• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should planned obsolescence be made illegal?

Should planned obsolescence be made illegal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • No

    Votes: 14 87.5%

  • Total voters
    16
That is rediculous. Consider recording music, as an example. We can have NONE until you define what is going to be used FOREVER. We started with rolled drums (I think), then went to records (vinyl 78, 45 and 33 1/3 rpm), then magnetic tape (reel to reel), then for added portability to 8-track and cassette tapes, and now we have CDs, iPods and other digital storage devices. In your view, making any ADVANCES illegal, what would we have NOW?

You obviously don't understand what the topic is about.
 
2^32 = 4gb its a limitation on the bus size and address space.


also on x64, the addressable space is 16 exabytes as the theoretical limit.

I have an 64 bit computer with Windows XP, doesn't recognize more than 2 GIG. It's not a hardware problem.

Wow what an enlightened culture we live in, not.
 
You obviously don't understand what the topic is about.

I think that the reverse is true. One does not KNOW, when something is made, if it will last or not (become obsolete). Would you outlaw all but "state of the art" (changing very fast) or freeze product innovation, for a fixed period of time, until a significant "new standard" is achieved?
 
Planned obsolescence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm thinking of Windows XP that doesn't recognize more than 2 GIG of RAM.

Most software is designed to run in a known hardware environment, especially operating system software for PCs. I have worked on many such systems, even modified a few to exceed their designed limits, e.g. used MS-DOS in a networked, multiprocessor, distributed environment, with a GUI shell over it.
 
I have an 64 bit computer with Windows XP, doesn't recognize more than 2 GIG. It's not a hardware problem.

Wow what an enlightened culture we live in, not.

Sigh.

I already explained this to you. When XP was released, that was a ****ton of memory.
 
Sigh.

I already explained this to you. When XP was released, that was a ****ton of memory.

As with most Bill Gates (Microsoft) OS bloatware, it is designed to force you to use mostly their limitted intended hardware platforms, peripheral devices and proprietary user software packages, maximizing their profits. Want a better OS, then simply buy it. You pay what you get for (and vice versa). ;-)
 
Last edited:
I can think of a way:



Courts decide the rest, TADAA.

Cool non-answer. How are you going to create a concrete definition of planned obsolescence that manufacturers of everything from blenders to i-pads can easily understand and relate to their individual product? It would take years and countless lawsuits for any type of standard to start to emerge, and there is no way that such a test would suitably apply to every single product. Either the law will go largely unenforced, making it pointless, or an army of lawyers will start suing companies in an uneven, arbitrary manner, making technological development much, much harder. There's no way they would go after everyone, and many companies could face litigation that they do not expect because prosecutors have different standards of planned obsolescence then they do. The easiest way to kill an industry is not to ban it outright, but to make the rules for it uncertain.

BTW even if this law was written, enforced, and understood by manufacturers perfectly, it ignores the inevitable upswing in prices of these products.
 
...Computers simply have such rapid advancement that its impossible to make anything that won't quickly be replaced by something better. ...

This. I'm upgrading from my five year old computer, and have learned that today's computers to my old computer is like my old computer to one that came out ten years before that. It's crazy.
 
So in your world products that break down are superior.
Every finished good has a life cycle, nothing lasts forever. Wood rots, metal rusts, parts break, the whole point I was making that you very much missed is that cheap stuff breaks faster, but because it was designed to have a shorter life cycle the R&D, labor, and parts are less expensive, so once the development costs go down more good stuff gets put into the model you replace the old one WITH. IOW, you end up getting more for either the same price or less, it's kind of like how only 1 of ten could afford the black and white original TV and now almost everybody has either an LED or plasma flat screen 720i or 1080p high resolution one.
 
Every finished good has a life cycle, nothing lasts forever.

Ok how about I come to your house and bash your car window with a stick until it webs, and then I can put a nail in your tire. Hey, that would "spur economic activity", great for the entire economy.

"Creative Destruction," how ****ing brilliant.
 
Cool non-answer. How are you going to create a concrete definition of planned obsolescence that manufacturers of everything from blenders to i-pads can easily understand and relate to their individual product? It would take years and countless lawsuits for any type of standard to start to emerge, and there is no way that such a test would suitably apply to every single product. Either the law will go largely unenforced, making it pointless, or an army of lawyers will start suing companies in an uneven, arbitrary manner, making technological development much, much harder. There's no way they would go after everyone, and many companies could face litigation that they do not expect because prosecutors have different standards of planned obsolescence then they do. The easiest way to kill an industry is not to ban it outright, but to make the rules for it uncertain.

