Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Obsolescence.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Obsolescence
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
Obsolescence is the process of becoming antiquated, out of date, old-fashioned, no longer in general use, no longer useful, or superseded by innovation, or the condition of being in such a state. When used in a biological sense, it means imperfect or rudimentary when compared with the corresponding part of other organisms.[1][2] The international standard IEC 62402:2019 Obsolescence Management defines obsolescence as the "transition from available to unavailable from the manufacturer in accordance with the original specification".[3]
Obsolescence frequently occurs because a replacement has become available that has, in sum, more advantages compared to the disadvantages incurred by maintaining or repairing the original. Obsolete also refers to something that is already disused or discarded, or antiquated.[4] Typically, obsolescence is preceded by a gradual decline in popularity.
Consequences
[edit]Driven by rapid technological changes, new components are developed and launched on the market with increasing speed. The result is a dramatic change in production methods of all components and their market availability. A growing industry sector is facing issues where life cycles of products no longer fit together with life cycles of required components. This issue is known as obsolescence, the status given to a part when it is no longer available from its original manufacturer. The problem of obsolescence is most prevalent for electronics technology, wherein the procurement lifetimes for microelectronic parts are often significantly shorter than the manufacturing and support life cycles for the products that use the parts. However, obsolescence extends beyond electronic components to other items, such as materials, textiles, and mechanical parts. In addition, obsolescence has been shown to appear for software, specifications, standards, processes, and soft resources, such as human skills. It is highly important to implement and operate an active management of obsolescence to mitigate and avoid extreme costs.[5]
Types
[edit]Technical obsolescence
[edit] |
Technical obsolescence usually occurs when a new product or technology supersedes the old one, and it is preferred to use the new technology instead. Historical examples of new technologies superseding old ones include bronze replacing flint in hand-tools, DVDs replacing videocassettes, and the telephone replacing the telegraph. On a smaller scale, a particular product may become obsolete when a newer version replaces it. Many products in the computer industry become obsolete in this manner. For example, central processing units (CPUs) frequently become obsolete in favor of newer, faster units. Singularly, rapid obsolescence of data formats along with their supporting hardware and software can lead to loss of critical information, a process known as digital obsolescence.
In many cases, a new technology does not totally replace the old technology because the old technology is still useful in certain applications. For example, transistors replaced vacuum tubes in TV and radio receivers in the 1960s, but vacuum tubes were still used for powerful transmitters because transistors for these power levels were not available. Even today, one has to use multiple transistors for a purpose that used to require just one tube. [citation needed]
Products may also become obsolete when supporting technologies are no longer available to produce or even repair a product. For example, many integrated circuits, including CPUs, memory and even some relatively simple logic chips may no longer be produced because the technology has been superseded, their original developer has gone out of business or a competitor has bought them out and effectively killed off their products to remove competition. It is rarely worth redeveloping a product to get around these issues since its overall functionality and price/performance ratio has usually been superseded by that time as well.
Some products become technologically obsolete due to changes in complementary products which results in the function of the first product being made unnecessary. For example, buggy whips became obsolete when people started to travel in cars rather than in horse-drawn buggies.
Functional obsolescence
[edit] |
Items become functionally obsolete when they can no longer adequately perform the function for which they were created. For example, while one could theoretically adapt an Avro Lancaster to deploy modern JDAM bombs, the situations in which it could actually succeed at doing so against modern air defenses would be so few that it would be essentially useless.
Manufacturers and repair companies will typically cease support for products once they become obsolete as keeping production lines in place and parts in storage for a shrinking user base becomes unprofitable. This causes scarcity of spare parts and skilled technicians for repairs and thus escalates maintenance costs for obsolete products. This ultimately leads to prohibitive expense in keeping old technology functioning.
Architectural obsolescence
[edit]The term "obsolescence" was first applied to the built environment in 1910 in an attempt to explain American skyscrapers' sudden loss of value.[6] New York engineer Reginald P. Bolton attributed this phenomenon to "something new and better out-competing the old" and calculated the average architectural lifespan of varying building types in order to formulate a rough estimate for their impending obsolescence.[6] For example, he suggested that hotels' obsolescence will occur faster than banks due to their ever-changing functions and tastes.[7]
Planned obsolescence
[edit]Sometimes marketers deliberately introduce obsolescence into their product strategy, with the objective of generating long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases. One example might be producing an appliance which is deliberately designed to wear out within five years of its purchase, pushing consumers to replace it within five years.
