Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret

Re:Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep th... by detaro on Saturday August 06, 2022 @10:31PM (#32373368)

No, it also works when non-optimal designs are very common in the market. (Not helped with the fact that especially in electronics many brands have decreased in (perceived) quality, so even if something performed well people don't necessarily trust that newer versions are too, which makes actually good brands also less sticky)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep th... by eru on Sunday August 07, 2022 @01:56AM (#32374230)

I don't understand.

Bad brands aren't sticky in this situation, are there. (I don't know whether good brands are sticky here.) So there's no extra incentives for planned obsolescence, because the next purchase is more than likely to go to a competitor.

Or what do you mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep th... by waits on Sunday August 07, 2022 @04:05AM (#32374778)

They’re saying all brands use planned obsolescence to force consumers to buy lightbulbs (from any brand) more often, increasing sales for the whole industry, not one specific brand.

This is how the Phoebus Cartel worked for incandescent bulbs. Every brand was in on it, it wasn’t about improving market share for specific brands.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep th... by eru on Monday August 08, 2022 @12:51AM (#32382471)

That requires a lot of coordination. Any single company could break ranks?

[ Parent | on HN ]