarter and more successful than the CIA. I can get the CIA to talk to me but I can't get Apple to.
Posted by carrie on 04/04/2007 | Permalink
Comments
Great interview! I wish the statement "I wondered where that shortness developed and ultimately became convinced that it has to do with our attitudes toward material culture" could have been expanded upon, though. Without any sort of justification it just seems like a random statement.
Posted by: Alex | Apr 4, 2007 7:09:54 PM
I'm clearly hallucinating, because my 40gb iPod is going strong after three years. Battery life is still just fine. Does it have scratches on it? Sure. Nothing that lives in my pocket for three years doesn't have scratches on it. Nothing.
And, clearly, my delusions must be progressive, because I clearly remember opening my iPod with a tool called a "screwdriver", with no deleterious effects at all (I reseated the hard drive connection that had apparently come loose after living in my aforementioned pocket).
There might be better-manufactured items available somewhere, but I have to wonder...is this guy cashing in on Apple's trendiness to be all contrary and retro-grouchy? How about considering the cost of consumer goods now with respect to 30 years ago? (Meaning, how much does it cost to operate that microwave per year now vs. then?)
Do things break? Yes. Is it important to consider how long something should be designed to last when one is designing things? Yes. Is it possible to design things that never break? No.
Next story.
Posted by: Lee Gibson | Apr 4, 2007 8:43:14 PM
If you want to take an Apple product back, you can take it to any Apple store. There are 170 or so.
The most obvious anecdote of planned obsolescence, of course, is American car manufacturers. They built cars that didn't last so that customers would buy new cars. What happened? Japanese car manufacturers stepped in and made cars that actually do last. It turns out that sometimes the best move for companies is to do what's best for the consumer.
Two intentional factual misrepresentations mar this interview.
1. Steve Jobs "said in an interview that people should buy a new iPod every year."
What Steve Jobs said was "If you always want the latest and greatest, then you have to buy a new iPod at least once a year." Innovation, not planned obsolescence, is what he was talking about.
2. "It requires an advanced physics degree to put the new operating system on the old Nano, so you can't use iTunes anymore if you have an older model."
You can use the current version of iTunes with all models of iPods. Oh, and you'd need an advanced computer science degree, not an advanced physics degree, if you wanted to hack the OS.
These kind of misrepresentations and unfounded accusations are what make people call Slade a conspiracy theorist. It's hard to disagree with that assessment based on this interview.
Planned obsolescence is a problem! Consumers do need the help of consumer advocates! But lying to make your case doesn't help the consumers. (Nor does it help the mission of Stay Free!)
Thank you for your attention
Posted by: Robert C. | Apr 5, 2007 2:35:06 PM
This is interesting: Gizmodo reports on a laptop loaded with easily upgradeable components -- the logic being that one could extend the usable life of the laptop by upgrading it bit by bit.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/asus-c90-will-be-first-user-upgradeable-lappie-249934.php
Posted by: Damian | Apr 5, 2007 5:02:59 PM
Just a note on creative destruction mentioned in the lead up to the interview: Creative destruction, a term coined by Shumpeter, is used in Economics to illustrate technological change. This has very little to do with the planned obsolescence of specific product but more to do with an industry as a whole; old technology is destroyed by superior new technology. Although the ideas presented by Mr. Slade and creative destruction are similar, creative destruction is a highly positive force. For instance, the typewriter industry was "creatively destroyed" by the word processor- and we are all better for it.
Posted by: John M | Apr 5, 2007 7:14:38 PM
Lee, I'm glad your iPod has lasted three years. Most don't. Your luck, however, doesn't mean that the players aren't a problem for others.
As for the claim that Slade is "cashing in" on Apple's trendiness - har har har har har har. You're a real riot. I'm having a hard time thinking of something LESS lucrative or career-enhancing than criticizing Apple. Try it in a public forum and you'll be throttled. On Brian Lehrer's show (WNYC.org) a week or so ago, Benjamin Barber was on talking about rampant consumerism and briefly mentioned the iPod video phone. For the rest of the hour, the phone rang off the hook from people ignoring the larger argument and eager to defend and promote the wonderous iPod.
Robert C.:
#1 - Innovation and planned obsolescence are hardly mutually exclusive. Apple uses innovation in part to obviate old models. This is so widely recognized it was even parodied on Saturday Night Live. (You can view the clip on your iPod by downloading it here:
http://ipodgarage.com/article.php?id=583 )
Sure, there many reasons new technologies push out old ones; often they're better... but that's certainly not always the case. Nor is it the case that every person who buys X necessarily wants the "better" version. There is a sizable part of the population (self included) who doesn't want to buy a new computer every year, who wants her mp3 player to last a while, and doesn't have the time or energy to spend on troubleshooting. Why shouldn't "durability" and "sustainability" be innovations?
I've asked Giles to respond to Robert's #2... but joking about a "physics" degree rather than a "computer science" falls under poetic license in my book. Calling that sort of thing a lie is itself a misrepresentation.
To get back to the larger point, as I wrote in my intro: we once expected PCs to last 4 or 5 years. The average PC now lasts 2. As late as 2002, people expected cell phones to last about 4.5 years; the average lifespan is now less than one year. As long as you all continue to defend such practices; as long as you ignore that, yes, there are things that Apple could do a lot better, the problem is only going to get worse.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 5, 2007 11:19:34 PM
It seemed to me that "planned obsolescence" is exactly what you want your designers doing. They should be designing a product with an intended lifetime and then also considering what happens to the product at the end of its lifetime.
I totally agree that there are too many products which don't have acceptable planned lifetimes, iPods included. However, it's difficult to accept Slade as an expert on anything when so many of his facts about iPods are incorrect or misleading.
Coincidentally, I replaced the battery on my iPod mini this evening with a home repair kit I bought for $25. It was a little rough but nothing big. The actual iPod is about 2 years old. A little young, yes, but I have listened to it nearly every day for an hour or more in that time.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 6, 2007 1:22:20 AM
Nick, you may be able to fix your iPod for $25 but not thanks to Apple. The third party market for Apple repair products has arisen precisely because Apple doesn't make ipod repairs easy or cheap.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 6, 2007 1:38:45 AM
Why is it that people who are so called happy with their Apple products are so aggressive with it?
Seems to me Apples marketing team spreads far and wide... "Do you have an internet connection? Earn dollars right from the confort of your home CALL NOW ON......"
How much do you make per post Alex?
I know of many products that have been shelved due to them not creating enough re purchase rev. or whatever you wana call it!
Extra tough surfboard resin, you could fire BB guns at with no damage... bought out and Shelved!
A car oil that had fine nylon bearings in that could prolong an old cars engine life... bought out and Shelved!
Battery design for use with electric cars which would enable electric cars to rival fosil fuel cars... bought out and Shelved!
On a different point, I recently opened up my Sony mini hifi system as the line in jack socket had gotten real crackely, so I bought a new one from Radio shack and replaced the old one... upon looking at the old what I thought was a worn socket, I noticed the conductive metal on the surface of the contacts had corroded to reveal a none conductive metal which the main body of the contacts was made out of... oh and by the way I could not get a 3rd party to repair it due to sony parts being unavaliable and officially the price for repair made it more economic for myself to buy a new one!
Please don't ignor the fact that built in obsolescence exists, no matter how much some internet marketeer bleats that it doesn't!
PEACE!
Posted by: Kincl | Apr 6, 2007 6:01:40 AM
Wow, I'm impressed by the number and level of the comments and the intensity of the controversy that this interview excited from Stay Free's readers. Thank you, Carrie, for putting me out there...
Some things I should add. I'm NOT an expert on iPods. The information here is gleaned from iPod users who blog and email me material both praising and criticizing their devices. What I write about in my book --Made To Break-- is the evolution of our throwaway culture from disposability to planned obsolescence to electronic waste. Dunno if I'm an expert on that either, but it is real, it is almost as big an environmental problem as 'global warming' in that it will harm our children and their children, AND I'm the only one doing it, so we're all stuck.
Lee's first point about me changing the context of Steve-O's quotation is possibly partly accurate. But ask yourself whether or not Steve wants you to get a new one every year? I think he does. Since that is true, he shouls make the iPod more amenable to recycling in order to prevent toxic e-waste from millions of discarded players. This is Greenpeace's gripe with him, and it is a valid one...I guess, however, I stretched a point in using the quotation. Good one, Lee.
