noamineo wrote on Nov 21
st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
Funny thing is, planned obsolescence, in its purest form, wasn't a bad thing.
The guy who coined the phrase envisioned a world where you'd buy, say, a toaster. And Then next year a new toaster would come out with better features, and you'd sell your old toaster on the secondary market and buy the newer one(sell, donate to goodwill, give away, etc).
The plan was NOT that as a toaster engineer, you'd design a toaster to break after 1 year, thus forcing the consumer to go buy a new one.
your statement goes directly against this source, please elaborate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History_and_origins_of_the_ph... Quote:In the United States, automotive design reached a turning point in 1924 when the American national automobile
market began reaching saturation. To maintain unit sales, General Motors head Alfred P. Sloan Jr. suggested annual model-year design changes to convince car owners that they needed to buy a new replacement each year, an idea borrowed from the bicycle industry, though the concept is often misattributed to Sloan.[7] Critics called his strategy "planned obsolescence". Sloan preferred the term "dynamic obsolescence". This strategy had far-reaching effects on the auto business, the field of product design, and eventually the American economy. The smaller players could not maintain the pace and expense of yearly re-styling. Henry Ford did not like the model-year change because he clung to an engineer's notions of simplicity, economies of scale, and design integrity. GM surpassed Ford's sales in 1931 and became the dominant company in the industry thereafter. The frequent design changes also made it necessary to use a body-on-frame rather than the lighter, but less flexible,[clarification needed] monocoque design used by most European automakers.
The origins of phrase, planned obsolescence, go back at least as far as 1932 with Bernard London's pamphlet Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence.[8] The essence of London's plan would have the government impose a legal obsolescence on consumer articles, to stimulate and perpetuate consumption.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/London_%281932%29_Ending_the..."I would have the Government assign a lease of life to shoes and homes and machines, to all
products of manufacture, mining and agriculture, when they are first created, and they would
be sold and used within the term of their existence definitely known by the consumer. After
the allotted time had expired, these things would be legally “dead” and would be controlled
by the duly appointed governmental agency and destroyed if there is widespread
unemployment. New products would constantly be pouring forth from the factories and
marketplaces, to take the place of the obsolete, and the wheels of industry would be kept
going and employment regularized and assured for the masses. " so i take from this that planned obsolescence was always intended to
noamineo wrote on Nov 21
st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
force the consumer to go buy a new one.
i have once again made clear why i believe your various opinions continue to suck nolameo