• 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
Lokiate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very good points. This true of my carpentry tools, as well. Those that I (ab)use the most, hammer, measuring tape, saws and drill/driver tools, I buy the better quality tool, so that they last longer and have easily replacable "wear" parts. The "Harry Homeowner" (low) quality tools are fine for those that I rarely use, like nailsets, chissels and punches. There is rarely a need to by heirloom quality items if they are not to become heirlooms. ;-)
 
Last edited:
TOJ said:
You should understand a little more about ones and zeros before getting into these types of discussions. :roll:
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, where has he been incorrect? [just curiosity].
 
Yes I think it should be outlawed

I also think 3 legged dogs should be outlawed because I don't like seeing them.
 
No.
You do it yourself.
It's natural.
It may sadly (for us short-lived meat bags) be long-term optimal.
 
Travelsonic said:
Just out of curiosity, where has he been incorrect? [just curiosity].
Click to expand...
So you too think MS should have designed XP to work with an infinite amount of memory. Interesting.

.
 
TOJ said:
So you too think MS should have designed XP to work with an infinite amount of memory. Interesting.

.
Click to expand...

Um.. asking for clarification != agreeing with another position. Come on, you're smarter than that. [er, how else can I reply to something so blatantly derp-tastically stupid sounding without risking an infraction?]
 
Last edited:
Travelsonic said:
Um.. asking for clarification != agreeing with another position. Come on, you're smarter than that. [er, how else can I reply to something so blatantly derp-tastically stupid sounding without risking an infraction?]
Click to expand...
Read the thread. :roll:

.
 
TOJ said:
So you too think MS should have designed XP to work with an infinite amount of memory. Interesting.
.
Click to expand...

I think some people should be capped at 500 calories a day.

Yes you're operating system isn't suppose to CAP hardware resources, for other programs to use, for no reason whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Very good points. This true of my carpentry tools, as well. Those that I (ab)use the most, hammer, measuring tape, saws and drill/driver tools, I buy the better quality tool, so that they last longer and have easily replacable "wear" parts. The "Harry Homeowner" (low) quality tools are fine for those that I rarely use, like nailsets, chissels and punches. There is rarely a need to by heirloom quality items if they are not to become heirlooms. ;-)
Click to expand...

There's a difference between cheap stuff that breaks and PO.
 
TOJ said:
So you too think MS should have designed XP to work with an infinite amount of memory. Interesting.

.
Click to expand...

Now to attempt to address the point:

Of course WANTING things isn't bad. OF COURSE there are limitations - what made me ask the question is because I Was under the impression that you were questioning his statement regarding an OS capping memory access.

Even though the maximum amount of RAM supported, that can be mapped, accessed, read from/written to is ultimately limited by your CPU, there is nothing that stops an operating system from limiting that further. I'm not saying XP does that, or Microsoft does that, but further limiting the amount of memory an operating system, and the programs that run within uses, it is completely feasible from a computer architecture standpoint.
 
Travelsonic said:
Now to attempt to address the point:

Of course WANTING things isn't bad. OF COURSE there are limitations - what made me ask the question is because I Was under the impression that you were questioning his statement regarding an OS capping memory access.

Even though the maximum amount of RAM supported, that can be mapped, accessed, read from/written to is ultimately limited by your CPU, there is nothing that stops an operating system from limiting that further. I'm not saying XP does that, or Microsoft does that, but further limiting the amount of memory an operating system, and the programs that run within uses, it is completely feasible from a computer architecture standpoint.
Click to expand...
It's not what is possible. It's what is practical.

Since you are the expert on this subject, please expain to the class what would be required for MS to have designed WinXP running on the platform for which it was designed to map an infinite (hell, I'll settle for infinite - 1) amount of memory for an application running under it to access. Also, please explain what this requirement have done to the development cost and selling price of XP?

Thanks and eagerly awaiting your reply..... :popcorn2:


.
 
TOJ said:
It's not what is possible. It's what is practical.

Since you are the expert on this subject, please expain to the class what would be required for MS to have designed WinXP running on the platform for which it was designed to map an infinite (hell, I'll settle for infinite - 1) amount of memory for an application running under it to access. Also, please explain what this requirement have done to the development cost and selling price of XP?

Thanks and eagerly awaiting your reply..... :popcorn2:


.
Click to expand...

It actually takes more coding time to CAP memory access, than to leave that decision to the application.

Class dismissed.
 
Travelsonic said:
Now to attempt to address the point:

Of course WANTING things isn't bad. OF COURSE there are limitations - what made me ask the question is because I Was under the impression that you were questioning his statement regarding an OS capping memory access.

Even though the maximum amount of RAM supported, that can be mapped, accessed, read from/written to is ultimately limited by your CPU, there is nothing that stops an operating system from limiting that further. I'm not saying XP does that, or Microsoft does that, but further limiting the amount of memory an operating system, and the programs that run within uses, it is completely feasible from a computer architecture standpoint.
Click to expand...


Actually WinXP does exactly that, it caps way below what the hardware is capable of.

It's the same thing with DirectX11. WinXP caps at DirectX10, forcing the "consumer" to buy another OS to use what the HARDWARE is capable of doing.
 
