4 ms·

This sounds similar to planned obsolescence, so the moral is if you design it that way, as a manufacturer, you are ok. Definitely a grey area here. Edit: After

This sounds similar to planned obsolescence, so the moral is if you design it that way, as a manufacturer, you are ok. Definitely a grey area here. Edit: After some thought, I feel a precedent. My car has parts that don't become obsolete, they flat break requiring never ending service. Surely I can sue for fraud as the auto company has the ability to use another means. (Devils advocate)

manfredo 7y ago
Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is not the deliberate introduction of malfunctions, it is the engineering tradeoff between longevity and other characteristics. For example, Apple noticed that most customers replaced their phones within 2-3 years. A lithium ion battery's lifetime is determined by its charging and discharge characteristics. Its life is extended if it is charged more slowly and neither charged or discharged fully. But this increases charge time and reduced usable battery capacity - both of which are key selling features for smartphones. So Apple optimized the iPhone's battery management to deliver good charging and usable capacity, with the tradeoff that it would degrade significantly beyond 2-3 years of use. This contractor's activities would have been analogous to Apple introducing code that checks the current timestamp with the timestamp from when the phone was sold and degrading performance when that difference exceeded a threshold.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence" Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    No they are not. One is intentionally, secretly, and illegally introducing flaws to defraud an employer. The other is managing tradeoffs based on technical constraints.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I don't think that planned obsolescence is unintentional. If it's not completely secret, it's not admitted to either, and it's not illegal because it's not illegal. Is it particularly that you think that there isn't a continuum from legal actions to illegal actions? Isn't it possible and common that two instances of similar actions can be on the right and wrong sides of the law?
      - manfredo 7y ago
        Planned obsolescence is not at all unintentional, it is highly deliberate. Every product needs to plan for it's intended lifespan, from phones to nuclear reactors. Planned obsolescence and what this contractor did are not on any sort of continuum. This contractor was not making a trade-off, he deliberately sabotaged his work. This is not on any sort of continuum with optimizing phone's battery life for a certain number of years, or making similar tradeoffs.
        mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        I agree with you to the extent that companies design their products to become obsolete in a way that actually considers all of the trade-offs in a way that makes optimal use of the resource at hand and does not intentionally shorten the lifespan of its products in an attempt to boost sales at the expense of generating additional waste and reducing the value of the finished product. Once you start doing that, you ARE being intentionally destructive.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        What I think you're ignoring is that they are both examples of utilizing dishonesty for profit. Planned obsolescence could in the abstract be just about making a trade-off between price and durability, but in all real instances it leverages the fact that the consumer can't reliably assess the ratio of cost to lifespan of a product. If the trade-off was transparent to the buyer, then competition would produce much more durable products, even if not infinitely durable.
      - rumanator 7y ago
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum. They really aren't. All engineered products are designed to meet a target service life. Even today's houses are designed with a design lifespan of 50 years. A consumer product is not different.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Saying all products have an engineered service life is beside the point. Planned obsolescence is not transparent. They don't tell you what those engineering decisions are - they don't put labels saying this item costs $X/year and this item costs $Y/year. Consumers would choose differently if they had trustworthy information for everything. Saying people are ok with that is like saying people choose to get melamine in their milk if they choose the cheapest.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Weren't there some printer manufacturers doing almost exactly that with ink cartridges?
jlarocco 7y ago
It feels like your being obtuse on purpose. Surely you understand the difference between a part that naturally wears out over time due to friction and wear and tear, versus a part that's delibrately installed incorrectly to cause a malfunction?

manfredo 7y ago

Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is not the deliberate introduction of malfunctions, it is the engineering tradeoff between longevity and other characteristics. For example, Apple noticed that most customers replaced their phones within 2-3 years. A lithium ion battery's lifetime is determined by its charging and discharge characteristics. Its life is extended if it is charged more slowly and neither charged or discharged fully. But this increases charge time and reduced usable battery capacity - both of which are key selling features for smartphones. So Apple optimized the iPhone's battery management to deliver good charging and usable capacity, with the tradeoff that it would degrade significantly beyond 2-3 years of use. This contractor's activities would have been analogous to Apple introducing code that checks the current timestamp with the timestamp from when the phone was sold and degrading performance when that difference exceeded a threshold.

perl4ever 7y ago
"Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence" Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum.
- manfredo 7y ago
  No they are not. One is intentionally, secretly, and illegally introducing flaws to defraud an employer. The other is managing tradeoffs based on technical constraints.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I don't think that planned obsolescence is unintentional. If it's not completely secret, it's not admitted to either, and it's not illegal because it's not illegal. Is it particularly that you think that there isn't a continuum from legal actions to illegal actions? Isn't it possible and common that two instances of similar actions can be on the right and wrong sides of the law?
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Planned obsolescence is not at all unintentional, it is highly deliberate. Every product needs to plan for it's intended lifespan, from phones to nuclear reactors. Planned obsolescence and what this contractor did are not on any sort of continuum. This contractor was not making a trade-off, he deliberately sabotaged his work. This is not on any sort of continuum with optimizing phone's battery life for a certain number of years, or making similar tradeoffs.
      - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        I agree with you to the extent that companies design their products to become obsolete in a way that actually considers all of the trade-offs in a way that makes optimal use of the resource at hand and does not intentionally shorten the lifespan of its products in an attempt to boost sales at the expense of generating additional waste and reducing the value of the finished product. Once you start doing that, you ARE being intentionally destructive.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        What I think you're ignoring is that they are both examples of utilizing dishonesty for profit. Planned obsolescence could in the abstract be just about making a trade-off between price and durability, but in all real instances it leverages the fact that the consumer can't reliably assess the ratio of cost to lifespan of a product. If the trade-off was transparent to the buyer, then competition would produce much more durable products, even if not infinitely durable.
    - rumanator 7y ago
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum. They really aren't. All engineered products are designed to meet a target service life. Even today's houses are designed with a design lifespan of 50 years. A consumer product is not different.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Saying all products have an engineered service life is beside the point. Planned obsolescence is not transparent. They don't tell you what those engineering decisions are - they don't put labels saying this item costs $X/year and this item costs $Y/year. Consumers would choose differently if they had trustworthy information for everything. Saying people are ok with that is like saying people choose to get melamine in their milk if they choose the cheapest.
mythrwy 7y ago
Weren't there some printer manufacturers doing almost exactly that with ink cartridges?

jlarocco 7y ago

It feels like your being obtuse on purpose. Surely you understand the difference between a part that naturally wears out over time due to friction and wear and tear, versus a part that's delibrately installed incorrectly to cause a malfunction?