Inventory obsolescence
[edit]Inventory obsolescence occurs when retailers and other vendors hold stocks for anticipated future sales which turn out to be too slow to materialise. Holding excessive levels of stock or over-predicting potential demand increase the risks of products becoming obsolete and have a detrimental effect on the organisation's cash flow. Companies may address this problem alongside a periodic stock count by assessing which of their stock items are slow-moving or not selling at all.[8]
Style obsolescence
[edit] |
When a product is no longer desirable because it has gone out of the popular fashion, its style is obsolete. One example is flared leg jeans; although this article of clothing may still be perfectly functional, it is no longer desirable because style trends have moved away from the flared leg cut.
Because of the "fashion cycle", stylistically obsolete products may eventually regain popularity and cease to be obsolete. An example is "acid-wash" jeans, which were popular in the 1980s, became stylistically obsolete in the mid to late 1990s, and returned to popularity in the 2000s.
Moral obsolescence
[edit]![[icon]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (January 2025) |
Obsolescence management
[edit]Obsolescence management, also referred to as "Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages" (DMSMS), is defined as to the activities that are undertaken to mitigate the effects of obsolescence. Activities can include last-time buys, lifetime buys, and obsolescence monitoring.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Definition obsolescence noun". Merriam-Webster. 2023. Retrieved 19 January 2023.
- ^ "Definition of obsolescence". Dictionary.com. 2022. Retrieved 19 January 2023.
- ^ IEC 62402:2019 Obsolescence Management - published 15 July 2019 ISBN 978 0 580 96776 4
- ^ Fowler HW and Fowler FG (1st ed.), Thompson Delia (ed.) (1995). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th Ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-861319-9.
- ^ Bjoern Bartels, Ulrich Ermel, Peter Sandborn and Michael G. Pecht (2012). Strategies to the Prediction, Mitigation and Management of Product Obsolescence, 1st. Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. ISBN 1-11-814064-8 .
- ^ a b Abramson, Daniel (2012). "From Obsolescence to Sustainability, Back Again, and Beyond". Design and Culture. 4 (3): 279–298. doi:10.2752/175470812X13361292229078. S2CID 143319829.
- ^ Bolton, R.P. (1911). Building for Profit: Principles Governing the Economic Improvement of Real Estate. New York: De Vinne.
- ^ Dell, Managing Inventory Obsolescence for Improved Retail Performance, published 2012, accessed 25 February 2021
Further reading
[edit]- Bjoern Bartels, Ulrich Ermel, Peter Sandborn, and Michael G. Pecht: Strategies to the Prediction, Mitigation and Management of Product Obsolescence, 1st. Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2012, ISBN 1-11-814064-8, (online copy (Google) at Google Books)
External links
[edit]
Look up obsolescence or obsolete in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Obsolescence.
Media related to Obsolescence at Wikimedia Commons
| International | |
|---|---|
| Other | |
Obsolescence
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Obsolescence is the process by which an object, technology, system, or practice diminishes in utility or value due to the emergence of superior alternatives driven by innovation, efficiency gains, or shifts in external conditions such as market demands or regulatory changes.[1][2] This phenomenon arises fundamentally from comparative advantage: newer options provide better performance per unit of cost or resource, rendering prior versions suboptimal without inherent degradation of the old.[3] Common forms include functional obsolescence, where outdated design features cannot be remedied economically to match modern standards; economic obsolescence, stemming from uncontrollable externalities like locational disadvantages or industry-wide shifts; and technological obsolescence, marked by discontinued support or incompatibility with evolving infrastructure.[1][2][3] Planned obsolescence, a deliberate strategy to curtail product lifespan and encourage repeat purchases, has been theorized to benefit producers in concentrated markets by aligning durability with profit maximization, though empirical analyses reveal it often interacts with natural technological churn rather than dominating consumer replacement cycles.[4][5] In dynamic economies, obsolescence fuels creative destruction, spurring productivity growth but also necessitating adaptation to avoid stranded assets, as evidenced in sectors like electronics where rapid iteration outpaces individual product longevity.[6] Controversies center on whether accelerated obsolescence via design reflects manipulative intent or inevitable progress, with studies indicating competitive pressures typically favor reliability over engineered failure to retain market share.[7][8]
Definition and Fundamentals
Core Concepts and Distinctions
Obsolescence refers to the process by which an asset, technology, or product loses its utility or value not primarily due to physical deterioration, but because of external developments such as technological progress or shifts in market conditions that render it comparatively inferior.[9] In economic terms, this occurs when a productive asset becomes outdated, diminishing its capacity to generate returns independent of wear and tear.[9] From a first-principles perspective, obsolescence emerges causally from the accumulation of knowledge and resource efficiencies that enable superior alternatives, supplanting prior solutions without inherent flaw in the obsolete entity itself.[10] A fundamental distinction lies between obsolescence and depreciation: while depreciation encompasses both physical exhaustion and obsolescence, the latter specifically isolates losses attributable to innovation or environmental changes rather than entropy or usage-induced decline.[11] For instance, a machine may depreciate through component fatigue, but obsolescence strikes when a newer model achieves higher productivity via redesigned processes, irrespective of the original's condition.[12] This separation underscores causal realism, as obsolescence reflects systemic progress rather than isolated degradation, often accelerating in dynamic sectors like electronics where patent-driven innovations render prior technologies non-viable.[10] Core types include functional obsolescence, where an item's design features become outdated relative to evolving standards or user expectations, such as inefficient layouts in machinery that cannot be remedied without excessive cost; and economic obsolescence, driven by extrinsic factors like regulatory shifts or locational disadvantages that erode value beyond the asset's control.[1][13] Technological obsolescence, a subset often overlapping with functional, arises when advancements in materials or methods—evident in sectors like computing where Moore's Law historically doubled transistor density approximately every two years until circa 2015—supplant existing systems through superior performance metrics.[14] These distinctions highlight relative versus absolute forms: relative obsolescence pertains to outperformance by alternatives, preserving the obsolete item's baseline functionality, whereas absolute variants involve irremediable breakdowns or unavailability of support, though the former predominates in analyses of innovation-driven economies.[15]First-Principles Analysis
Obsolescence arises fundamentally from the relative decline in an entity's utility when superior alternatives emerge, rendering the former suboptimal for fulfilling human needs or wants. Utility, defined as the ratio of benefits delivered (e.g., performance, reliability) to costs incurred (e.g., resources, time, effort), diminishes not through inherent failure but through comparative inferiority. This process is causally driven by innovation, where novel solutions recombine existing knowledge or materials to achieve higher efficiency, displacing entrenched methods as agents—individuals, firms, or markets—selectively adopt what maximizes net value.[14][16] In economic systems, this manifests as creative destruction, a mechanism identified by Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, whereby entrepreneurial innovation continuously upends established structures, obliterating obsolete practices while fostering growth through new opportunities. Schumpeter posited this as capitalism's core dynamic: "the process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." Unlike static equilibrium models, this underscores obsolescence as an endogenous outcome of competitive pressures, where failure to innovate leads to market displacement, evidenced historically in sectors like textiles during the Industrial Revolution, where steam power supplanted handlooming by 1830, reducing production costs by over 90%.