Capitalism Breeds Obsolescence by Ellen Hyland [Page

By Ellen Hyland, Copy Editor, SS Law and Political Science

Young adults growing up in the early 2000s have had the unique experience of watching their gadgets develop just as they did. Those lucky enough may have been gifted the iPod Mini one Christmas, the iPod Nano the next, and eventually bestowed with cream of the crop; the iPod Touch. Of course, this device is now a relic of the past, hunted to near extinction by the advent of streaming services and the increased storage capacity of our increasingly-buttonless mobile devices.

Nowadays there is an almost complete lack of product differentiation. So why upgrade to a device that looks, feels, and works in almost the exact same way as our last? Naturally, the answer partly lies in marketing tactics such as Apple’s minimalist advertising style – new technology will always have a cult following for this reason. The rest is arguably down to a practice most notably associated with mobile phones: planned obsolescence.

Economist Jeremy Bulow defines planned obsolescence as “the production of goods with uneconomically short useful lives so that customers will have to make repeat purchases.” The practice is thought to have started in 1924, when lightbulb manufacturers around the world came together to form the ‘Phoebus Cartel’. They agreed to limit the lifespan of their products to 1000 hours (the average before was 1500 to 2000 hours). This meant that consumers would have to replace their lightbulbs more often, and since all manufacturers were on board it also meant that no competitor would benefit from the less-effective product. In modern times, Apple is the brand most often associated with planned obsolescence. It has been in trouble in numerous countries for allegedly slowing down phones when they reach a certain age in order to encourage consumers to buy a newer product. The accusation of planned obsolescence is naturally one that Apple denies – it has posited that the reason for slowing down the phones is to allow their batteries to last longer. This does not stop its name becoming synonymous with the practice, however.

The market for mobile phones can clearly be defined as an oligopoly, a market where a small number of firms dominate. In the United States, Apple and Samsung made up 82 per cent of the market share of smartphones in the first quarter of 2021. Samsung has also been accused of planned obsolescence. In 2018, it was fined 5 million euro after an investigation by the Italian authorities that concluded software updates caused the Galaxy Note 4 to significantly decline in performance. With a stranglehold on the market, it is arguable that Apple and Samsung are heavily incentivised in the world of capitalism to have a ‘lightbulb moment’ for themselves.

It is therefore clear that planned obsolescence is not a phenomenon left behind in the 20th century. What is clear from the plethora of court cases brought against smartphone companies alone, however, is that there is a growing wave of opposition against these practices.

The notion of a ‘right to repair’ is relatively recent. It states that electronics manufacturers should by law make their products easily repairable for a specified amount of time in order to protect consumer interests and reduce electronic waste. This is done through wider provision of spare parts and less allowable restrictions on who can repair devices by companies. The right counteracts the effects of planned obsolescence by forcing companies to give the consumer the option to keep their device for longer instead of having to replace it. The

incentive for obsolescence becomes in itself obsolete.

In March 2021, the European Parliament passed legislation that would force the electronics industry to make their products repairable for a decade. This was mainly passed in order to “rethink [the EU’s] manufacturing system and move towards truly sustainable products.” A report precipitating the legislation pointed out that “80 % of a [smartphone’s] carbon footprint is generated during its manufacture.”

The United Kingdom for example is also forced to implement these laws as a result of the Brussels effect. This refers to the premise that multinational corporations do not want to lose their EU consumer base and therefore manufacture their products in line with EU regulations.

The right to repair movement has not been unopposed, however, as US lawmakers struggle to enshrine the right through legislation. Although many states have attempted to bring about right-to-repair legislation, only Massachusetts has enacted the right, and even then, only for vehicles made after 2015. The issue mainly stems from the alleged breach of intellectual property rights. Some industry lobbyists maintain that allowing third-party access to the ins and outs of how to repair and replace parts in their products would, among other things, give away trade secrets and violate patents for parts that would have to become more commercially available in order to repair their products.

In spite of the concerns voiced by manufacturers, President Biden signed an expansive executive order at the beginning of July 2021 which, among other things, directed the Federal Trade Commission to establish rules on the right to repair. Biden critiqued the emergence of monopolies and oligopolies in American markets, claiming that “capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism, it’s exploitation.” Whether or not this executive order will make a difference is yet to be determined, however it is arguably a step in the right direction. The right to repair is not a ‘planktonian’ movement designed to steal any secret formula. It is a way of allowing consumers to avail of the developments in technology to research, farm, and have a better quality of life, without feeling like they are being exploited by their dependence on technology. It also helps the planet if we move away from technology that rots in a landfill after a year to technology that endures.

Planned obsolescence is a natural side-effect of capitalism, but that does not mean it is inevitable. When archaeologists dig up the remnants of our civilisation, what do we want them to find? A treasure trove of tatty tech caused by the promise of riches? Or evidence of enduring and innovative technology? If right-to-repair legislation was enacted worldwide, no more so in the mecca of capitalism that is the United States, together we can work towards a more sustainable society that creates technology for the purpose of innovation rather than obsolescence.