Computers: The Poster Children of Planned Obsolescence?

Planned Obsolescence is a term seldom used by your standard citizen, but is also a term that is very important in the business of marketing and technology. Ever since Ford first introduced the Model T, planned obsolescence has been an integral part of advancing technologies in many fields. It is a successful tactic that ensures the money of consumer will be reaching companies pockets in short turn-a-round, and that nothing the consumer buys will last a lifetime. Many argue that this is a dirty tactic, only employed by product makers to keep their profit consistent. Others argue that planned obsolescence is needed in order to keep innovation at a steady pace and to bring new and improved products to the market faster. Whether you believe planned obsolescence is a good thing or not, it is still very prevalent in today's computer market, but only hurts the consumer that likes to stay on the "cutting edge" of technology.

Since its inception, the term "planned obsolescence" has taken many forms in the world of consumer products. As provided by Barron's Marketing Dictionary, the formal definition of planned obsolescence is as follows: "Marketing practice whereby products are designed to become out of date long before they actually need replacement." (Barron's Marketing Dictionary) In layman's terms, it means that companies make their products either undesirable or completely obsolete and out of date long before the product would actually have to be replaced. For many industries, this is a very smart mechanic. An auto company does not expect its cars to be on the road for more than five or so years, so why make parts that would last one hundred? This is called technical or functional obsolescence. Products will eventually cost more to repair than it would be to simply replace, coercing the consumer to buy the new product instead of fixing the old. (Planned Obsolescence 2) Other typed of planned obsolescence include style obsolescence, in which a mere superficial design will change, making the consumer feel the look of their product is outdated, and notification obsolescence, in which the product will notify the consumer, either through message or indicator, such as in a water filter, that it is time to replace the product. (Planned Obsolescence 3) Cars, entertainment mediums, and everyday things such as filter papers are all exampled of products made with planned obsolescence in mind. The most important products for this class though, come in the form of computers. With planned obsolescence, computers may be the medium it is most prevalent.

With the recent release of Windows Vista and the constantly changing hardware standards, planned obsolescence is more prevalent in the computer market than ever before. There is a statement that says technology advances every six months, and that could be no truer than in modern times. Every few of months, newer and better hardware is released, and the minimum standards become higher. This is very beneficial towards the hardware and software makers. As Brian Taylor exclaims in his article on the subject, "In any event, both the auto and the computer hardware industries are among the global leaders in consuming basic materials to create products that become obsolete in a decade or less." (Taylor 1) It seems that as the years go by, the "decade or so" Taylor mentions as the life expectancy of computer products becomes less and less. To use a more recent product as example, lets look at the Intel Pentium 4 Processor. It first debuted in Late 2000 as the "newest breakthrough in technology."

It was the standard for personal computers for around 5 years, until Pentium Ds and now Dual Core and Quad Core processor were introduced. It was now announce that the Pentium 4 Processor will stop shipping and support for it will be discontinued in Mid 2008. (Gruener 1) If we look at the whole life, from the very beginning to the very end, the Pentium 4 Processor lasted all of about 8 years. If we look to the point as to where it was no longer the standard, its lifespan is marked at about 5 years. Other computer parts, such as video cards and hard drives, are forever being upgraded. It seems a new and improved video card from either Nvidia or ATI comes out every 6 months, with each successor being leaps and bounds better than its predecessors. Essentially companies are advancing technology so fast that they are almost forcing consumers to buy new products without really giving a choice of whether or not the consumer is ready to advance. Is this a good or bad thing for the general public? Many think it is a lose-lose situation for the consumer.

Many experts believe planned obsolescence is just a way for companies to continue to milk money from the pockets of consumers. As explained before, technology is moving in a way that computer hardware that is cutting edge today might be complete obsolete in a matter of years. The video card you get today might not even run the new, lowest tier games come 2009. The processor you receive now might not be fast enough to handle Windows new operating system come 2010 or 2011. As technology moves forward, experts argue that consumers are forced to move forward with it. John Gottcent shares his thoughts on the subject when he states, "It's one thing if we, as a culture, choose to move into newer technologies. But the fact is that choice is increasingly out of the picture. New movies have not even been released on VHS for some time, and 2007, we're told, will be the last year one will even be able to find a VCR in most shops. " (Gottcent 2) In that quote he exemplifies how the consumer is being forced into buying new things. Instead of computers, he uses VCRs and DVDs, but the basic principle still stands. He goes on to further exclaim that, "Is this because the public is clamoring for the new wave?

