Page 50
Technology
Capitalism Breeds Obsolescence
By Ellen Hyland, Copy Editor, SS Law and Political Science Young adults growing up in the early 2000s have had the unique experience of watching their gadgets develop just as they did. Those lucky enough may have been gifted the iPod Mini one Christmas, the iPod Nano the next, and eventually bestowed with cream of the crop; the iPod Touch. Of course, this device is now a relic of the past, hunted to near extinction by the advent of streaming services and the increased storage capacity of our increasingly-buttonless mobile devices. Nowadays there is an almost complete lack of product differentiation. So why upgrade to a device that looks, feels, and works in almost the exact same way as our last? Naturally, the answer partly lies in marketing tactics such as Apple’s minimalist advertising style – new technology will always have a cult following for this reason. The rest is arguably down to a practice most notably associated with mobile phones: planned obsolescence. From Lightbulbs to Smartphones Economist Jeremy Bulow defines planned obsolescence as “the production of goods with uneconomically short useful lives so that customers will have to make repeat purchases.” The practice is thought to have started in 1924, when lightbulb manufacturers around the world came together to form the ‘Phoebus Cartel’. They agreed to limit the lifespan of their products to 1000 hours (the average before was 1500 to 2000 hours). This meant that consumers would have to replace their lightbulbs more often, and since all manufacturers were on board it also meant that no competitor would benefit from the less-effective product. In modern times, Apple is the brand most often associated with planned obsolescence. It has been in trouble in numerous countries for allegedly slowing down phones when they reach a certain age in order to encourage consumers to buy a newer product. The accusation of planned obsolescence is naturally one that Apple denies – it has posited that the reason for slowing down the phones is to allow their batteries to last longer. This does not stop its name becoming synonymous with the practice, however. The market for mobile phones can clearly be defined as an oligopoly, a market where a small number of firms dominate. In the United States, Apple and Samsung made up 82 per cent of the market share of smartphones in the first quarter of 2021. Samsung has also been accused of planned obsolescence. In 2018, it was fined 5 million euro after an investigation by the Italian authorities that concluded software updates caused the Galaxy Note 4 to significantly decline in performance. With a stranglehold on the market, it is arguable that Apple and Samsung are heavily incentivised in the world of capitalism to have a ‘lightbulb moment’ for themselves. It is therefore clear that planned obsolescence is not a phenomenon left behind in the 20th century. What is clear from the plethora of court cases brought against smartphone companies alone, however, is that there is a growing wave of opposition against these practices. A Right to Repair? The notion of a ‘right to repair’ is relatively recent. It states that electronics manufacturers should by law make their products easily repairable for a specified amount of time in order to protect consumer interests and reduce electronic waste. This is done through wider provision of spare parts and less allowable restrictions on who can repair devices by companies. The right counteracts the effects of planned obsolescence by forcing companies to give the consumer the option to keep their device for longer instead of having to replace it. The
