[Amorph]

No post is getting too long, for me, just go nuts

Do you think that Fairphone's lack of specs is a consequence of their modular design and philosophy, or is maybe just because it still is a small company without the resources to compete with the top dogs?
But in general, wouldn't a Fairphone or other modular products, that are designed to last for a long time, quickly become low spec'ed compared to products which are constantly innovated and upgraded? Isn't that just a part of being sustainability-aware?

Hmm, I mean what you said is like exactly what the big companies try to convince the consumers with, that a modular design will for sure have a negative impact on the performance of a device, but just look at Framework laptops and then you will quickly realize that it might just be marketing after all, they have built laptops with top specs with the ability to basically replace everything within it like the CPU and now even the GPU, and here is the answer to your second question, having a modular design if done correctly will result in the ability to keep the device up to date with the latest HW, again same example with Framework, so it's not just the ease of replacing a damaged part but also the ability to keep the device capable in the performance department over the years is what we as consumers should start demanding, that will for sure help with the E-Waste crisis. Unfortunately though replacing a device less often means that companies profit less, so they will do everything in their power to ensure that that won't happen. I wonder though, let's say that we were able to get a modular design with the most replaced electronics out there like phones, earbuds, laptops, etc... and I already stated that this will result in lower profit, thus companies won't be able to keep the same R&D budget that they once had before this change, the question is, will this result in less innovation and a slowdown in the advancement of technology? This is a question that I don't think anyone can have a definite answer to because like do companies really need all of the insane profits they are getting yearly, I don't know tbh. What I know is that as long as their are tons of people who buy a new iphone every year, all of these thoughts might just end up being a fantasy.

 

[earmonger]

"Obsolete" and "discontinued" are two very different concepts.

A lot of old products are still working. A lot of old products were more sensible -- like cellphones with 3.5mm
headphone jacks. I use every product I can until it fails or (extremely rare) is noticeably less capable.

My car is a 2011 model bought used and repaired when necessary. I still get where I want to go.

I don't need this year's model for status purposes.

I do think there are advances in technology and in manufacturing that have brought down prices a lot and sound quality way up, especially at the entry/budget levels. That's good for everyone except perhaps the human beings behind the shiny products.

We still need better, less mineral-consuming batteries and less plastic and battery waste, just for starters.

Buying used helps the planet. That's not obsolete.

 

[Wish I had a cool name]

This is an interesting topic, but it's swayed quite a bit in some answers away from audio and headphones.

"Obsolete" is an interesting term as well. If you're looking for technological obsolescence, then audio is a mixed culture. The advancements in analog audio technology are few and far between. The only instances I can think of off-hand are new materials or manufacturing methods that fundamentally change the structure of a component or device: new capacitor and resistor materials, new driver or housing materials, newly machined housings and chambers, etc. Other than that, there's really nothing that hasn't been applied before in analog. Some capacitors, for instance, may have been made 50 years ago and sound as good or better than modern capacitors in an audio-analog device. Changes in speakers and headphones definitely occur however, but much more slowly and are the result of better materials discoveries and processing, or new machining capabilities.

Another glaring example is tubes. A proper tube audio circuit can be made to sound and perform as good as any solid-state one. Head-Fi itself is filled with examples. Tubes made 50 years ago continue to perform and sound better than tubes made today. Used and "dated" audio equipment can also sound as good as modern equipment, once age-sensitive components such as electrolytic capacitors are replaced.

When it comes to digital, however, that's an entirely different matter. We've gone from needles on a tube or disc to magnetic tape, then laser-based CDs and now simply digital files themselves, used with PCs or smartphones. DAC chips and circuits continue to progress. Although since "analog" is a primary component, that progress and supposed obsolescence is sometimes questionable. I've seen the market gobble up smaller DAC-chip producers not because they didn't sound as good, but because they weren't in a financially superior position. The larger DAC maker then chose to kill its newly-acquired chips to maintain market share of its own, poorer sounding chips. (Wolfson has been the victim of this.) That's an unfortunate result of cut-throat business practices that fail the consumer when artistic preference is supposed to be the goal, obsolescence having nothing to do with it.

