Planned Obsolescence

Planned obsolescence is a strategy used by manufacturers in which aspects of a product are designed to become obsolete, unfashionable, or non-functional after a period of time. Utilized to increase sales, this technique is a financial burden on the public and is harmful for the environment as well. By intrinsically giving products a limited life span, consumers are forced to replace current products with a newer, upgraded version before they realistically should have to.

A familiar example of planned obsolescence is the Apple iPhone. As new iPhone models enter the market, buyers notice slowed speeds and reduced battery lives in their older phones. This has led to users suspecting that Apple intentionally designs its phones so that they regress in functionality over time — in this article the reality of this phenomenon is explored. Planned obsolescence has created a culture where always having the newest technology is a must. But this is not only unsustainable — it is also unethical.

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) code of ethics outlines the values engineers should uphold as innovators and workers in industry. The first of these values is upholding the “highest standard of integrity, responsible behavior and ethical conduct in professional activities” [1]. In the case of planned obsolescence, this first value is called into question. Companies that are suspected to have engaged in planned obsolescence have never outwardly admitted to performing it. This is a moral gray area that does not speak to the ethical standard expected of engineers.

In addition, under a subsection of this first value, the IEEE code of ethics also emphasizes the use of “sustainable development practices” [1]. As a result of planned obsolescence, there is a constant need for new products to be manufactured so that they can be sold to consumers. This lifecycle of buying new and discarding the old contributes to large amounts of waste, and the environment pays the price.

According to the Green Alliance, the average life expectancy of a smartphone in the USA is less than 2 years [4]. With hundreds of millions of smartphones being sold each year, there is a correspondingly great amount of phones entering landfills as well. Many electronics contain hazardous materials in their components, including, but not limited to, lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. These toxic materials can be toxic to the soil and groundwater, thus impacting local wildlife and damaging ecosystems that receive runoff from landfills.

In addition to polluting the environment, the metals required to construct electronics are finite. The highly specific materials that each product requires renders the mass manufacturing of these products to be, as is, unsustainable. While some recycling initiatives have recently been put into place, the amount of toxic waste that is lost is much greater than the amount of recovered recyclable material. Further, oftentimes this waste ends up in countries where waste-management regulations are not as strictly enforced, causing nearby populations to bear the consequences of the release of these harmful substances in the environment.

Another form of planned obsolescence is called pseudo-functional obsolescence: when “so-called innovative” features are introduced that do not, in reality, significantly impact the product [3]. This includes something as simple as a change in power adapters over time. As new ports are created or shapes are altered, older versions of adapters will slowly lose stock and nudge consumers to change to newer versions of the product. Similarly, the usage of software updates is yet another tactic by which companies make it harder for consumers to maintain their old electronic devices. By making newer versions of the software run slower on older devices or having new software not be compatible with older models, companies practically force consumers to purchase their new products in order to maintain the functionality of their devices. Even worse, for those who might not be able to afford these new products, they are forced to work with pseudo-functioning equipment.

The purposeful implementation of obsolescence in technology is a direct violation of engineering ethics. Producers that practice planned obsolescence place the generation of revenue above the welfare of their customers. When buying a product, consumers must place their trust in the business that the product is of a certain standard. And when that product cannot serve the test of time, it only serves to diminish a consumer’s trust in the brand and engineers everywhere. Even if an engineer is forced by a company to do so, they are the ones designing the products at the end of the day, and thus it is their job and moral duty to speak out against such practices.

Planned obsolescence has real-world consequences — ultimately, much more important than making excessive profits is the maintenance of sustainability in engineering practices so that innovation may continue for generations to come.

References

[1] “IEEE Code of Ethics.” https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html . Accessed 5 Nov. 2021.

[2] “The Importance of Ethics for Professional Engineers | NJSPE.” 17 May. 2018, https://njspe.org/2018/05/17/ethics-professional-engineers/ . Accessed 5 Nov. 2021.

[3] “Ethics of Planned Obsolescence.” https://vce.usc.edu/volume-3-issue-1/ethics-of-planned-obsolescence/ . Accessed 5 Nov. 2021.

[4] “A circular economy for smart devices - Green Alliance.” https://green-alliance.org.uk/resources/A%20circular%20economy%20for%20smart%20devices.pdf . Accessed 5 Nov. 2021.