Welcome to the clubAtohms wrote:Recently I've been annoyed by the shear amount of products that are being created and redesigned.
Planned obsolescence is nothing new, it came to be in the 50s after ww2 to ramp up the economy, and yes it's silly, it's a need of our backwards economic system, and the consequence is that every ‘good’ produced must breakdown in a respective amount of time in order to continue financial circulation to support the players (consumer/employee/employer) in the game. Also waste and pollution is a deliberate byproduct, as you've noted.Atohms wrote:All of them will be obsolete in 2 years, because another redesign will have taken its place. Another product with another gizmo you don't need, but you'll buy it anyway otherwise you won't be cool anymore.
sure, but it's hard when the system is resistant to this approach.Atohms wrote:So what do you think?
Shouldn't any designer live by some basic holy rules?
Yes, and it's not just our responsibility, it's everyone's. We can do better.Atohms wrote:Isn't it time to say no to this extreme consumerism? Isn't it our responsibility to make it stop?
nunoCR wrote:Welcome to the club .Atohms wrote:Recently I've been annoyed by the shear amount of products that are being created and redesigned.
True, but in some other cases, things are made to wear out. And that is deliberate withhold of efficiency, to increase the profit margins.yo wrote:In some cases, things do wear out.
People are now competing to figure out how to make the perfectly planned to be obsolete product. They are also flooding the market with these products and rarely do you have any alternative. I have tried to eliminate most products that use shoddy practices in their construction and quality. In order to do it I realized I would have to build most things myself because they are simply not offered. It is not in the best interest of the industry to make quality products the norm. It is far more profitable to condition us as consumers to expect less and less quality so that they can in turn sell more products to return customers. People go to stores and decide from the choices they are offered. Most consumers cannot conceive of what they want outside of the limited boundaries that our retailers and advertisers tell us exists in the first place.yo wrote:In the end, the consumer decides.
I do get that the designer is only a piece of the puzzle, and there is little we can do individually, everybody as to change or else nothing really changes. The thing is that most people don't know what to do instead or just can't do it.yo wrote:but think about the entire cycle a little more and understand a designer's role in it.
Those are BIG acusations to make without evidence. I've worked for a lot of companies and never seen any evidence of this behavior. What I have seen is consumers asking for things to be less expensive, driving that demand to retail, who drives that demand to a company, who drives that demand to a factory. When things are less expensive, they are less expensively made. I believe your grandma might have called it they "you pay for what you get" scenario.nunoCR wrote:True, but in some other cases, things are made to wear out. And that is deliberate withhold of efficiency, to increase the profit margins.yo wrote:In some cases, things do wear out.People are now competing to figure out how to make the perfectly planned to be obsolete product. They are also flooding the market with these products and rarely do you have any alternative.yo wrote:In the end, the consumer decides.
That is a cop out. Information is a click away, people just need to want to get it. Did you watch "Who killed the electric car?" Great movie, and it details the short sighted thinking on the part of a company who thought it was make the best decisions, and also showed in the end, the consumer had no idea what the EV1 even was.nunoCR wrote: The thing is that most people don't know what to do instead or just can't do it.
OK, I'm not saying that everyone does it, or that it is always deliberate, it can also be consequential, as you point out, people want cheap stuff, and this usually means that that stuff is going to fail sooner, due to poor materials or design.yo wrote:Those are BIG acusations to make without evidence. I've worked for a lot of companies and never seen any evidence of this behavior.
I guess it is as much driving as it is being driven. No one is to blame as i said, it's a consequence of the economic system. It needs to be this way.yo wrote:The fashion industry is a perfect example of how the consumer drives these things.
So Brooks is saying it's a desire...albeit one first capitalized by Industry in their desire to dig themselves out of the great depression.FYI, "Planned Obsolescence" was the title of a speech that (Industrial Designer) Brooks Stevens gave at a 1954 advertising conference. The popular meaning of the term, thanks to cultural critic Vance Packard's bestselling 1960 book "The Waste Makers", was the manufacture of products that had been pre-planned to be non-functional after a period of time or product usage. To Stevens, planned obsolescence was a more benign concept of consumerism, where consumers merely desire "to own something a little newer, a little better, and a little sooner than necessary." Stevens looked upon "obsolete" products as those being sold to a second-hand market not dumped straight into a trash heap as was Packard's strong insinuation.