ak47wong said:
There are people who want durable and reliable devices. There are those who hate mobile phones with cameras, colour screens and tiny buttons, but as long as there are enough people willing to keep spending their disposable income on the latest gizmo, no matter how flawed they are, they'll be the ones the manufacturers are trying to make money from.
I'm afraid you are right. But couldn't some manufacturer have mercy and produce something for the minority? To me it seems they'd have the monopoly right now. And I mean, high end hi-fi companies somehow survive, too. Or luxury car makers that only produce a few dozen cars every year. It is not impossible to make a profit by catering to a smaller group of customers, as long as those are willing to pay.
But consider how far prices have dropped. Remember how much Discmans and MD players and mobile phones used to cost when they were first introduced? How much the iPod used to cost? The technology has been improving, yet things are getting cheaper all the time. Are you still willing to pay the sort of prices that were being commanded for these things a few years ago before they became popular?
Yes, I am. And I'm not rich, not at all; I'm just very selective when it comes to spending my money. When I want something, then either I get that which I consider to be among the best in its class, or I try to make do without any such item. Rarely will I compromise and get something cheaper when I cannot afford the better alternative.
That's not a realistic expectation. Different products have different lifespans, and often the lifespan is related to how quickly the technology is moving in that area. Your two watches are not technology devices. Assuming they're tasteful, they won't become obsolete.
Makers of quartz watches might argue that they have been obsolete since the seventies.
And just to clarify, I do not mind having my stuff serviced and repaired once in a while. Those watches wouldn't be ticking today without the manufacturers' maintenance. Electronics companies usually do not offer that type of long term maintenance, though.
But why would you want an old television to last until you're dead?
Hmm. Seriously, why not?
Or a brick-sized mobile phone?
I have no idea about mobile phones, as I have never owned one. But provided I could still use that brick with today's phone networks, then I would see no need to replace it.
Or a computer from the 1980s?
I would probably replace that one, true. Computers are one area where the technological progress not only makes significant improvements every year, but where it also makes the older computers useless, as they are practically incompatible to current software. I buy a new computer every four to five years, and usually I save by buying last year's model, as it will spend most of its time being obsolete anyway. Also, I have mostly lost interest in computer games, so it is no longer necessary for me to be on the cutting edge of hardware.
Still, even for computers there are makers that try to build things that last. Look at the Thinkpads (ok, maybe a bad example, now that IBM sold that department to Lenovo; I hope they stay the same). They have kept the same boring black looks since the early nineties. Their specs make gamers yawn, their prices make bargain hunters turn away in disgust. But their keyboards feel like real keyboards in addition to being splashproof, their shells are made of titanium and magnesium, drivers are being kept up-to-date even for the old machines, spare parts have been kept in stock since the stone age, and repair services are available pretty much worldwide. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort (and price), but they try.
"Planned obsolescence" doesn't just mean the manufacturers make them cheap so you have to keep replacing them. It also means they don't unnecessarily expend cost and effort on making something last longer than it needs to. It costs money to make things last. How much do you think your watches cost? A lot more than the $2 ones you can buy from discount stores, I'm sure.
I don't know exactly, I got them from my grandfathers. But yes, they weren't from the bargain bin. However, neither were they prohibitively expensive luxury items.
Would you want to pay the cost of making a mobile phone last until you're dead when you're not even going to be using it in a few years time?
As I said, I cannot really comment too much on mobile phones, as I have no problem living without one. I'm not sure if their situation is like computers. If external changes (different signal sending, or whatever) make mobile phones useless every few years, then I would not invest too much in one. If on the other hand it is unlikely that I won't be able to use a mobile phone for making phone calls in the future, then I would want to get a better one. And given that I wouldn't want fancy cameras, colour screens etc., I might actually get away pretty cheap if I bought what I considered to be a better phone.
As technology moves on, technology devices become obsolete all the time. It's true that a lot of them aren't built to last: sometimes it's just because they're shoddy, but it's also because the manufacturers don't really expect you to be using them in a few years because they'll be out-of-date and obsolete by then anyway.
I can see that for some types of devices. But how would a quality DAP become obsolete? Maybe the storage size will increase. Maybe in the future there will be Terabyte-sized flash players that store everything in lossless formats. Still, I would be able to use that old DAP just fine. Today's sound quality, storage size, battery life and drag&drop file management are good enough for me. My MP3-encoder will keep working, so I would be able to get new music onto the player. Apart from a technical failure there is no reason why I should not be able to use that DAP in the future.
And to be honest, right now I do not see any progress in DAP development. Rather, it looks suspiciously like the "sneakerization" is already going strong: the basic functions stay the same, there is very little difference between brands and models, changes are mostly cosmetical or non-music-related features.
I don't doubt that for the large companies there is more money to make by producing DAPs like today. But I'm frustrated that no-one even tries making a product for the minority. These niche markets exist in so many areas, why not DAPs?
Björn