There is a famous Rajinikanth dialogue that roughly translates as “all men are allured by land, gold, and women” (which you can generalize into people of the opposite gender), and it’s an old saying too. So, you can infer that these attractions have been with us for a long time, but all of a sudden where this Cars, Bikes, Mobile Phones, Computers, and even headphones love came from and why we are not attracted to washing machines, mixers, vacuum cleaners, and other stuff. Don’t tell me, it is because of their utility, It's Not. So, where did this weird fetish come from??
What if I tell you it is engineered…?
If you go and ask around about this to people, they will refer it by this fancy- even inscrutable-term “Dynamic Obsolescence”. Which basically means that the company designs product to be either functionally or psychologically obsolete.
To get to know about this let’s get into some background…
How it all started??
This where Alfred Sloan-the guy who has an eponymous B-school at MIT- comes in. It was around the 1920s, he was the Vice President of General Motors. They were not in the position to compete with the Model T’s. That’s when he instituted an annual styling update plan to keep the product fresh and desirable. And soon enough, it devolved into planned obsolescence, in which companies start to manufacture less reliable cars on purpose. (I am in no way claiming this wouldn’t have ever happened, if not for Sloan, chances are it would have happened in any way, then why the title?? just for a good sound bite…)
Until then, Cars were purely utilitarian products, if you know Ford Model T, you know what I mean. Henry Ford believed in quality engineering and design integrity, until GM, using their strategy, managed to leapfrog Ford in annual sales. Then almost all-American auto manufacturers started instituting this plan. This means gratuitous styling updates every year and increasingly more unreliable cars, to point which, people started to believe “actually cars are unreliable and must be replaced often”. Once this happened, it was the dawn of the golden age of the US auto industry.
If you are thinking, how did those companies got away with making deliberately less reliable products? The answer is plain and simple if everyone is doing it, who in the customers would know that it is planned obsolescence is at play.
When American auto manufacturers were intentionally building less reliable cars, there were dissenters across the globe. Japanese and Germans were making reliable and quality cars and they have started getting traction in America. And they couldn’t do that shit anymore to maintain market share. So, they had to resort to the regular gratuitous styling updates. But, too soon all the companies started to do a bit of both (the cars won’t be too unreliable, but unreliable enough and regular styling updates.).
.jpg)
Tech world too??
At the same time tech was rising fast. Computers were getting more and more commonplace and technology was growing very fast; you know, Moore’s Law.
Despite this, computers were reliable and were not getting obsolete quickly; My dad had a ‘98 HCL PC which had 128 Mb RAM and was still relevant with windows XP until the late 2000s, even though computers were getting very fast, very quick. And then Apple happened… In fact, they did a great job of maintaining the balance. The products were perceived to be of great quality and every new product had justifiable updates. Until post-Steve Jobs iPhones.
I don’t have to say anything about the planned obsolescence in mobile phones, chances are you would have felt for yourself. Even Apple and Samsung were charged and fined for planned obsolescence on grounds of “unfair commercial practices”.
Companies even hold back technologies and designs, even though they are fully developed before the finalization of the product. They somehow manage to incorporate just the lowest number of new features per product without making the consumers feel less enthusiastic about the product. Keeping a few innovations in the stock will certainly secure their future in the event of a lack of sufficient technology growth or innovation.
So, What Gives??
If you are wondering, how did my explanations reasons my claim that cars, bikes, and technology love is engineered? Let me explain it, if not for planned obsolescence, there wouldn’t be a lot of new products launching every month and because of that, there wouldn’t be a lot of people talking about it often and if people are not talking about it, how the hell they would develop love with those products. This is a grossly simplified explanation, but you get the point.
I am neither an anti-capitalist nor an anti-corporate guy and I am not bitter about this. In fact, I am happy about it; I am an engineer and a designer, without planned obsolescence, chances are guys like me would be without a job, or even there would be no guys like me (there is a cause and effect that exists here too).
From a consumer’s point of view, this planned obsolescence has made us spend more than we need to and it is true that the plan started as a devious means to earn more money, but believe it or not, we would not have all the creature comforts we have if not for this strategy. Because money drives R&D, R&D drives global development, and money needed for R&D is obtained from planned obsolescence.
I am not a fan of this modern planned obsolescence, likes of which many mobile phone companies are doing now; Giving software updates just for slowing the phones or making plain super-fragile products. But when done right, It is one of the best things ever happened to us.
.
REFERENCES
Planned Obsolescence proposed for getting out of a recession
Apple and Samsung Case
Comments