Planned Obsolescence: The Environmental Toll of Unrepairable Tech

8 mins

With more people than phones on Earth, tech giants’ relentless pursuit of upgrades via planned obsolescence is exacerbating the global e-waste crisis, highlighting the urgent need for longer-lasting, easily repairable devices

Anyone using Windows 10 on their laptop might want to plan ahead: in October next year it will cease to work. You will need to upgrade to Windows 11. The problem? An estimated 40 per cent of laptops won’t be compatible. What will follow is expected to be the single biggest jump in junked PCs and laptops ever.

Most of us have experienced the frustrations of upgrading. Or of not being able to fix something when it breaks. But – perhaps – also the excitement of, say, getting a new phone, even if the ‘old’ one worked perfectly well. The environmental impact is obvious: so-called e-waste – electronic waste – is by far the fastest growing category of stuff ending up in landfill. So the question arises: why doesn’t the design of our gadgets, from our Kindles to our kitchen appliances, allow for more easier upgrade or repair? 

‘What we need is a right to be able to fix our stuff: access to parts, tools and information to make it possible,’ argues Lucas Gutterman, head of the Right to Repair and now the Designed to Last campaign (under the US non-profit Public Interest Research Group). ‘Younger people may not remember just how easy it was to swap out a tired battery in their phones for a new one. Most people now can’t even get to see the battery in their phones.’

Planned Obsolescence

This is the result of a culture called ‘planned obsolescence’ – the idea that some manufacturers deliberately make products in a way such that they can’t be easily physically upgraded or repaired. That is in part about protecting their brand – a second-hand or third party part may not work as well and that would reflect badly on them. But, to state the obvious, it’s more to do with profit. 

Pile of used Electronic Waste on white background as reference to planned obsolescence

If the idea of planned obsolescence sounds like a conspiracy theory, there is much evidence of its implementation. Most famously, in the 1920s a cartel of lightbulb manufacturers teamed up to limit the lifespan of their products to around 1000 hours, much shorter than the previous standard, while car manufacturers started to use trends in styling and colour as a means of encouraging people to buy a new vehicle. In the 1930s planned obsolescence was, remarkably, even proposed as a way of tackling the Depression – after a predetermined period of time, manufactured goods would be ‘legally dead’ and recalled. The late 80s saw the event of ‘fast fashion’ and, it can sometimes seem, fast everything else too. 

You may not know that Google Chromebooks – one of the world’s best-selling laptops – are sold with expiration dates, like a carton of milk

‘That sense that things are not made as well today as they used to be is absolutely true,’ laughs Jeroen Merk, of the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations in Amsterdam and co-ordinator of its Good Electronics activist network. ‘Planned obsolescence is a business technique that ensures the electronics we buy will become outdated fairly quickly. That creates demand for new products – it’s not so much consumers asking for them. Obviously planned obsolescence has been central to the fashion industry but I think the problem is that we’ve almost come to expect it with any mass consumer goods.’

Pressure to Change

The good news is that this culture is increasingly under pressure to change: Gutterman’s campaign, for example, is seeing several US states introducing ‘right to repair’ legislation. You may not know that Google Chromebooks – one of the world’s best-selling laptops – are sold with expiration dates, like a carton of milk. Last September the pressure Gutterman put on Google encouraged it to introduce 10 years of support for Chromebooks. 

Chromebooks in a pile charging their batteries
Google Chromebooks – one of the world’s best-selling laptops – are sold with expiration dates

There is change in Europe too. The EU has recently supported a ban on planned obsolescence and next year introduces a directive requiring electronics manufacturers to make their products easier to repair, reuse and recycle. Products will be rated for how well they meet this, so consumers can make an informed choice. There are also more companies offering repair kits and posting repair guides so you can better upgrade your own devices. 

In 2017 Apple also faced its ‘battery-gate’ scandal, when it admitted it had actively been slowing the performance of older iPhones

Most strikingly, last year the French government launched an official investigation into allegations that Apple is pursuing planned obsolescence as a business model – and, more specifically, what’s called ‘parts-pairing’.