Thanks for your input! - The conversations swayed away from audio yeah, but for me, it is more than okay as well

I look for all kind of obsolescence, but most importantly your perception of the term, techniques, and implications of it.
I get your view of how technological obsolescence isn't as widespread in audio as other places, but let me just test my thoughts here, and please enlighten of your perception to that.

- Manufacturers tries just as hard to upgrade components in analog audio as most other places. However, as technological obsolescence is based on relative obsolescence, thereof the consumer's mind and perception, it isn't as influential as with digital devices?.
With analog products, and long-lasting components, absolute/functional obsolescence is heavily decreased - which is a big reason for asking a community like this, as audiophiles often have an "above-average" knowledge of analog and digital technology.

So, therefore is my question to your statement above: Isn't technological obsolescence just as common with analog audio (or at least trying to be), you as consumer's just doesn’t get as influenced by changes, as other product owners might do?

 

[Wish I had a cool name]

Hmm, I mean what you said is like exactly what the big companies try to convince the consumers with, that a modular design will for sure have a negative impact on the performance of a device, but just look at Framework laptops and then you will quickly realize that it might just be marketing after all, they have built laptops with top specs with the ability to basically replace everything within it like the CPU and now even the GPU, and here is the answer to your second question, having a modular design if done correctly will result in the ability to keep the device up to date with the latest HW, again same example with Framework, so it's not just the ease of replacing a damaged part but also the ability to keep the device capable in the performance department over the years is what we as consumers should start demanding, that will for sure help with the E-Waste crisis. Unfortunately though replacing a device less often means that companies profit less, so they will do everything in their power to ensure that that won't happen. I wonder though, let's say that we were able to get a modular design with the most replaced electronics out there like phones, earbuds, laptops, etc... and I already stated that this will result in lower profit, thus companies won't be able to keep the same R&D budget that they once had before this change, the question is, will this result in less innovation and a slowdown in the advancement of technology? This is a question that I don't think anyone can have a definite answer to because like do companies really need all of the insane profits they are getting yearly, I don't know tbh. What I know is that as long as their are tons of people who buy a new iphone every year, all of these thoughts might just end up being a fantasy.

I think you are very much into some of the right thoughts here (In my opinion), and as you say: No one can hardly know.

But don't you ever have the desire for changing a device out, like of pure excitement?

 

[Wish I had a cool name]

"Obsolete" and "discontinued" are two very different concepts.

A lot of old products are still working. A lot of old products were more sensible -- like cellphones with 3.5mm
headphone jacks. I use every product I can until it fails or (extremely rare) is noticeably less capable.

My car is a 2011 model bought used and repaired when necessary. I still get where I want to go.

I don't need this year's model for status purposes.

I do think there are advances in technology and in manufacturing that have brought down prices a lot and sound quality way up, especially at the entry/budget levels. That's good for everyone except perhaps the human beings behind the shiny products.

We still need better, less mineral-consuming batteries and less plastic and battery waste, just for starters.

Buying used helps the planet. That's not obsolete.

Do you then experience that, if the recycling rate is increased or less scare materials are implemented, that obsolescence overall is a good thing?

 

[smallcaps]

This is an interesting thread. Thank you for starting it, to all the members who have contributed to the conversation, and welcome to the forum.

This topic is quite close to me as I have also researched and consulted about the topic of Regenerative Design and Circular Economy. When we consider the limited amount of resources we have on the planet, the idea of obsolescence, including the concept of planned obsolescence is not economically tenable if we consider the world economy as a holistic and complete system.

Simply put, as we strive toward increasing productivity (a main yet flawed indicator of a market's/country's/person's success), we need to create more to sell and generate revenue. We will therefore need more resources (metals for electronics, fossil fuels to spin up factories and transport goods, water to grow crops, etc.) to create these products and services to sell. As these resources become more scarce, costs go up, until we either have no resources to continue to produce the "next best thing", or no middle class to buy these products and services as they are basically out of financial reach.

