Are products designed to fail?

cepheus

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I agree on this point and it is just good business, however I do not believe that the vast majority of companies design their products to fail

This is too simplistic. True if cars were designed to fall apart after 3 years, no-one would buy them because their re-sale value would be insignificant. However, if they could be driven and remain in fashion for 30 years, their customers wouldn't need to come back to buy another. Either way the company goes bankrupt. Hence they need to build them well, but not too well. When the Eastern manufacturers started to guarantee bodywork for 3, 5 and 7 years the old British Manufacturers had to start extending their warranties. As Mankysteve implies, it is a compromise to maximise profits, not really provide what the consumer needs.

I am extremely suspicious about computer speeds. We are always being told how faster processors are, but the actual basic operations never really seems to get that much faster, perhaps because the software always seems to become more complex, with more bells and whistles. Are high resolution games and fancy interactive interfaces effectively forcing us to buy new computers every 3 years? Could they not supply a choice of a light version of software. I suggest manufacturers of computer hardware and software voluntarily allow each other to drive their products into obsolescence purely to increase sales.