That's how the Constitution works. It's short and sweet. Don't Libertarians like the Constitution and short and sweet laws?
 
Sigh.

I already explained this to you. When XP was released, that was a ****ton of memory.

Sigh

I already explained to you. Microsoft built windows with "planned obsolescence". All they had to do was recognize whatever the **** memory the customer put on. In fact it probably takes more code to limit the amount of memory recognize by this OS.
 
Most software is designed to run in a known hardware environment, especially operating system software for PCs. I have worked on many such systems, even modified a few to exceed their designed limits, e.g. used MS-DOS in a networked, multiprocessor, distributed environment, with a GUI shell over it.

Everyone knew people were going to be using more than 2 gigs in a few years, when WinXP came out. Title here is "planned obsolescence", and it fits in just fine.
 
I think that the reverse is true. One does not KNOW, when something is made, if it will last or not (become obsolete). Would you outlaw all but "state of the art" (changing very fast) or freeze product innovation, for a fixed period of time, until a significant "new standard" is achieved?

Everyone KNEW ram would increase.
 
That's how the Constitution works. It's short and sweet. Don't Libertarians like the Constitution and short and sweet laws?

I like laws to be clear and simple. This law almost certainly would not be.
 
Sigh

I already explained to you. Microsoft built windows with "planned obsolescence". All they had to do was recognize whatever the **** memory the customer put on. In fact it probably takes more code to limit the amount of memory recognize by this OS.
You should understand a little more about ones and zeros before getting into these types of discussions. :roll:

.
 
Ok how about I come to your house and bash your car window with a stick until it webs, and then I can put a nail in your tire. Hey, that would "spur economic activity", great for the entire economy.

"Creative Destruction," how ****ing brilliant.
Yeah, because vandalism and planned obsolescence are the same thing.:roll:
 
The problem you face making planned obsolescense illegal is most people wouldnt be able to afford to buy many things they buy today. If they built refridgerators to last 25 yrs like they used too when they first came out...think about how much it would cost initially...triple ? 4- 5 times the cost...that would the same with all major appliances...no one is going to build something you only have to buy once and then end their business..
 
I like laws to be clear and simple. This law almost certainly would not be.

What I said is the same spirit with everything that's in the Constitution.

That's not very Libertarian'esque of you to mock the Constitution like that. I thought LIbertarians were all Constitutionally.
 
The problem you face making planned obsolescense illegal is most people wouldnt be able to afford to buy many things they buy today. If they built refridgerators to last 25 yrs like they used too when they first came out...think about how much it would cost initially...triple ? 4- 5 times the cost...that would the same with all major appliances...no one is going to build something you only have to buy once and then end their business..

Wrong again.

Most of you obviously don't get what "planned obsolescence" actually is. No it's not using Titanium when cheaper steel could be used, what it is is deliberately using bad welding spots so it eventually breaks. And no deliberately making bad welding spots DOES NOT INCREASE THE PRICE OF MANUFACTURING.
 
Eh no, I get what your saying but, no. As Lew states in his article: "would you rather pay 200$ for a blender that last 30 years or a 10$ blender that last 5 years". If someone is producing an inferior product, why would you not just buy a better product?
That's an easy one. Because I use a blender maybe once or twice a year at most. The cheap piece of **** is made for people like me who won't use it frequently, while the $300 professional grade mixer is made for high frequency of use. Same with any product. I have a cheap ass phone because it's not an important piece of equipment to me, and when a phone fails me, I destroy it. Since November of last year, I've gone through about 7 or 8 phones. On the other hand, My computer cost me about $1,200, but I'm on it all the time, and I needed something reliable for school, work, communication, entertainment, etc. I don't even own a tv, because the computer does everything. Cheaper ****tier products have their place, as well as the more expensive high quality items.
 
Wrong again.

Most of you obviously don't get what "planned obsolescence" actually is. No it's not using Titanium when cheaper steel could be used, what it is is deliberately using bad welding spots so it eventually breaks. And no deliberately making bad welding spots DOES NOT INCREASE THE PRICE OF MANUFACTURING.

So don't buy from that company then.
 
Back
Top Bottom