In a Circular Economy, we aim to employ the R-Strategies, which include things like repair, replaceable parts, recycling, recovery, reuse, etc. in order to keep the value of our resources out of a landfill and go to waste. This also means that we design things to never be obsolete unless truly useless because we would have attempted to repair, reuse, or at the very least, recycle the value vested to create them in the first place.

Economically speaking, the Circular Economy offers new ways to create value in the form of money (we can create new business models such as shared economy ones found in AirBnB, Uber, etc.) products-as-a-service models like the ones found in Miele washing machine lease programmes, or how Rolls-Royce leases their aeroplane jet engines then makes money from offering services around them or even just participate in the second-hand market, like the one found on this very forum.

From a personal perspective and maybe more in theme with this forum, I have a pair of Sennheiser HD580s, which I purchased nearly two decades ago. I've replaced various parts over its lifetime such as earpads, cables, grills, headbands, and even the drivers. And while I am very guilty of buying the "next best thing" in audio products, these headphones could have conceivably served me as the only headphones I could ever need all these years. The beauty of its design is that its fully modular. Sennheiser could have just released the HD600, HD650, HD6xx, HD660s, etc. as only the drivers, and I would have happily purchased those to drop in, instead of buying a completely new headphone. They would have saved on manufacturing, distribution, packaging, and other costs and put all that savings into driver research, all while using fewer resources and having a much smaller environmental footprint.

Of course, this is a much more complex topic than I can describe here without writing a thesis, for instance, the revenue they created by selling all those above products to continue product development, but my point is we need to reevaluate the idea of "productivity" and ultimately, what "progress" means from a socio-economic sense, if we want to continue to have a thriving economy for all people, as well as not doom our planet, environmentally speaking.

Anyways, good luck with your thesis and hope there is something you can get from my meandering dribble. It's really a fascinating topic and certainly needs much more research.

 

[Wish I had a cool name]

This is an interesting thread. Thank you for starting it, to all the members who have contributed to the conversation, and welcome to the forum.

This topic is quite close to me as I have also researched and consulted about the topic of Regenerative Design and Circular Economy. When we consider the limited amount of resources we have on the planet, the idea of obsolescence, including the concept of planned obsolescence is not economically tenable if we consider the world economy as a holistic and complete system.

Simply put, as we strive toward increasing productivity (a main yet flawed indicator of a market's/country's/person's success), we need to create more to sell and generate revenue. We will therefore need more resources (metals for electronics, fossil fuels to spin up factories and transport goods, water to grow crops, etc.) to create these products and services to sell. As these resources become more scarce, costs go up, until we either have no resources to continue to produce the "next best thing", or no middle class to buy these products and services as they are basically out of financial reach.

In a Circular Economy, we aim to employ the R-Strategies, which include things like repair, replaceable parts, recycling, recovery, reuse, etc. in order to keep the value of our resources out of a landfill and go to waste. This also means that we design things to never be obsolete unless truly useless because we would have attempted to repair, reuse, or at the very least, recycle the value vested to create them in the first place.

Economically speaking, the Circular Economy offers new ways to create value in the form of money (we can create new business models such as shared economy ones found in AirBnB, Uber, etc.) products-as-a-service models like the ones found in Miele washing machine lease programmes, or how Rolls-Royce leases their aeroplane jet engines then makes money from offering services around them or even just participate in the second-hand market, like the one found on this very forum.

From a personal perspective and maybe more in theme with this forum, I have a pair of Sennheiser HD580s, which I purchased nearly two decades ago. I've replaced various parts over its lifetime such as earpads, cables, grills, headbands, and even the drivers. And while I am very guilty of buying the "next best thing" in audio products, these headphones could have conceivably served me as the only headphones I could ever need all these years. The beauty of its design is that its fully modular. Sennheiser could have just released the HD600, HD650, HD6xx, HD660s, etc. as only the drivers, and I would have happily purchased those to drop in, instead of buying a completely new headphone. They would have saved on manufacturing, distribution, packaging, and other costs and put all that savings into driver research, all while using fewer resources and having a much smaller environmental footprint.

