Talk:Planned obsolescence/Archives/2020

Lack of examples

A lot of weight here is placed on explaining the design concept of planned obselescence, but few if any actual examples are given.

Of particular note is that the history of planted obselescence seeming to stop abruptly 40 years ago - while the legislation section is current till 2015.

Understandably no company would like to be referenced, but in the interests of giving the article a more factual basis I propose some examples are given - though I wouldn't nominate any personally since I raised this issue.

--103.42.218.178 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Original Research

Several examples cited here seem to be based on original research. For instance, the section on "Prevention of repairs" names a particular type of blender (in not altogether grammatical English), but cites only marketing materials by the manufacturer. The inference that the suggested replacement "is almost equivalent to buying a new device" is transparently the writer's own. Similarly, the section on "Perceived obsolescence" cites no source at all, but makes claims such as certain shoes being "a prime example", and uses unsourced terminology ("fashion cycle", "colorway") to make its point. This also appears to reflect the writer's own interpretation.31.164.28.40 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-objectivity

Why is this generally being presented as a positive act in the article? It is objectively a nuisance across many sectors as well as being harmful to consumers and the environment. This article reads like it was written by executives who use and support this tactic, and only 1 small section criticizes that view. 216.246.150.92 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)