As far as being a 'conspiracy theorist' goes...it was the Times Literary Supplement who accused me of this and I have the review framed on my wall. If they want to tell the world that I sleep with sheep it's okay with me (please don't print the sheeps ' names, however, since they're very sensitive). ;-) --Anyway, everyone knows the people who are accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist are in the pay of the CIA who don't like the fact that I have become the technology lifestyle columnist for HuffingtonPost.com and start with my first blog entry on May 9th. Yes, it concerns Apple, so I'll look for you all there. Best Wishes.
Thanks again STAY FREE! Stay Free, America. As Lafayette said: Liberty needs a home. Oh no, I changed that too. What he actually said was 'At last, Liberty has a home'. ;-) Giles Slade
Giles Slade
Posted by: Giles Slade | Apr 6, 2007 10:41:20 AM
> Why is it that people who are so called happy with their Apple products are so aggressive with it?
I think, in so far as it relates to Giles Slade's comments on Apple, people who know better are defensive because the comments are really misrepresentative.
Also, iPods are out there defending our soldiers in iRaq.
Posted by: Gary | Apr 6, 2007 12:18:45 PM
Please note that I struck Slade's comment about iTunes and backwards compatibility because he can't substantiate that claim (at least part of which may be false).
Posted by: carrie | Apr 6, 2007 1:15:47 PM
Dear Carrie McLaren,
Thank you so much for striking that paragraph about physicists in your interview with me from last December...As I told you, I do not remember ever saying those things and wonder who might have taken such 'poetic license' and embellished my words in this way BEFORE they got into print. I've very grateful this didn't happen with my book (published by Harvard University Press) or with my current Mother Jones article. Nonetheless the substance of everything I have said in the interview is correct and I stand absolutely behind it, behind you and behind Stay Free magazine which ordinarily does such a wonderful job. Thank you again, Carrie, for your integrity in this matter...and may I say anyone interested in these issues can find more about the deliberate failings of iPods at Noah Rothbaum's excellent posting '!0 Things Your iPod Doesn't Want You to Know' at this link:
http://www.smartmoney.com/10things/index.cfm?story=june2006
Furthermore, anyone like LEE who can help me with the technical features of iPods and their failings is really welcome to write me personally at gilesslade@hotmail.com
Cheers, Giles Slade
Posted by: giles slade | Apr 6, 2007 1:18:40 PM
Wow. So much to respond to that I'm going to respond to Mr. Slade's comment separately.
Lee Gibson: my delusions must be progressive, because I clearly remember opening my iPod with a tool called a "screwdriver", with no deleterious effects at all
You must have a different iPod than mine - or than any iPod I've ever seen. The only way I could open an iPod with a standard screwdriver is to either use it like a crowbar to pry the iPod apart or find a big enough screwdriver to pound the thing 'til the guts pour out. There are iPod repair kits for sale because they can't be opened with a standard screwdriver.
And I'll stack your anecdotal experience with your three-year-old iPod against my anecdotal experience of all of the people who I know that have had to replace their iPod more than once over that span.
is this guy cashing in on Apple's trendiness to be all contrary and retro-grouchy?
A little, perhaps, but in pursuit of a larger point. Apple is an iconic brand and is actively engaging in corporate behavior that is part of a larger trend. There is nothing wrong with pointing to a well-known brand if that brand is guilty as charged. Your accusation is a red herring. Is Slade right or wrong? His self-interest may be relevant to some questions but not to that one and that is a particularly weak accusation. Opposition to big box stores coalesces around Wal-Mart not because they are the only offender, but because they are the largest and best known (and are the best at what they do).
Robert C.: If you want to take an Apple product back, you can take it to any Apple store. There are 170 or so.
That isn't really a lot, nationwide. An Apple Store is convenient if you live in New York City; not so much if you live in Dubuque.
John M.: Creative destruction ... has very little to do with the planned obsolescence of specific product but more to do with an industry as a whole; old technology is destroyed by superior new technology
True, this is not about things breaking but there is a symbiosis in incremental change and a culture of disposability. By rushing out slightly better version and using advertising to make it sound like a sea change. The most important points made in Slade's book are not about the iPod specifically but about the dangers of a culture that is so careless about its consumerism and how the producers of consumer goods encourage this behavior.
Nick: It seemed to me that "planned obsolescence" is exactly what you want your designers doing. They should be designing a product with an intended lifetime and then also considering what happens to the product at the end of its lifetime.
