It's not really a conspiracy, just the natural outcome of design optimization - any part that still works reliably at the end of the design lifespan is a candidate for cost cutting in the next iteration.
> any part that still works reliably at the end of the design lifespan is a candidate for cost cutting in the next iteration
This assumes a positive correlation between quality and price for parts. That isn't always the case. There's no reason a better part will be more expensive.
And again, you're ignoring my primary argument: "lifespan" is not measurable in calendar years for electronics. Some people I know use their laptops 360 hrs/mo, and some people (like me) only use them when traveling, ~20 hrs/mo.
After a calendar year of that, my laptop has only 240 hrs of life lost, while another laptop might have 4,000+ hrs of life lost.
Please provide a source about how a hardware manufacturer (without the aid of software) could plan for a component to fail after either 240 hrs of usage or 4,000 hrs of usage.
This assumes a positive correlation between quality and price for parts. That isn't always the case. There's no reason a better part will be more expensive.
And again, you're ignoring my primary argument: "lifespan" is not measurable in calendar years for electronics. Some people I know use their laptops 360 hrs/mo, and some people (like me) only use them when traveling, ~20 hrs/mo.
After a calendar year of that, my laptop has only 240 hrs of life lost, while another laptop might have 4,000+ hrs of life lost.
Please provide a source about how a hardware manufacturer (without the aid of software) could plan for a component to fail after either 240 hrs of usage or 4,000 hrs of usage.