When did must-haves become must-replace?

Is there a way for businesses to succeed without selling us products that are doomed to break or become useless within a few short years?

The new iPhone is just around the corner, and like clockwork, people are finding issues with their current Apple smartphones. In fact, some big publications posited that it’s a conspiracy theory and mostly just a psychological feeling of seeing something new launch. 

As it turns out, Apple did indeed slow down devices and, despite its claims that it was to prolong device health 🤡, was fined 25 million euros in France. That’s a report from 2020 for an Apple update in 2017. For all intents and purposes, it seems that’s not an issue anymore (or is it outside of France?). 

The iPhone’s model is designed and encouraged to upgrade about every two years due to many factors such as lagging, diminishing capabilities and running out of storage. 

Ultimately, whether through absolute or relative obsolescence, consumers will find themselves with a new, but not distinctive, phone in hand.

The concept of planned obsolescence is not new or undebated. 

Planned obsolescence is when companies deliberately ensure that the current version of their product or service will become useless, outdated, or even break within a short-term period. This “proactive move” ensures the demand for that product or service continues as customers seek replacements. 

My friend Rishi introduced me to planned obsolete goods way back in 2021, so this topic has been marinating for quite some time in my brain. Over the last few years, it’s clear that Apple is far from the first or last (tech) company to create products with planned obsolescence in place. 

When the lightbulb was first invented, it was built to last at least 100 years. But what’s the profit margin with a lightbulb at least two generations of a family can enjoy before needing replacement? A conspiracy theory suggests that a cartel of lightbulb manufacturers held a secret meeting in Geneva in 1924. They discussed how a long-lasting lightbulb is shit for their revenues and profit margins. Apparently, the likes of Philips, General Electric, OSRAM, and others were part of the Pheobus Cartel (Pheobus being the Greek god of light). In 1923, OSRAM sold 63 million lightbulbs, but only 28 million in 1924. 

Now, I don’t know if that “cartel” existed. What I do know is that there’s a bulb made in 1901 that’s still burning in California. It’s a bit dimmer than it began, but hey, that’s beside the point. 

The lightbulb was probably the first product to go through planned obsolescence. But not the only product. Since the 1920s, cars have also gone through annual ‘updates’. In 1924 (what was with that year?!) General Motors (an American car manufacturer) came up with the annual model-design changes idea to push new cars on customers. Makes sense cause cars actually last long, and few people will buy new cars every year.

These days, the world’s most valuable company, 
Apple, seems to have copied directly out of this playbook
I mean, 
new styles every year, check,
new special colors every year, check,
marginal technological improvement, check.
I mean, is this useful innovation or just a gimmick? — Veritasium

What’s interesting is how this concept has permeated nearly every single thing we purchase now. I don’t own an iPhone, but I am always prepared to change my phone in 3-4 years because something goes wrong. It gets buggy, they add random bloatware, the screen goes on the fritz, or something else. Most of us have made our peace with this and allocated spaces in our budgets to replace our phones every few years. 

There’s also perceived obsolescence — when we’re persuaded to get stuff because we think¹ what we own doesn’t work properly anymore. Think fast fashion, video games (yearly Fifa updates), etc.

What’s the solution? Is there a solution?

If companies create long-lasting products, demand will dry up since there’s only a finite number of purchases, even if every last adult buys your product. In recent memory, the Instant Pot bankruptcy. 

Turns out, if you make a high-quality appliance that doesn’t break easily or require updates, people won’t buy more than one and soon, you’ll have no cash flow. Its parent company is steaming mad about this (makes sense, yeah). 

This brings me back to the question: Is there a solution, or are we doomed to keep producing short-lived things and replacing them until kingdom come? We haven’t even mentioned the sheer amount of environmental damage planned obsolete products have on the environment yet. 

I have every single phone I’ve ever owned since 2010. They are useless. I could give them to an e-waste recycling area, but they’re hard to track down. Not to mention, they have requirements² that your recyclable material needs to meet. 

Between 2014 & 2020, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 53% (including 580 metric tonnes of CO2 alone). According to researchers, without regulation or a legal framework to extend the useful life of information and communication technology devices, about 852 million metric tons of CO2 compounds will be emitted annually from e-waste sources by 2030.

I hope I don’t have to illuminate the dangers of climate change as a consequence of ignoring this to anyone. If you’re uncertain, feel free to step out and enjoy incessant monsoons, floods, endless heatwaves, and/or other forms of extreme weather conditions as proof. 

There’s no easy solution except to crack down on companies purposely creating annoyingly short-term products. It does mean that several huge companies might have to change their business models, but we’re all aware that they are the biggest pollutants anyway.

To play devil’s advocate for a second, the best way forward is to find a balance between planned obsolescence and the need to innovate. 

To quote Veritasium again, “The only type of obsolescence we should support is technological.”

Companies shouldn’t get to charge thousands of dollars for making their newest model one gram lighter than last year’s. The technological advancements should be clear & enough, and they’d need a proper reason for a new model. There need to be regulations on high-waste-generating & polluting products, especially for companies that sell with high margins in one country but manufacture in another and dump their waste in a third one. 

Making someone’s life easier shouldn’t come at the expense of making another’s shorter. 

Another great way is for companies creating short-term products to create buy-back programs. Allow people to exchange their phones, electronic devices, cars, etc. and pay the difference. Invest and work on technology to reuse the stuff you get back in those programs. 

The companies that sell planned obsolete goods are some of the richest in the world. There’s no need to hit new, imaginative monetary levels. Focus on reworking business models to be sustainable. Create high-quality products that last for a bit and then some — charge people for that. It’ll all be similar to the cost of yearly replacements anyway, and we might as well reduce the burden on our environment that way. 

What did you think of this issue?

Your anonymous feedback helps me improve. Thanks!

• 👍🏽 Liked it

• 😶 Neutral, no thoughts

• 👎🏽 Didn't like it

If you liked this issue (or like the newsletter in general), feel free to show me some love to encourage me with a coffee — or you can share it somewhere!

Next issue, we’re gonna talk about the right to repair (an offshoot of planned obsolete products).

Wrist & life update: On the mend, upward recovery trajectory! I spent most of August resting & enjoying myself with my loved ones. I also visited Rome for the first time. Here’s a picture:

Hello from the Trevi Fountain!

Links of the week! 💌

Last week, I finally felt motivated to go through all the lovely newsletters & emails I’ve been receiving over the summer. Lots of cool stuff to read, useful resources, and more have been bookmarked. Here are a few:

• This is why we can’t have nice things: I already hyperlinked this video above but ICYMI you need to watch Veritasium explain planned obsolescence.

• In the last issue, I linked to the 6/10 cleaning checklist to help busy folks keep a clean home. Except I hyperlinked the wrong link. This is the right one.

• A 6.8 magnitude earthquake hit Morrcoo last Friday. Over 2,800 people have lost their lives, and thousands more have been injured and displaced. The best way to help them rebuild their lives is through financial donations, which you can do here. 

• The only way out is through (and again and again):

“The Only Way Out Is Through”

• Apropos of absolutely nothing, I'm realizing the value of a brag sheet/document. Highlight your wins cause no one else will. 

• The winner, finalists, and submissions of the inaugural tiny website awards. Something fun to check out if you need to look busy when you're dragged into the office. 👀

• Heat lingers in the Sept-embers. 

• Trying very hard to make this my to-do list: 

Credits: Grant Snider

Thanks for reading! Please tap the heart if you liked this issue (or like the newsletter in general)!

1. OR we’re made to think with aggressive (and sometimes, unethical) marketing strategies

2. No one accepts a QWERTY keypad phone anymore; they don’t need the buttons.