If people wanted very durable goods and were willing to pay the necessary cost, they'd be readily available. Most consumers prefer the cheap, semi-disposable option.

A good Makita, Hitachi or DeWalt hammer drill costs anywhere from £500 to £800. It'll provide utterly reliable service over years of daily use and is fully repairable. A store-brand hammer drill costs less than £50, but you'll be lucky if it lasts for more than 10 hours of light use. Most DIYers buy the £50 store-brand drill, because they'll likely only use it a handful of times.

Rapid technological progress makes the semi-disposable option even more attractive. We have the technology to build a laptop that will survive 20 years of heavy use, but who wants to use a 20 year old laptop? Most people get a "free" cellphone upgrade every two years, so what do they care if the non-replaceable battery dies after three years?

Bad for the environment, good for the consumer.

The problem is that I as a consumer have basically no way to tell the quality of products anymore. I could spend thrice as much and still run the risk of getting a product that breaks the second the warranty runs out.

Well, you have no free, low-effort way to find out. Reading reviews, looking to consumer reports, demoing things are all options. Of course, they take time and effort. But, really, the backstop is to buy it, use it, and take advantage of generous return policies if things don't work out. I almost exclusively choose my retailers on this basis now.

Both of those quotes are saying the same thing with different words and have the same intent.

"It's too expensive" is not a valid excuse if customers would be willing to pay for it.

You can get expensive repairable appliances while last; Miele washing machines, for instance. You'll just pay for them. Most people don't want to pay over a thousand euro for a washing machine, so don't.

Usually not enough customers are willing to pay for it to make it worthwhile. If that many customers would pay for it, then it would be profitable for the company to make products that way, and companies would make it that way.

Customers don't have enough information to make an informed decision. I don't mind paying twice as much for something that will last a lot longer, but without a lot of research the price signal is the only indication of quality and more often than not it's just a premium for a well known brand rather than actual quality.

Indeed, that is the justification for planned obsolescence, the environment be damned.

Doing things that are unprofitable is also unsustainable on a large scale. It an only be done by using subsidies, i.e., other resources generated from profits, which does not scale.

Losing money is not a viable long term solution for a business, an economy, or mankind.

Accepting lower profit != accepting negative net profit and is far more sustainable for mankind than dogmatically seeking maximum profits.

> if customers would be willing to pay for it.

That condition resolves to false though ;). Most don't care and prefers to pay less.

Check anyone in a shop and ask him if he compares the internal components of both TV when he is shopping, he isn't...

It's not the same thing. "Planned Obsolescence" implies purposefully handicapping an otherwise durable product.