That means an iPhone’s serial number is linked to the serial numbers of its internal parts so the phone notices if its battery, screen or sensor has been replaced – even using a part from another iPhone – and stops it working properly. An Apple-authorised technician can fix this, invariably at a price that makes replacement rather than repair more appealing. In 2017 Apple also faced its ‘battery-gate’ scandal, when it admitted it had actively been slowing the performance of older iPhones.

computer keyboard being repaired
Next year The EU will introduce a directive requiring electronics manufacturers to make their products easier to repair, reuse and recycle

‘Manufacturers have traditionally been very defensive [about planned obsolescence] but I think more and more are realising that their position is hard to maintain any longer, even if there’s still resistance to the introduction of a fully-functioning repair economy,’ says Ugo Vallauri, co-founder of the Restart Project, a campaign group that played a key part in driving the EU legislation through. And legislation, he reckons, will be key – ‘I don’t expect to see much voluntary change.’

That’s less true of us consumers though. According to Gutterman, there isn’t the same drive to think of our electronic devices as objects of fashion as there was even just a few years ago. This is in part because ‘while there was a time when a new product offered significantly better features, that’s rarely the case now,’ he says. ‘The fact is that these are mature technologies, and that should be celebrated.’

Game Changers

Crucially, there is also a growing interest in the more modular approach to design – that’s when a product is made up of smaller, connected parts can be easily swapped out or added to – being provided by start-ups the likes of Fairphone, in cellphones, Framework, in laptops, or Transparent, in speakers and now turntables. Importantly, the more modular a design is, the easier it can be disassembled for recycling when it really does reach the end of its life.

Fairphone are creating transparent, sustainable phones to disrupt the status quo

Back in 2012 Per Brickstad, co-founder of Transparent, was a designer at Nokia. ‘Certainly design managers at big companies didn’t really have ideas about modularity or circular design on their agenda then,’ he says. ‘Even now typically the major manufacturers think about these issues far too late in the design process. If they cared about them from the start that would actually provide a huge business opportunity now [authorised repairing, servicing and re-selling could be a massive new source of revenue too, as it has been in the car industry]. If they offer well-designed products that work well and can be upgraded or repaired then people will buy them.’

‘The idea of selling new things is integral to the whole system of capitalism. Technology companies aren’t evil. They’re just working to an outdated model that is so deeply rooted’

Per Brickstad, co-founder of Transparent,

He concedes that not all electronics can easily be re-thought in a modular way. And that some won’t be as aesthetically pleasing as they otherwise could be: ‘sometimes you have to compromise on style to allow access to the mechanism inside, for example,’ he says. But, given the shocking wastage that is currently the norm – and the fact that, thanks to the Internet of Things, more and more of our products have an electronic component – that should be an acceptable price to pay.

Indeed, in the shift towards a more recyclable, repairable future, there are big if complex questions to consider, not least, as Brickstad points out, ‘that the idea of selling new things is integral to the whole system of capitalism. Technology companies aren’t evil. They’re just working to an outdated model that is so deeply rooted.’

op View Of Caucasian Woman In the Loft Apartment Sitting On Carpet Next To Couch and Connecting Smartphone to Smart Home System
thanks to the Internet of Things, more and more of our products have an electronic componen

Vallauri says we should think of all this in the context of the need for more systemic change. How can we blame people for getting excited about wanting the latest gadget in the light of the huge spend by corporations on advertising to persuade them they really need it? Or the financial incentives given to make that upgrade? Likewise, he sees a tension in governments pushing drivers to shift to electric cars and junking countless millions of perfectly-functioning combustion engine cars in the process. 

‘The problem comes when the introduction of new technology is presented as a silver bullet [to help solve a problem] without considering the eco-system as a whole and how that can be reconsidered to be much more sustainable,’ he says. We need, he says, to think smarter about why we buy the things we buy, how we might better use them, and if and when we need to replace them.’

Newsletter signup

SIGN UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER

AND GET OUR LATEST ARTICLES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX EACH WEEK!


THE ETHICALIST. INTELLIGENT CONTENT FOR SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES