Product manufacturing companies adopt this methodology for lot of products now a days. Products will become defective over time in various ways and the timeframe is planned by the companies. However there are two sides to it and it is always tagged to do more bad than good. Hmm .. Lets see …

One is where you see from the consumer point of view. How can some thing i buy can go non-functional or starts malfunctioning after sometime ? True. Consumer buys a shaving razor for 10 bucks and he wants it to stay atleast for an year or two but company designs it to work right only for 6 months. After that you see that it has not met the value you actually paid for.

Another point of view is from the manufacturing companies. You just paid 10 bucks and you want to work for a decade ? True. They want the consumer to return to them for two reasons. One is, after 6 months to 1 year the product goes non-fashonable or there is a new product which is more productive. He has to return to it anyways. They design the blades and the handle which are supposed to work for only 6 months. That’s business ! If your Laptop is only supposed to work for 5-10 years then why design a key board that is supposed to work for ever. This is point one.  Second is for economic reasons, there is a need for consumers to come back to purchase new products and regulate the money. It is healthy that way.

Ever wondered why Intel gives an Ad which says “Intel manufactures P4 processor, It is faster than P3.” How can they contradict their own product ? Even if the superior one is their own product ? Planned Obsolescense is the reason. They want consumers to realize that there is a new product in themarket which is much faster and even an owner of a P3 should think may be he should purchase that. Sales of P4 then become inversely proportional to P3.  In order to meet diversified market needs they keep their portfolio as P4 and P3. After some time it becomes, P5, P4 and P3 which later becomes P5, and P4.  P3 is slowly moved out of the market. P3 owners by that time realize that P3 started giving problems and also at the same time, they want to upgrade to P4 since the price might be considerably low comparable at the time of the release.

Same is the case with the software industry. Company X releases version 2.0 and also stops supporting 1.0’s upgrades. You need to buy the new one. One does not have to mention FMCG since it is understood that it is the best example for obsolescense. The great depression of 1929 was because of the consumer products not getting sold very frequently. The solution for that phase was planned obsolescence however.

Planned Obsolescence is not eco friendly in today’s World ..