Every time a phone starts to run slower, or when a computer, just a few years after its purchase, no longer supports new software versions, the same question arises: is this part of the nature of technological advancement or is there something more behind it? Planned obsolescence, the process by which technology products appear to be designed to fail or become outdated, has been at the center of a debate involving manufacturers, consumers, and governments. In the midst of this discussion, a key question arises: should state regulation step in to end this practice?
The problem of a calculated and deliberate phenomenon
By: Gabriel E. Levy B.
Planned obsolescence is not a myth or a simple coincidence. In fact, it is a business strategy dating back to the 20th century, designed to ensure continuous consumption in a capitalist economy.
As Giles Slade explains in his book Made to Break, this practice began in the automotive industry, when American companies decided that in order to maintain their level of sales they had to shorten the useful life of their products.
Thus, a perpetual consumption cycle was born where goods, instead of lasting long enough to justify their cost, were designed to need constant replacements.
The idea that tech products could follow this same scheme is not far-fetched. In a world where technological innovation is advancing rapidly, the pace at which our devices “age” is accelerating.
However, many experts point out that much of this obsolescence is artificial. That is, instead of reflecting the natural advance of science and technology, it is planned to push consumers to acquire new products at an increasingly frenetic pace. Karl Marx, in his analysis of capitalism, already warned about this phenomenon, highlighting how the system generates products not to satisfy needs, but to maintain a constant wheel of consumption.
The pressure to regulate
Growing consumer frustration has led several governments to consider regulating planned obsolescence.
In France, for example, since 2015 there has been a law that prohibits the manufacture of products with the deliberate intention of reducing their useful life. This legislation has raised a fundamental question: should the State intervene to protect consumers from this cycle of forced consumption? And, if so, how should it be done effectively?
The problem is complex. It is not simply a matter of prohibiting companies from shortening the lifespan of their products, but also of creating an environment where consumers have access to clear and detailed information about the actual features of the devices they buy. In this regard, some European countries have begun to require manufacturers to provide information on the “repairability” of products. This measure aims to empower consumers to make informed decisions and, at the same time, promote a repair market that allows the useful life of devices to be extended.
At the same time, the creation of a “waste tax” has been proposed, a measure that would penalise companies that manufacture products with artificially short life cycles. The idea behind this regulation is to force companies to assume the environmental and social costs of their business model, shifting part of the responsibility to the private sector.
What do we gain and what do we lose?
Planned obsolescence not only affects consumers’ pockets; It also has a considerable impact on the environment.
The constant production of new devices generates a significant amount of e-waste, which, in many cases, ends up in landfills in developing countries. According to the United Nations, 53.6 million tons of e-waste were generated worldwide in 2019, and only 17.4% of it was properly recycled.
Stricter regulations against planned obsolescence could help reduce this waste. However, some critics point out that slowing down the cycle of innovation and consumption could have unintended economic consequences. Companies such as Apple or Samsung, which have been accused of implementing planned obsolescence practices, generate millions of jobs and move a significant part of the world economy. Changing the rules of the game could profoundly alter these dynamics, affecting an industry that depends on the constant renewal of its products.
Some analysts suggest that the solution lies not in slowing down innovation, but in finding a balance. Instead of promoting rampant consumption of new devices, companies could focus their efforts on offering software updates that allow older devices to remain functional for longer. This would not only benefit consumers, but also the planet, by reducing the number of devices that end up as e-waste.
Lessons from reality
France has led the way in the fight against planned obsolescence, but it has not been the only country to act. In 2020, Apple was fined in Italy for deliberately slowing down iPhones through software updates. The company justified its action by claiming that the goal was to preserve battery life, but regulators saw this as a tactic to push consumers to acquire new models. This case sparked a wave of global outrage and prompted more countries to consider sanctioning tech companies that adopt similar practices.
Another relevant example is the case of Fairphone, a Dutch company that has set out to manufacture mobile phones designed to last.
Fairphone offers replaceable parts and software updates that extend the life of your devices, demonstrating that it is possible to manufacture quality technology without depending on planned obsolescence. However, the company remains an exception in a market dominated by giants that prioritize constant renewal over durability.
In conclusion
Planned obsolescence is a complex issue that involves economic, technological and environmental interests.
While regulation can play a key role in protecting consumers and reducing e-waste, it is also necessary to find a balance that does not stifle innovation.
The key could lie in the creation of policies that promote the durability of products without sacrificing technological progress, thus allowing a more sustainable and fair model for all.