Matt Foley said:
Actually WinXP does exactly that, it caps way below what the hardware is capable of.

It's the same thing with DirectX11. WinXP caps at DirectX10, forcing the "consumer" to buy another OS to use what the HARDWARE is capable of doing.
Click to expand...

What application NEEDS that much RAM?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What application NEEDS that much RAM?
Click to expand...

I'm running Garry's Mod, steam game, at its highest settings on my computer + fraps screen recording software at 60FPS, full size [as opposed to being shrunken down "half size"] - you'd be surprised how much memory that eats up.
 
Travelsonic said:
I'm running Garry's Mod, steam game, at its highest settings on my computer + fraps screen recording software at 60FPS, full size [as opposed to being shrunken down "half size"] - you'd be surprised how much memory that eats up.
Click to expand...

Ugh, Garry's Mod.

My nephew plays that. Keep saying to him, "Why do you keep playing that, it's so pointless. You just float around and spawn things." He gets mad at me.
 
Matt Foley said:
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.
Click to expand...

This poe **** is getting old.
 
Matt Foley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sigh...Matt...If I build something and price it at 1,000 and it lasts 25 yrs...<refridgerator> that fridge costs you 40,00 a year to own....If I build that same fridge to last 10 yrs...the fridge now costs you a 100.00 year......Major appliances is the most obvious area of planned obsolescense....the price of some major appliance has actually gone down...or stayed pretty flat over a long period of years...to make them more initally affordable to more people....but they replace metal parts with plastic that wear....no appliances last anywhere near what they did....Extended warranties is where you pay the extra to get a little extra life.
So dont try and tell me that planned obsolescense doesnt increase the COST to the consumer....I never said it increased the COST of the manufacturer.
 
lpast said:
Sigh...Matt...If I build something and price it at 1,000 and it lasts 25 yrs...<refridgerator> that fridge costs you 40,00 a year to own....If I build that same fridge to last 10 yrs...the fridge now costs you a 100.00 year......Major appliances is the most obvious area of planned obsolescense....the price of some major appliance has actually gone down...or stayed pretty flat over a long period of years...to make them more initally affordable to more people....but they replace metal parts with plastic that wear....no appliances last anywhere near what they did....Extended warranties is where you pay the extra to get a little extra life.
So dont try and tell me that planned obsolescense doesnt increase the COST to the consumer....I never said it increased the COST of the manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Lighter parts in general. Interestingly the reason older products last longer is they are heavy as ****. Heavy parts in older vehicles almost never break, same with older appliances and the impossible to total older televisions. Musicians have gone back to vacuum tube amplifiers even though they are heavier and costlier because they can push more power. The interesting thing is that if someone keeps buying cheap they will lose, but if someone uses the cheaper products with a shorter life cycle simply as a market entry point to upgrade as their economic situation improves the quality of the consumers life tends to increase significantly. There is a place for planned obsolescence, consumers need to do the most research possible and weigh whether they want constant replacement to the current need or if the product needs to be of the utmost quality.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Lighter parts in general. Interestingly the reason older products last longer is they are heavy as ****. Heavy parts in older vehicles almost never break, same with older appliances and the impossible to total older televisions. Musicians have gone back to vacuum tube amplifiers even though they are heavier and costlier because they can push more power. The interesting thing is that if someone keeps buying cheap they will lose, but if someone uses the cheaper products with a shorter life cycle simply as a market entry point to upgrade as their economic situation improves the quality of the consumers life tends to increase significantly. There is a place for planned obsolescence, consumers need to do the most research possible and weigh whether they want constant replacement to the current need or if the product needs to be of the utmost quality.
Click to expand...

The maytag rep was in lowes, I was buying a front load dryer...hes been with maytag 34 yrs ready to retire...we talked about when maytag used to be the best built least repaired. He laughed and said we were, we used all metal spokes, wheels, parts, grommets and gears...but the company couldnt afford it...came to a point for that kind of build quality priced us out of the market...interestingly he said they arent built to not last as long...they are built not to last as long without you buying parts from us :) another words they main components are built well they build in other breaking points to get more of your money.
 
lpast said:
The maytag rep was in lowes, I was buying a front load dryer...hes been with maytag 34 yrs ready to retire...we talked about when maytag used to be the best built least repaired. He laughed and said we were, we used all metal spokes, wheels, parts, grommets and gears...but the company couldnt afford it...came to a point for that kind of build quality priced us out of the market...interestingly he said they arent built to not last as long...they are built not to last as long without you buying parts from us :) another words they main components are built well they build in other breaking points to get more of your money.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. The sad fact is that with durable goods there has to be a parts market, like the Packard motors example I posted earlier in the thread. You have to make a good product, but if it is "too good" then there is no service sector and only x amount of consumers, it is actually possible to make a product so well that you cannot sell enough to stay in business.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Absolutely true. The sad fact is that with durable goods there has to be a parts market, like the Packard motors example I posted earlier in the thread. You have to make a good product, but if it is "too good" then there is no service sector and only x amount of consumers, it is actually possible to make a product so well that you cannot sell enough to stay in business.
Click to expand...

Yup...thus the planned obsolescense or Quality Control...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom