it's called engineered obsolescence, a concept driven by German auto industry post 2000 and the reason why they are all in financial trouble today.
Specific example: they started using plastic engine parts with plastics that last a set number of heat cycles. They are designed to fail within a set time period. AUDI now uses plastic oil pans that cost as much as steel pan to make. BMWs are catching fire from pressurized fuel systems failing because the plastics are failing.
They also move the timing chains to the back of the motor, so that when the chains fails, it will be too much labor to replace and the car is junked.

Tesla uses structural battery packs, so when the pack dies, the car dies. Similar concept to gluing phones together.

Companies are not people. They have no ethics. The only thing that keeps them in check is regulation and market forces.

Dont get me wrong, humans are just shit, and I think any system is going to eventually fail because assholes get in power. But more places could at least try a mixed capitalism/socialist approach like we have seen works in Norway/Denmark (at least I think thats how they aporoach it)

There's also aesthetics and other factors. Most people don't want the super-rugged phones with the rubberized bits and so on.

Another thing to consider is sometimes people don't want to (or can't) spend top dollar on something that will last forever. For example, if I'm new into a hobby, I'm not going to go out and buy the absolute best out there. I'll usually shoot for somewhere in between "not shit" and "fairly decent" depending on what it is. If I get good enough and want to upgrade, then at that point I can look at the higher-end stuff and I'll have the bonus of now knowing what properties I need to look for. If the cheaper equipment is still working I can re-sell or donate it. If not, maybe I'll try to fix/mod it before tossing.

Idk, taxes maybe? They (gvnmt) always find money when they want/need. Securing someone for 6-7 years (enough time to land on your feet) doesn't seem like too much money on a country level when you consider other areas of spending (defense/consulting/...)

If the company was that good, it must've brought some numbers

(I believe, idk I'm no expert at all)

I generally believe most of the unrepairability we see in tech is coming from consumer preferences more than planned obsolescence. Thin, waterproof phones are inherently hard to repair. I'm sure obsolescence is a factor that motivates companies in that direction too, but reputation around longevity does influence purchasing decisions, so it's not something which they can do "for free" as it were. Making phones thin and light, on the other hand, is positive for sales.

Imagine you went to a football game and bought a serving fries. They come in a little clay-lined paper dish. The clay lining in that dish resists small amounts of oil for about 30 minutes, but after that time is up, the oil will penetrate through, soaking the dish and possibly staining your clothes.

The manufacturer could've used a plastic lining instead. It's more resistant for much longer, and is still food-safe at reasonable temperatures. Is the choice of clay over plastic unethical? Or is it reasonable to pick a cheaper, more recyclable material with the assumption that it won't take most people a full 30 minutes to eat their fries?

Different things have different purposes and need to meet different standards. "Breakable" vs "durable" isn't an objective measurement of quality.

Bless their little heart.

People make the decisions at companies and those people should be held accountable for their lack of ethics.

Exactly 💯

The lie of free market is in the assumption of perfect knowledge. In order for the free market to work as intended (self regulate), the consumer is supposed to have the perfect knowledge of the product, its internal quality, all available alternatives and their respective prices. In reality, absolutely no consumer can possibly have the necessary breadth of knowledge about each and every product they buy and service they use, so the market winners are the ones with the best marketing and/or lowest prices.

And that is why nothing seems to last anymore.

I am just curious to know who disliked your comment??
BTW,thanks for telling about this product, I will buy it.

Bullshit. The pricier products just have more bells and whistles but they too break just after warranty. The times when you could buy quality for the right price are long over.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. A higher quality product will be more expensive, but this does not mean that a more expensive product is higher quality.

You absolutely can still buy high quality products, but it requires more research than just looking for something with a high price tag.

It's also often not worth it economically. If a $100 part lasts for 5 years and a $500 alternative lasts for 15 years, technically the $500 part is higher quality, but it's probably not the better choice unless there are other factors at play, since it's cheaper to buy the $100 part 3 times instead of the $500 part.

Right. Find me a quality fridge that will last a decade then.

I've never had a fridge last less than a decade. Is this a common problem with your fridges?

No, it's a problem I hear about the most from my friends and family. There seems to be no reliable brand on the market right now, you might get lucky with your individual appliance but you cannot buy certainty. My own fridge, knock on wood, seems alright for now, but I paid through the nose for a "quality" Miele dishwasher that broke right after warranty.

Ah well, that'll be where the billions come from, lol.

I remember when the standard cup for those events was waxy paper, and the feeling of condensation coming off of the wax and making your fingers extra grippy.

Now most paper cups are lined with polyethylene, so they don't leak but also can't be recycled or composted properly.

IIRC a leveraged buyout is where one “company” buys another company using loans and then makes the acquired company pay the loan including interest.

You can pay more to get better made things. Like most refrigerators are trash now, you can buy a commercial grade one and it will last like the one you had in the 70-80s but it costs $5,000+ easily and has nothing special about it.

no, of course it’s not. but ethics for the worker and consumer do not exist under capitalism. only for the shareholder.

yes

Is it ethical to do something unethical?

No

For me personally; the parallel of that is that I can fix things and/or upgrade them.

Lol is this french lmao?

Ok corpbro.

The people's billionaires

No idea. Did someone dislike it? Not many capitalists here so it's surprising.

planned obselescence is an ongoing thing, they figured if they make a very long lasting product, they wont be returning customers, what better way to use shrinkflation,chepflation every 2-5 years. things like fridges and microwaves often is replaced every 2 years.

If they can make it indestructible but it costs three times as much, it's not unethical for them to make a less-indestructible version that they sell for less money.

Anything beyond that is rent-seeking.

It was a pun about Mao :)

Maybe not capitalists, but consumers. Anyway, capitalism is thriving on consumers.

I see! Digging a little deep on that one but well done

I would not want to own a car, of almost any make, made after 2010, because they are made shittier on purpose while being more expensive and harder to work on. One company that stands out is Tesla. Even before the Cyberdumpster Shitbox came out, I had decided I'd never own one after a story I'd seen on Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel. A guy bought a used Tesla that had been upgraded with extended range. After bringing it in for an unrelated issue, those assholes rescinded the upgrade and wanted $6,000 to give back what they took away. More and more other manufacturers are trying to pull similar bullshit, which is pushing me to become more and more of a Luddite.

And half the time you buy that $5000+ refrigerator it's actually an overpriced shite refrigerator that'll break in 2 years.

May the odds be in your favor.

It's not ethical, it's capitalism and democracy in the name of the lord Money.

And if you talk too much about it then u are a communist who killed 8 billion people and likes to eat kids

Yes, I feel we are making the same point. A company is neither ethical or not. The people who work there are.

It's semantics, or a pointless distinction. Companies are composed of the people working there. If those people are doing unethical things then the company is doing unethical things and is therefore unethical.