anned Obsolescence: Companies, Motivations, Ethics, and Legal Oversight* Planned obsolescence refers to the deliberate design of products with limited lifespans to drive repeat purchases. Below is an analysis of key companies, their tactics, ethical implications, and legal oversight. --- ### *Companies Engaged in Planned Obsolescence* 1. *Apple* - *Tactics*: Slowing older iPhones via software updates (allegedly to preserve battery health), non-replaceable batteries, and proprietary screws to deter repairs. - *Example*: In 2017, Apple faced a $500 million lawsuit for throttling iPhone performance without transparency. 2. *Samsung* - *Tactics*: AMOLED screens prone to failure (e.g., white screen issues) and integrated components that complicate repairs. 3. *Fitbit (Google)* - *Tactics*: Devices like the Fitbit Alta and Charge 5 experienced hardware failures shortly after warranty periods, with users offered discounts instead of free replacements. Post-acquisition, Google faced accusations of phasing out older models via firmware updates. 4. *Maytag/Whirlpool* - *Tactics*: Post-Whirlpool acquisition, Maytag’s Neptune washing machines were notorious for mold issues and mechanical failures, leading to class-action lawsuits. GE’s Adora front-load washers also used corrosion-prone components, forcing costly replacements. 5. *Smartphone Industry (Android Manufacturers)* - *Tactics*: Short software support cycles (e.g., 2 years for mid-range Android phones), irreparable designs, and planned incompatibility with newer apps. --- ### *Why Companies Do It* - *Profit Maximization*: Shortening replacement cycles boosts sales. For example, GM’s annual car redesigns in the 1920s set a precedent. - *Cost Reduction*: Using cheaper materials (e.g., plastic gears in appliances) lowers production costs. - *Market Competition*: Frequent product launches (e.g., yearly smartphone models) pressure consumers to upgrade. - *Consumer Trends*: Demand for sleek, thin devices drives non-replaceable batteries and fragile designs. --- ### *Ethical Implications* - *Environmental Harm*: E-waste from discarded devices exceeds 50 million metric tons annually, with smartphones contributing significantly. - *Consumer Exploitation*: Users bear repair costs or forced upgrades due to intentional design flaws. - *Deception*: Lack of transparency about product lifespans (e.g., Fitbit’s 1–2 year expectancy). --- ### *Legal Monitoring and Regulations* - *EU Regulations*: - *Battery Replacements*: By 2026, all EU-sold devices must allow user-replaceable batteries. - *Right to Repair*: Mandates access to repair tools and parts. - *National Investigations*: - France and Italy fined Apple and Samsung for slowing devices. - The EU’s proposed "durability labeling" aims to inform consumers. - *U.S. Gaps*: Limited federal laws, though states like California advocate for Right to Repair bills. --- ### *Conclusion* Planned obsolescence remains a contentious practice, balancing corporate profits against sustainability and consumer rights. While companies like Apple and Maytag have faced legal repercussions, global regulations remain fragmented. Ethical concerns highlight the need for stricter oversight and consumer awareness to promote durable, repairable products. For now, initiatives like the EU’s ecodesign standards offer hope for systemic change. Sent