That's hard to believe, given that, only a few years ago, none of us had even heard of DVDs or TiVo. It's more likely, I suspect, that the industry now decides for us that "you can't have that anymore - you have to spend more money on this."" (Gottcent 2) Others argue that sometimes, the new product being introduced is inferior to the old, yet consumers are forced to upgrade anyway. No example could be better than Microsoft Windows Vista, the successor to Windows XP. While Vista promised to deliver a new, better experience, to many, it has failed to live up to its word. Robert Peston, of BBC News, frustrated by Vista's incompatibility with some of Microsoft's own products wrote, "So just to be clear, Microsoft has created a new operating system that isn't properly compatible with a best-selling, still perfectly useable version of its own software. Which of course provides quite a powerful incentive for me to spend up to £99.99 on upgrading to Microsoft Outlook 2007 - except that in my current mood, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. " (Peston 2) This is the prime example of how a company can, in no better way to say it "screw-over" the consumer. Microsoft has proclaimed that a new standard is out, and has made older products incompatible with that new standard, forcing the consumer to upgrade even more, earning more money. While this is one of the many ways planned obsolescence is prevalent and bad part of the computer market, a stronger argument is that planned obsolescence in the computer business does not affect consumers as much as it does in other markets, and is, therefore, not so bad.

Unlike the example of the VCR/DVD fiasco, consumers in the computer industry are not as forced to conform to standards as those in other fields. For people who use computers for simple tasks such as word processing or organization, upgrade and keeping up to standards are the least of their worries. Long after the official distributer of an operating system, such as Microsoft, has stopped supporting a product, there will still be third-party sources that will continue to support the product. As one C-Net investigation showed, there are many IT Managers around the United States that have not updated their companies operating system or computers, and are absolutely fine with it. The 2003 report read, "In total, Windows 95 made up 14.7 percent of operating systems, and Windows 98 made up 12.5 percent. Windows 2000 was the most common OS, running on slightly more than half of machines, while its predecessor, Windows NT4, was still used on 13.3 percent of desktops. "(Fried 2) More recent statistics show that even though the user base of Windows 2000 and Windows 98 have dropped, the consumers are now reluctant to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista, leaving XP at a 73.9% share of computer users and Vista with a 5.6% share. (W3chools OS Statistics) Of course, as years go on, more people will begin to use Vista, but that is most likely by choice, not by force.

When it comes to hardware, the same holds true. Walk into 1,000 homes or businesses and you will see computers that are ridiculously out of date by cutting edge standards. But unlike other mechanical products with planned obsolescence, computers don't begin to just break down after time. With proper maintenance, an old computer can last a life time. Therefore, the only people affected by the ever changing technology palette are those that personally choose to be up to date with their hardware at all costs. The consumer who feels no need to upgrade can choose not do so and still be happy with their product, which will not break down just because it was planned to only last a certain amount of time. While planned obsolescence is prevalent in the computer market, it does not affect consumers as much as it does in other fields.

Since the concept was introduced, planned obsolescence has been the subject of expert controversy. The thought of making products that will only last so long before the consumer has to replace them for various reasons is one that is sure to not bode well with the people. While it is something that is prevalent in the computer world, planned obsolescence affects the consumer in this area much less than in others. You will find a much larger contingent of consumers happy with their old products then you will in any other industry, The only people that will care about upgrades are those who always like to remain on the cutting edge. Because of this, I believe the computer industry has the correct balance of introducing new products and supporting the old. While new hardware and software is always being released, consumers can still expect their current set-up to last a respectable amount of time, and that is how it should be with every product.

Works Cited

Fried, Ina. "Users Cling to Old Microsoft Operating Systems." CNet. 12 Dec. 2003. CNET Networks, Inc. 27 Nov. 2007 http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-5121458.html>.

Gottcent, John. "Planned Obsolescence Becoming Built Into Culture." Courier Press. 5 Jan. 2007. Courier Press. 25 Nov. 2007 http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/jan/05/planned-obsolescence-becoming-built-into-culture/>.

Gruener, Wolfgang. "Intel Intros 3.0 GHz Quad-Core Xeon, Drops Pentiums." TG Daily. 13 Aug. 2007. XiTi. 25 Nov. 2007 http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33351/135/>.

"OS Statistics." W3Schools. Refsnes Data. 26 Nov. 2007 http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>.

Peston, Robert. "Dear Bill Gates (Again)." BBC.Co.UK. 26 Mar. 2007. BBC News. 26 Nov. 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/03/dear_bill_gates_again.html>.

"Planned Obsolescence." Wikipedia. Wikipedia. New York. 23 Nov. 2007.