Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think concerns about planned obsolescence are generally overblown. In information technology, you don't really have to plan at all - a series of advances, small and large, combine to often make replacement more cost effective than repair/maitenance/upgrade. If anything, you DO have to plan for longevity and backward/forward compatibility, often at great expense - Tandem, IBM mainframe, Unix systems, and so on. In many consumer technologies, price and features just trumps quality and longevity. Companies are planning more for market share than for obsolescence per se. This does not mean that companies don't anticipate replacements cycles, or that conspiratorial engineering doesn't happen from time to time. And of course, in particular, you can't stay in business very long cranking out feature rich but inexpensive products sold near margin that last forever - duh. But staying in business is hardly conspiratorial :-) Scott Karen Nakamura wrote: >> >> This "planned obsolescence" was introduced by the Japanese >> after WW II and in > > > I don't think you can blame the Japanese for planned obsolescence. > Just take a look at anything made by Kodak (except the Kodak Retina > series). And Japanese cars do tend to last much much longer than > American cars. Most Asahi Pentax Spotmatic cameras and Nikon Fs are > ticking along just as well as their Leicaflex brethren. > > Not to get off track, but just defending my fellow country men and women. > > > Karen Nakamura > http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/ > http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/ >