I recall reading a quasi-debunking of this. I didn't go down the rabbit hole far enough to understand all the details, but it seems the situation was more complicated than just corporate greed. [1]
The topic has been discussed here in the past a few times, including [2] and [3]
I would not call any of that a debunking, even quasi. Just a different dance around the same hard-to-swallow pill.
Company X makes a great product that everyone only needs one of and lasts a long time. Over time, the market starts to dwindle and. Company X is going broke. Now, Company X must either invest in innovation or reduce the lifespan of its current offering.
There's nothing inherently evil about this concept, but we tend to want to chalk it up to greed when Company X really just wants to survive and make a profit, which I suppose is the point.
The problem is the concept is ripe for abuse. If Company X makes their product worse, but starts charging more while laying off employees, posting record profits during recessions, adopts unnecessary subscription models cosplaying as continued service and development, etc...now we get to the greed part. There seems to be a line between designing a product to secure the longevity of Company X and straight up using your customers as micro-transaction ATMs with planned obsolescence. Some companies conspire to cross it.
> There's nothing inherently evil about this concept, but we tend to want to chalk it up to greed when Company X really just wants to survive and make a profit, which I suppose is the point.
No, that's exactly the problem. Company X surviving isn't a good enough justification for it to start making shittier products. Especially when they don't inform the customers of the degradation.
This is a business model problem, or perhaps a whole-market problem; papering over it with "oh just a little planned obsolescence is good, because it lets the vendor survive" is kind of a bailout, and prevents the problem from being corrected. By now, this has happened in so many places across so many industries that it's a rot that runs deep through entirety of the market.
How do the manufacturers of long-lasting one-off-purchase products survive? Stuff like doors, windows, roof tiles, floor tiles, faucets, staircase railings, fences, etc. Are they filling Chapter 13 or are they in the process in reducing the lifespan so their products are replaced every couple of years? What's their secret?
Some do go broke. We rely on New York Replacement Parts for cartridges for our bathroom faucets, the original manufacturer being long out of business. Double-glazed windows may get blurry over the years, I guess, and then one would replace those. But that should take ten or more years.
A properly protected door should last many years. One that we bought was not up to outside use, and failed. That manufacturer ended up purchased by a competitor, I think.
> are they in the process in reducing the lifespan so their products are replaced every couple of years?
My experience: swan-neck kitchen taps all now seem to be quite different in design from one-another. To replace a washer, you have to dive under the sink, completely dismantle the tap, replace the washer, and re-assemble the tap. And the new taps start dripping after just a couple of years.
So you have to hire a plumber; and he'll probably work faster (i.e. lower charges) if he's fitting a new tap than repairing an old one. So you might as well order a new tap before you call the plumber out.
I have replaced or added many of those things. People remodel, build new houses, etc. There are certainly business models around goods that people aren't renewing on an annual basis. Collectively it's probably fair to say that people in a country like the US buy a lot of doors even if it's a rare purchase for an individual.
I just ordered a butcher block counter from a local company. I've also ordered butcher block from a different company. At a rather larger scale there's Andersen Windows and Doors. None of these are or ever going to be--or presumably have ambitions to be--Home Depot.
They go broke or rely on an ever growing market, ie housing is always being built (most of your examples).
But Instant Pot is the classic example of going broke because everyone bought exactly one of their products and never needed another (ignoring the three we have...)
Is it? From what I've read, Instant Brands (the company behind Instant Pot) merged with Corelle Brands (of the private equity firm Cornell Capital) in 2019. Corelle Brands had a portfolio of house and kitchen products from Corelle, Pyrex, SnapWare and CorningWare. In 2021 they decided to change the name from Corelle Brands to Instant Brands. And in 2023 they filled for chapter 11 bankruptcy.
It is my understanding that when Instant Brands filled for bankruptcy, they weren't selling just the Instant Pot. It wasn't even the original Instant Pot company. They were selling a wide range of kitchen products. I don't think they went broke because people bought exactly one Instant Pot.
The story doesn't end here. Apparently, Instant Brands emerged from chapter 11 as Corelle Brands.
> They go broke or rely on an ever growing market, ie housing is always being built (most of your examples).
Wouldn't that mean those new houses have new families which want a new Instant Pot? In fact I can think of other situations: people moving, going to college, splitting some of their items in divorce, etc. Sure, it's not much but it's not like the demand grinds to a halt.
I wish there was more tolerance for the Instant Pot situation in big business. Build a great product, sell wildly for many years, inventor becomes a multi-millionaire, many people are employed at good wages for a while, stock holders / investors make a reasonable return, millions upon millions of satisfied customers, and... that's it. The end of that particular story.
Keep a perfunctory tidbit of the once great company chugging along to provide replacement parts, do some servicing, and sell new ones at a much reduced volume. Just enough to keep a handful of people employed at good wages and turn a miniscule profit.
I know it is heresy to suggest this kind of thing when our entire way of life is predicated on infinite growth, but our entire way of life is also grossly inefficient (not to mention inequitable) and we are facing ever more scarce resources on a planet with less and less carrying capacity for our wasteful and destructive tendencies.
Of course this is all just yelling at clouds, because billionaires and the people who service them cannot be made to think in these terms, else they wouldn't be where they are in the first place.
Sounds to me that Company X sold their product for too cheap if they really lasted that long. Which then it becomes: "Company X undervalued their product, leading to bankruptcy".
Nice video from the well known channel Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
=> It's complicated. Yes, there was a cartel, but it was not all bad. There were legitimate reasons to go for 1000h light bulbs.
>but it seems the situation was more complicated than just corporate greed
Then their strategy worked - if you really believe it's more complicated. Haven't investigated this particular subject, but many others subjects are _made_ complicated to achieve a particular outcome. Along lines of: 'let's protect the children' argument.
Company X makes a great product that everyone only needs one of and lasts a long time. Over time, the market starts to dwindle and. Company X is going broke. Now, Company X must either invest in innovation or reduce the lifespan of its current offering.
There's nothing inherently evil about this concept, but we tend to want to chalk it up to greed when Company X really just wants to survive and make a profit, which I suppose is the point.
The problem is the concept is ripe for abuse. If Company X makes their product worse, but starts charging more while laying off employees, posting record profits during recessions, adopts unnecessary subscription models cosplaying as continued service and development, etc...now we get to the greed part. There seems to be a line between designing a product to secure the longevity of Company X and straight up using your customers as micro-transaction ATMs with planned obsolescence. Some companies conspire to cross it.