Of course, this is a much more complex topic than I can describe here without writing a thesis, for instance, the revenue they created by selling all those above products to continue product development, but my point is we need to reevaluate the idea of "productivity" and ultimately, what "progress" means from a socio-economic sense, if we want to continue to have a thriving economy for all people, as well as not doom our planet, environmentally speaking.

Anyways, good luck with your thesis and hope there is something you can get from my meandering dribble. It's really a fascinating topic and certainly needs much more research.

Thank you for a great input!
If we have to compare the implication directly to planned obsolescence, which unfortunately seems impossible as no company directly disclose what is obsolescence and what is not, the conclusion would most likely be that we have to reevaluate our way of life, undoubtedly agreeing with you.

My main focus is therefore on consumer's perception and behavior towards the aspect of obsolescence.
But don't you think that over the last decades a deeply rooted culture just implies that most consumers love to get the next best thing, and psychologically we just can't stop buying new things?

 

[tomb]

Thanks for your input! - The conversations swayed away from audio yeah, but for me, it is more than okay as well

I look for all kind of obsolescence, but most importantly your perception of the term, techniques, and implications of it.
I get your view of how technological obsolescence isn't as widespread in audio as other places, but let me just test my thoughts here, and please enlighten of your perception to that.

- Manufacturers tries just as hard to upgrade components in analog audio as most other places. However, as technological obsolescence is based on relative obsolescence, thereof the consumer's mind and perception, it isn't as influential as with digital devices?.
With analog products, and long-lasting components, absolute/functional obsolescence is heavily decreased - which is a big reason for asking a community like this, as audiophiles often have an "above-average" knowledge of analog and digital technology.

So, therefore is my question to your statement above: Isn't technological obsolescence just as common with analog audio (or at least trying to be), you as consumer's just doesn’t get as influenced by changes, as other product owners might do?

No. Technological obsolescence doesn't exist with analog (non-digital) audio. That's not to say that a company that comes up with a technological breakthrough in materials or some other driver component won't sound great. Only, it's just as likely that some guy in a cave can make something completely handmade that will stomp any flagship device from a major mfr.

The very best audiophile components have a very close relationship with musical instruments. How much do you think technology affects musical instruments? Technology can make alternative instruments (electrically-driven) or improve on a manufacturing technique, but that's about all.

 

[earmonger]

Do you then experience that, if the recycling rate is increased or less scare materials are implemented, that obsolescence overall is a good thing?

From my limited understanding, electronics recycling doesn't actually get much back out of the waste stream. And it seems as if the minerals required for electronics are often going to stay scarce and toxic.

Even if you have recycled something and bought a new thing with less scarce materials, you are still buying a whole new product that required new power and materials to produce. Planet Earth is not going to send you a thank-you note for that.

So no, I don't think obsolescence is a good thing -- especially planned obsolescence for all the gadgets that die a month after the warranty ends. Products should be as durable as possible and repairable at reasonable cost.

 

[smallcaps]

Thank you for a great input!
If we have to compare the implication directly to planned obsolescence, which unfortunately seems impossible as no company directly disclose what is obsolescence and what is not, the conclusion would most likely be that we have to reevaluate our way of life, undoubtedly agreeing with you.

My main focus is therefore on consumer's perception and behavior towards the aspect of obsolescence.
But don't you think that over the last decades a deeply rooted culture just implies that most consumers love to get the next best thing, and psychologically we just can't stop buying new things?

We tend to have short-term memories due to our short lifespans. Perception does change over the generations, even when we perceive within our lifetime, seemingly deeply engrained, normative behaviour. Just imagine how our grandparents perceived the world, and now how we perceive it.

