Why must things crack and break? With every advance in technology we seem to take a step back in longevity. Every time you get a new phone you better by a new case or you will have to loop right back into the store you bought it from. This seems ridiculous! Why do we have to continually buy new products when the ones we bought two years ago should be sufficient. I say it is a conspiracy and a clever company trick! They call it planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is an actual documented phenomenon as it is "a policy of producing consumer goods that rapidly become obsolete and so require replacing, achieved by frequent changes in design, termination of the supply of spare parts, and the use of nondurable materials." Well, surprise, surprise! Companies can exploit a system and people for the sake of more money. Who could have guessed!? These policies create products that have poor durability, repair prevention, style changes, system changes, and disabling mechanism. Not too great for the individual user but you won't think about what you are missing out on if everyone has the product. So now that you have caught on to the trade secret, you are probably a little angry and ready to wrap your electronics in bubble wrap for protection. However, I have an argument to defend this shady practice.

Firstly, using durable materials sounds amazing to a good amount of people who end up breaking things constantly. However, from a manufacturing standpoint, if your product isn't required to be durable that it probably won't be. You would expect a chair to hold your weight for extended periods but not for PS4. Companies don't like using durable materials as it more expensive and ruins the profits. This is a sad concept that we accept fairly readily.

Secondly, preventing or making it harder to get repair parts is actually very cruel. It prevents future engineers and mechanics to tinker with their electronics and learn important lessons. However, protecting the company's Intellectual Properties if their device is new can be paramount to insuring the company's survival in the market. The parts that might be needed for repair may also be very outdated and there are few companies that will continue to produce them. Also, creating a repair division can be a long and expensive process that will take time away from other endeavors. For me this is something that is unforgivable.

Thirdly, style changes are expected of a company. No one wears one shirt & one pair of pants and says "Yes, this is what I will wear for 5 years." Variety and diversity are necessary to survive in the market as not everyone wants the same thing. This is usually not a particularly harmful practice until it is combined with phasing out the previous model.

Fourthly, system rewrites are particularly useful and necessary in the world of computer science. This includes improvements to the product, added protections, and other tweaks to the system. System rewrites become dangerous when it does not accommodate forward compatibility, meaning that old devices can keep up with new devices. However, this abandoning this practice might be necessary as the old device simply cannot handle the new system.

Fifthly, there is no defense for disabling mechanisms. That is just pure money grabbing.

I'm not here to really defend this practice but to raise a question about what products we accept. Do we really want a product that will seemingly last forever? Or do we want a product that will continue to be minutely outclassed every 2 years or so? Whatever you choose, the customer is always right.

But I just closed the screen! My paper is due tomorrow!