This is a neat bit of linguistic jiujitsu but is really more "planning for obsolescence" than "planned obsolescence." The former is wise; the latter, insidious.
Gary: Also, iPods are out there defending our soldiers in iRaq.
I can think of no better proof of the Cult of Apple than to see an iPod in Iraq become a modern-day version iof the WWII bible-in-my-pocket story. At least the bibles were still mostly readable. The soldier, thankfully, survived - but try taking that iPod to the Genius Bar and see what they tell you about your AppleCare warranty.
Posted by: Charles Star | Apr 6, 2007 2:21:00 PM
As for Mr. Slade's comments: I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed in your response to the comments here, Mr. Slade. Your comments seems more calculated to promote yourself than to engage the criticisms, and when you do engage, you are admitting to more ignorance about your chosen subject matter than a journalist should. I think you did something important in highlighting a social trend (comfort with disposability), a corporate trend (encouragement of that comfort - and planned obsolescence) and an environmental danger of all of that trending - but haven't done a very good job here of backing up the specific claims that the iPod is designed to fail (even if it does, actually, fail in under a year fairly often) or to encourage replacement over repair (even though it seems clear that a closed box, a short warranty and constant introduction of new models does just that). The book - and others - have defended these claims better, but here you've given little more than a shrug.
And then this?: I ... wonder who might have taken such 'poetic license' and embellished my words in this way BEFORE they got into print
You are crossing a dangerous line, Giles, and are accusing Carrie of misrepresenting the interview. We have the interview on tape. You might not remember those words - or be willing to stand by them - but they are your words. The only thing changed from the verbatim transcript are a bunch of ums and ahs. We can play them back for you if you'd like. Taking down the Q&A isn't an admission that we got the interview wrong; it is a concession that you won't stand behind the statement.
Posted by: Charles Star | Apr 6, 2007 2:28:34 PM
Dear Stay Free:
Two more Stay Free readers have just emailed me to say that I've just described the tip of the iceberg in my comments about the reliability, fallibility or disposability of Apple's iPods.
I'm now told that for a very complete description of the kind of technical details about iPod's failings that I don't provide in interviews (because I am not an iPod owner or user) you can visit MacInTouch's site for their report on iPod Reliability by Robert Mohns at:
http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/ipodfailures.html
Also, (again, I'm told) Wikipedia's article about the iPod at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#_note-41
includes a section on reliability
is apparently very complete and scholarly and contains an overall description of the problems with these disposable devices...
Once again, I can be reached at gilesslade@hotmail.com
Giles
Posted by: giles slade | Apr 6, 2007 2:34:06 PM
I remember when I first came to the US as a foreign student we were astounded and horified to see what people would throw out on "big item" garbage collection night.
Then, and now, I've "sidewalk shopped" for items for my home and freecycled my own items when their usefulness to me has ended. It's been a wonderfully creative process.
Back home in South Africa we keep, take care of and repair our possessions. Items have a greater perceived and intrinsic value, as does the money to buy them/replace them.
Posted by: Tanya | Apr 7, 2007 11:09:35 AM
This seems like the old "conspiracy theory" that lightbulb manufacturers can make a bulb that lasts forever but they don't want to because their sales would bottom out. Simple economics dictates they would not want ultra-long lasting bulbs, right?
Nope. The very same economics would also dictate the following: If you have a bulb that lasts ten times longer, people would generally be willing to pay up to ten times more. Unless the bulb also costs ten times more to make (unlikely), the company will still make a profit, possibly even more than they were before.
It's the same with pretty much every other good. The argument for planned obsolescence is fallacious. Companies that would plan obsolesce are likely employing sub-par economists that don't understand how economics really works.
I think the real reason for lower quality goods is that people don't know the difference between a quality good and a poor good. Why make things to last when people will just abuse them and throw them out? Our consumerist tendencies, always wanting the latest and greatest and not having the patience to repair our existing items, are the reason we buy poor quality goods. We just don't care.
Posted by: Devin Sanera | Apr 7, 2007 11:56:24 AM
If you have a bulb that lasts ten times longer, people would generally be willing to pay up to ten times more.
