Planned Obsolescence is Planning for Obsolescence
How many out-of-date iPhones and chargers will line our junk drawers for consumers to decide that Apple is just that: junk?
Kyle Wiens, in his feature iFixit which takes apart new tech toys to analyze their repairability, dismantled the new Retina MacBook Pro, which is the first redesign of the pro line since 2013 and features the highly touted touchbar and retina display.
Wiens assessment of the new macbook is this: it “is the least repairable laptop we’ve ever taken apart”, and marks the latest stage in Apple’s trajectory of making its products less and less repairable. Wiens outlines the history of this trend, and ascribes its origin to the introduction of the MacBook air in 2010. It was lighter and sleeker than the similarly priced MacBook, but without a non-upgradeable RAM, and customers eagerly bought it up. Following this successful product, the company launched an iPad in 2012 with the battery glued to the case. Building on the success of that product, the next generation of iPad had its glass screen fused into the frame. These changes make these products much harder to repair and just as easy to scrap for the newest upgrade altogether. This increases Apple sales, but is also increases waste, as those irreparable products become garbage after a shorter lifespan. This is in line with other moves by Apple: changing adapter sizes for laptops and iPhones, and removing headphone jack from the latest iPhone means that people need to replace all their accessories to work with their new computers and phones.
The parts of the Reinta MacBook are similarly inextricably affixed. Wiens lists these design choices along with the implications: “the display is fused to the glass, which means replacing the LCD requires buying an expensive display assembly. The RAM is now soldered to the logic board — making future memory upgrades impossible. And the battery is glued to the case, requiring customers to mail their laptop to Apple every so often for a$200 replacement.” These computers are expensive to repair, which suggest, along with the impossibility for upgrades, that they are meant to be.
Wiens argues that these design elements are reactions to consumer preferences: apple customers are buying for sleek design and convenience over a longer lifetime of the product. Wiens worries that the introduction of the Retina Macbook will perpetuate this trend: customers buy the newest and latest and sleekest Apple has to offer, and Apple in turn creates newer, sleeker, more updated products that make the computer/iPad/iPhone the customer bought a year seem obsolete.
While it would be easy to vilify companies like Apple that seemingly plan for product obsolescence (planned and perceived) to maximize sales and ensure future market shares, Wien’s mostly holds the consumers responsible. He points out, in that case of Apple, that it is our buying choices that inform the company what we consumers want in a product. It’s not appropriate nor helpful in this case to attach culpability to one party over another. This is a greater cultural problem with industry and consumers reinforcing and enabling the wastefulness of the other.
It is true that Apple customers aren’t buying for the sustainability of the product. Computers, for many individuals, are status symbols as much as they are necessary tools. Even if an individual knew that they could extend the lifetime and functionality of their computer by cracking open its back to install new RAM, they probably wouldn’t do so. It’s way sexier to pull out a brand new laptop with cutting edge technology in the middle of a lecture than it is to tap away at a refurbished clunker, especially if you go to a school with a name that looks good on a sweatshirt, especially if you don’t.
This consumer behavior does not prove that individuals are more concerned with their images than they are with sustainability; it proves that there aren’t options for users to forgo electronic upgrades in a way that does not make them seem cheap or out of touch. Sustainability and concern for the environment are real issues that the public is concerned about. Consumers do want buy products that not only look cool, but that they feel good buying, and industry, especially the electronics industry, would be wise to cater to them. There is a market for sustainability, and this demand will grow as consumers become less and less tolerant of wastefulness and companies that do not value the environment. The success of companies like Reformation and Tesla illustrates that consumers want to buy products from companies that are socially responsible. Transparency will also serve companies well in the future, as consumers become more informed than ever. Government can help push the trend along, but introducing policies that promote “extended product reproducibility” that incentivizes sustainable design principles by requiring that out-of-use electronics go back to the manufacturer instead of into the garbage.
Apple might be testing the market, as Wiens claims, to see if consumers will buy a computer with a finite lifespan. It’s a fair bet to make, and it will have high returns for them. But Apple is missing an opportunity to make a different bet: What if they made a sustainable, repairable computer with a long lifetime that can be relevant and useable well into the future? What if they marketed that computer on a platform of sustainability, longevity, environmental wellness, and social responsibility? What if their computers looked sustainable instead of just new? How might consumers react to that?
Apple’s latest products are all selling, but it is just a matter of time before they, by design, become obsolete. If Apple ignores the demands of the public for sustainable products that are smarter for our world, then the planned obsolescence will be their own.
