I worked in obsolescence in a previous job - it was a small department, with a very specialized knowledgebase, and tricky purpose.
People don't realize that it is a very difficult balancing act to keep electronics working over the long term due to the ever advancing pace of technology (hardware and software), complexity of manufacturing, materials availability, customer demand, etc.
One part of that could include rapid design refreshes planned on a schedule to avoid obsolescence issues, for example. When viewed a certain way, pumping out new products rapidly and not supporting old products for long periods of time could be perceived as planned obsolescence, but is possibly a reaction to customer demands..
I am not defending planned obsolescence here (perhaps pointing out a different concept entirely given its current negative definition), but there is a point of view that planning for and addressing obsolescence in a controlled and transparent manner, proactively, may actually be a good thing, not a bad thing. But it could be quite hard to see that perspective as a consumer.
Also, certainly, when done behind the scenes for reasons that only serve the best interests of a private organization and not the customer and/or environment - that is an entirely different story and not acceptable.
In a subset of electronics that had not yet “plateaued” until recently like smartphones, managing obsolescence has to be even more tricky.
In terms of sheer power, the difference between even and iPhone 4 or 5 and 11 or 12 is staggering and so huge that the speed difference can be felt even with pedestrian tasks. Earlier models like the original/3G/3GS are so much slower they’re practically on a different plane of existence.
It’s almost like the difference between an early-90s 68k Mac and and early 2000s PowerMac G3/G4 towers. The gulf between the two was so wide that continuing to support even the most powerful 68k models just wasn’t practical.
People don't realize that it is a very difficult balancing act to keep electronics working over the long term due to the ever advancing pace of technology (hardware and software), complexity of manufacturing, materials availability, customer demand, etc.
One part of that could include rapid design refreshes planned on a schedule to avoid obsolescence issues, for example. When viewed a certain way, pumping out new products rapidly and not supporting old products for long periods of time could be perceived as planned obsolescence, but is possibly a reaction to customer demands..
I am not defending planned obsolescence here (perhaps pointing out a different concept entirely given its current negative definition), but there is a point of view that planning for and addressing obsolescence in a controlled and transparent manner, proactively, may actually be a good thing, not a bad thing. But it could be quite hard to see that perspective as a consumer.
Also, certainly, when done behind the scenes for reasons that only serve the best interests of a private organization and not the customer and/or environment - that is an entirely different story and not acceptable.