I don't have any opinion on the light bulb conspiracy, but the 10x1=1x10 argument is the real fallacy when applied to consumer goods. It is a model straight from Microeconomics 101 that falls apart when the assumptions of perfect rationality, perfect information, perfect fungibility, indifference to timing and spending flexibility are removed. In reality, the lack of perfect information about quality and the money poured into advertising encourage people to spend less money, more often. Furthermore, the way the people budget and shortsighted planning means that it is more typical to spend a dollar ten times than it is to save up and spend ten dollars once.
People that would deny that products are not designed to have a limited lifespan are just not paying attention. Our consumerist tendencies make it easier to convince us to replace things that aren't broken yet but making things less durable is a pretty good backup plan.
And is it really a conspiracy theory when the manufacturers admit what they are doing and why? There are many examples where they do just that.
Posted by: Charles Star | Apr 7, 2007 1:29:26 PM
Who checks these articles?
The USA Today story that you cite is about media and file-format obsolescence, not about computer obsolescence. In fact, it says exactly the opposite of what you allege, suggesting that there are many PC's out there still running Windows 3.1.
I have some expertise in this subject. There is not one single study backing up your allegation that the average lifespan of a PC is less than two years. I dare you to find any primary source that says any such thing.
Posted by: Arleston Gentile | Apr 8, 2007 11:58:11 AM
Arleston, no where do I state or even mean to imply that the USA Today article is about computer obsolescence. The link only purports to illustrate the declining lifespan of consumer products. That said, perhaps the Wall Street Journal article I just posted makes the larger point better.
The PC stats I used were taken from Giles Slade's book. He cites "Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report," 1999, as the source. Unfortunately, that report isn't available free online and costs $95. If you can point to a legitimate souce showing it's wrong, I'll correct it above.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 8, 2007 2:16:45 PM
The cited articles have very little to do with computers. The comment that I refute is your remark about the short lifespan of computers.
It's clear that this is not your area of expertise.
Here is some light reading on the subject.
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/features/index.cfm?featureid=2042
Even this "counterpoint" focusing on the benefits of short life cycles recommends a 3-year replacement policy.
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/features/index.cfm?featureid=2043
As folk in the business know, the typical enterprise IT manager is guided by an industry-standard replacement policy that refreshes primary desktop systems every 36 months in an 18-month 50% refresh cycle. The manager may or may not follow such a policy, but it's the reference standard.
At the 36 month mark, machines are shuffled from primary deployment to secondary deployment (secretaries, interns, replacement pools) and at the 6-year mark, the machines are retired and sent to disposal houses (auction) or given to schools or to recycling programs.
Home users typically keep computers longer than enterprise. Macs last longer than PC's.
A 9-year old PowerBook or an iMac from late 2000 each have quite a bit of life left in them and fetch more than you might expect on the resale market.
Posted by: Arleston Gentile | Apr 8, 2007 4:12:48 PM
For the record, I have never said or even implied that computers are my area of expertise. I am but a writer and editor who interviewed the author of a book.
Giles Slade has, for whatever reason, opted not to respond to challenges of his work. In doing my own research, I've found estimates of 2 and 3 years as the average lifespan of a PC today. Since "under 2" does indeed seem wrong, I have corrected that sentence in my intro.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 8, 2007 7:38:16 PM
The notion that people have to replace computers every 2 to 3 years because that's what's been planed by the manufacturers is just not credible.
I'm a very demanding user and yet my laptops last 3 years at a minimum. I travel a lot with my laptop and I'm not especially careful about how I handle it. I don't act stupidly but I don't have a special enclosure for my laptop. In other words, it's just treated as any other tool I have. So wear and tear builds up quickly. Most of my colleagues do not travel as much or are more careful with their laptops and so they can still work with laptops that are 4 to 5 years old.
Desktops last even longer. Our desktop at home is over 5 years old. And that's a machine that has been used for serious high-end gaming. I mention this to point out again that I'm a demanding user. All the major parts in it are original. (I added a CD burner at some point.)
My mother uses a desktop computer which is at least 10 years old (it was mine before I gave it to her). My mother is the example of a user who just needs to do email and surf the web. Those users can easily work with computers that are older than 5 years.
Gentile in an earlier comment described how IT departments deploy and redeploy equipment. His description matches my own experience of how things are done in IT departments.
The 2-3 figure is not a matter of some evil scheme on the part of the manufacturers. It is a matter of people not informing themselves. Rather than spec out a computer that will serve them well over a reasonable lifespan, they jump on the cheapest offer from Walmart only to discover a few months later that the computer they bought was underpowered relative to their needs. This is something that would have been entirely avoidable with some planing.