While I agree that in the last decades, a deeply rooted culture has taken over in regards to not only having the next best thing, it has also been amplified due to our "show off" lifestyle. Sometimes I feel motivated to get new gear just so I can post it on Head-Fi! However there is a growing concern for the environment, the form of capitalism we employ, and the measures of progress we use to account for socioeconomic development.

If you dig deep enough, you'll find concepts like the aforementioned Circular Economy, Regenerative Design, Dounut Economy, B corporation, nature conservation, etc. These may have been developed by academics, but they are being adopted by society and it's now, basically a race for time to try to implement these before we go beyond the carbon tipping point. Greta Thunberg and her youth environmental movement are an example of this. Whether you agree with her or not, the phenomenon of environmental consciousness is growing due to a change in consumer perception.

Likewise, companies are adopting ESG in their activities due to the need for reporting stipulated by various government policies. While there are many, many valid criticisms for and against ESG reporting, the fact of the matter is that people, organisations, companies and nations are adjusting behaviour to address these new norms.

So yes, things like social media are amplifying our behaviour where we lust after the next new thing, but a growing consciousness towards our personal consumption is also growing. What we perceive as deeply rooted culture in our lifetime can change. We just need to design beyond our lifetime in order to change the perceptions of future generations.

My wife's grandparents fought for the Germans in WWII... and now their two grandchildren are either gay or married to an Asian dude lol. Have faith that we can change... we just need to be proactive about it!

 

[Elegiac]

Man is obsolete!
Our world, obsolete!
Man is obsolete!
Erased, extinct!

 

[The Jackal 44]

Hello everybody,
First of all, thanks for the admission to this community. I have been lurking for some time, and thought it was time for a membership.

This post is however a cry for help (which I hope is okay for this site). I'm currently doing research for my masters' thesis, where the main focus is about consumers perception towards obsolescence / planned obsolescence in electronic products at a consumer level.
In that relation, I hope that some of you guys are willing to answer a few questions (written format of course) about your experiences, thoughts, and opinions.
I'm not asking for than you are willing and comfortable to answer to.

So, have you ever replaced an entire product because a small component had a failure, and it was too pricey to replace? Or maybe upgraded a product because it just couldn’t do the same as the new ones?
What ever it is, it would be a big help and much appreciated.

In advance, thank you!

I would say that almost everything in our culture is "throw away" as far as technology is concerned. I am a fix it type of guy, but when a part breaks on electronics, it is almost always more feasible for me to buy a new item, as the parts are often half the cost of an item itself, and with the wear and tear on the old item, it is often just not worth it, especially if the part is delicate to replace and could be damaged in the installation.

 

[Wish I had a cool name]

Hello again everybody!
I just want to say thanks, to all that have contributed and participated in the discussion and interviews. It is very much appreciated!

 

[IkSak]

Hi!

This is a very interesting topic! Glad I found it. I think that it largely depends on how fast things improve and the use case that you have for you product.

Let me elaborate this more througout:

Example 1: I work as a university professor that has a research team. The thing I replace the most are my students' desktop PCs. These PCs are tools for me. The fastest the tools, the sooner they'll run the complex earthquake simulations we need for our work. Thus, I strive to keep all these "tools" as updated as possible, bearing in mind that any update most bring a real upgrade and not a sidegrade. For instance I recently updated a second gen Ryzen (3000 series) desktop for a fourth gen one (Ryzen 7000 series).

Example 2: I have an iPad Pro 11 2018 model that I use for note taking, remote meetings, watching videos while resting in bed and occasional Lightroom photo editing. Nothing at professional level. I plan to keep it until it dies, which, unless a lack of care from me, should happen due to a battery dying. When that happends I'll decide between two options: a) assuming I can replace the battery with a new one: how much time would that buy for my iPad? and how much would that cost me? VS b) buy a new one that probably would last the same as the one I got that still could repare, but probably don't because getting the new one would actually be cheaper in the long run for me.