> Moving the goalposts. I said that planned obsolescence is not, as you originally alleged, a general property of a market-driven economy.
I had to ask, because that's otherwise your MO.
> Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success.
There's no brand reputation risk if most large manufacturers have similar durability.
> The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation
How can you keep using Apple as an example when it has been one of the most obvious offender and is also one of the giants within the most obviously offending industry - smartphones.
> It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity.
No, it just shows that technology has moved forward with regards to a advanced industrial product.
> like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones
You've cherry-picked the only type that fits your narrative, preference for disposable products (which I actually agree with you on, but causes of this is an interesting topic in itself). But to pick that and not to explain the type where billions of dollars each year are spent on trying to create new non-essential needs that aren't really there making the existing products obsolete, a.k.a "Perceived obsolescence"? How is this "efficient"?
> but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.
This is my original comment:
"Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though."
How is this inconsistent with focusing on the inefficiencies of all kinds of planned obsolescence of the free market?
> Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.
Once again, you linked to a single reddit post, eat humble pie.
I had to ask, because that's otherwise your MO.
> Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success.
There's no brand reputation risk if most large manufacturers have similar durability.
> The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation
How can you keep using Apple as an example when it has been one of the most obvious offender and is also one of the giants within the most obviously offending industry - smartphones.
> It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity.
No, it just shows that technology has moved forward with regards to a advanced industrial product.
> like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones
You've cherry-picked the only type that fits your narrative, preference for disposable products (which I actually agree with you on, but causes of this is an interesting topic in itself). But to pick that and not to explain the type where billions of dollars each year are spent on trying to create new non-essential needs that aren't really there making the existing products obsolete, a.k.a "Perceived obsolescence"? How is this "efficient"?
> but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.
This is my original comment: "Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though."
How is this inconsistent with focusing on the inefficiencies of all kinds of planned obsolescence of the free market?
> Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.
Once again, you linked to a single reddit post, eat humble pie.