Posted by: lemur | Apr 11, 2007 8:47:04 AM
i can't believe how fiery the comments have been about this and the more recent post about modern vs. older buildings. seriously, people get way harsh. i love the rebuttals and then the rebuttals of those rebuttals. there's some intense intrigue in there. makes for a good read!
Posted by: daniel | Apr 12, 2007 1:40:31 AM
WOW!!!!
I am doing an essay on eco design and my title is Can designers design sustainable products. So anyway..I tapped in 'products don't last' into Goolge and stay free magazine comes up with an interview with Giles.
Alot of heated comments going on....but this has really helped with my essay so thank you to all of you. Just remember to keep the piece guys. (",)
Just to say about the ipod I have one and the problem I have with it so far is when it freezes.......for example it was my sons birthday party so I thought I can use the ipod and apple Hi-fi to play the
music what do you think happened????? yes it froze....what an embarrassment.
My nearest apple shop is up London's West End.....and I don't have the time to take it back...but I will soon and no customer service staff can deter me from getting something for free or a full refund out o inconvienience (evil laugh)......but anyway enough babbling.
Peace.
Posted by: Natasha Douglas | Apr 17, 2007 6:36:06 AM
(This has nothing to do with iPods)
I have an old Dell C400 laptop I bought refurbished about four years ago. The C400 is something of a cult model because it's extremely small and weighs about 4lbs (no CD player). Because it's 4/5 years old, it has no internal wifi card, so you have to use a PCMCIA card. After about 2 years my PCMCIA slot broke. I took it to three different repair shops and they all said it would cost $200-300 to fix (the laptop goes for about 300 on eBay). So I started using a USB wifi card. After another year, the USB port broke. Now I have a totally functional laptop with no way to connect to the internet wirelessly. I kept it but bought another one ($350) off eBay.
And I'm a skilled user who is perfectly comfortable reinstalling operating systems, upgrading memory, etc. I can't figure out how to replace either the PCMCIA slot or the USB port. It doesn't seem like this should be difficult, but there's sure no easy way to do it.
I will say that there is a really robust market for refurbished products on eBay. The guy I bought my laptop from seems to have a nifty business buying old computers, fixing them up, and selling them at what is probably a giant profit. I couldn't do it in my small NYC apartment, but it seems like a great business model for retirees or students.
Posted by: alicetiara | Apr 23, 2007 9:04:22 AM
Thanks, this was so interesting. I'm a vintage/antique fiend. I drive a 79 VW bus and have an early-80s Panasonic stereo that's still going strong.
What I found most interesting and worrisome was how the younger generation doesn't expect things to last. I am so developing into a "Bah! Kids today!" person.
Posted by: cokane | May 3, 2007 11:43:16 PM
I started repairing stereo equipment in the 70's and switched to computers at IBM in 1978. I think anyone that doesn't know planned obsolescence is going on just doesn't know technology from the inside. But the form and degree can vary with the technology and the manufacturer.
Remember the Y2K bug? That happened because corporations were using software that might be over 20 years old. So why do we need to upgrade operating systems every 5 years now?
Switch to Linux Ubuntu. LOL
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529
psik
Posted by: psikeyhackr | Oct 9, 2007 8:17:21 PM
What one should consider is that Apple is not the sole perpetrator of such practises , producing items with inbuilt obsolescence. It is a practise excercised across the board. What is important is the way it is implemented .
Buying a product because it is an improvement on the former is not necessarily a bad thing but to buy a product to replace a broken (timed deterioration) one that has limited possibilities of repair is negative waste.
We can accept all things depreciate through use and age. We know batteries are a classic depreciative item. We became customed that our walkman, to take for an example, would at times require a battery change. It was a simple matter as flipping open the battery chamber and plopping those reasonably priced batteries in.
To send your walkman back to the manufacturer to change the batteries would be a bit of shock to say the least.
That is precisely what Apple has done with the iPod. Limited the possibilities of product continuance by extending a simple proceedure into a long drawn out affair.
If I am right the iPhone 3G has an inbuilt battery.
I am sure there is a million products out there that have their own weak points and I would hope my comments are not seen as anti Apple.
Palma
Posted by: Palma | Jun 29, 2008 8:32:04 AM