[17][18] Technological domains illustrate this principle through exponential scaling laws, such as Moore's Law, formulated by Gordon Moore in 1965, predicting that transistor density on integrated circuits would double roughly every two years, exponentially lowering computing costs—from $1 million for one megahertz in 1970 to under $0.01 by 2020—while boosting performance, thereby accelerating hardware obsolescence cycles to 2-4 years for most devices. This causal chain—improved density enabling cheaper, faster chips—compels replacement not by breakdown but by opportunity costs, as users migrate to systems offering vastly superior capabilities for equivalent or reduced expense. Empirical data confirms shorter lifecycles across electronics, with average smartphone replacement occurring every 2.5 years as of 2023, driven by such advancements rather than durability limits.[19][20][21]Historical Development
Pre-Industrial Examples
The transition from bronze to iron tools and weapons during the late Bronze Age collapse around 1200 BCE marked an early instance of material-driven obsolescence in the Near East and Mediterranean. Bronze, alloyed from copper and scarce tin, yielded high-quality but costly implements dependent on long-distance trade networks; iron smelting from ubiquitous ores enabled cheaper, more scalable production, with carburized iron achieving superior hardness for edges and points.[22] This shift, accelerating by 1000 BCE, undermined bronze's elite exclusivity, as iron-equipped forces—often infantry—overpowered chariot-based bronze warriors in conflicts like those involving the Hittites and Sea Peoples, fostering societal changes toward broader militarization.[23] In medieval Europe, gunpowder's dissemination from China via the Islamic world rendered traditional castles functionally obsolete by the 15th century. Vertical curtain walls and towers, optimized against pre-gunpowder threats like catapults and scaling ladders, crumbled under sustained cannon fire, whose explosive projectiles—evident in sieges such as the 1453 fall of Constantinople—delivered kinetic energy far exceeding stone-thrown equivalents.[24] Defensive architecture adapted with the trace italienne system, featuring low, sloped bastions for enfilading fire and earthen ramparts to absorb impacts, as seen in Italian fortifications from the 1460s onward; by 1500, few new concentric castles were built, signaling the paradigm's end.[25] Agricultural implements also exhibited obsolescence, as the iron-tipped ard plow of early medieval Europe supplanted wooden scratch plows by the 8th century, enabling deeper tillage in heavy soils and boosting yields in regions like the Carolingian Empire.[26] These replacements stemmed from resource availability and tactical necessities rather than deliberate design, contrasting later industrial strategies, yet they similarly accelerated economic and military realignments.Modern Industrial and Technological Eras
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Industrial Revolution's mass production techniques initially emphasized durable goods to capture emerging consumer markets, but by the 1920s, manufacturers increasingly adopted strategies to shorten product lifespans and induce replacement purchases, marking the rise of planned obsolescence. General Motors, under Alfred Sloan's leadership, pioneered annual automobile model changes starting in 1923, featuring stylistic updates like new grilles and colors to render prior models aesthetically outdated, thereby stimulating demand amid market saturation.[27] This approach contrasted with earlier eras' focus on longevity, as industrialists recognized that perpetual durability could stagnate sales in mature economies.[28] A prominent example occurred in 1924 when the Phoebus cartel, comprising major lightbulb producers including Osram, Philips, and General Electric, convened in Geneva to standardize bulb lifespans at 1,000 hours—halving the prior average of around 2,500 hours achieved in early 20th-century testing.[29] Cartel members imposed fines on firms exceeding this limit and shared engineering data to enforce filament designs prone to early failure, prioritizing volume sales over endurance despite technical feasibility for longer life.[30] This collusion, which persisted until the cartel's dissolution around 1939 amid World War II disruptions, exemplified how industrial coordination could embed obsolescence into core products, boosting revenue through frequent replacements while suppressing innovation in durability.[29] The mid-20th-century technological era accelerated functional obsolescence through rapid innovation cycles, particularly in electronics, where semiconductor advancements outpaced mechanical industries. Gordon Moore's 1965 observation, later formalized as Moore's Law, predicted the number of transistors on integrated circuits would double approximately every two years, enabling exponential gains in computing power, speed, and efficiency at declining costs.[31] This dynamic rendered hardware obsolete within 2-4 years, as seen in the transition from vacuum-tube computers in the 1940s to transistor-based systems by the 1960s, which offered superior performance and compactness, stranding earlier investments.[20] By the 1980s and 1990s, personal computers and peripherals like floppy drives faced swift displacement by CD-ROMs and USB storage, driven by compatibility demands and performance gaps rather than deliberate degradation. Such cycles, while fostering technological progress, compelled consumers and firms to upgrade frequently, embedding obsolescence as an inherent byproduct of innovation-driven markets.[20]Types and Mechanisms
Technical and Functional Obsolescence
Technical obsolescence occurs when a technology or product becomes outdated due to advancements that render it less efficient, incompatible, or inferior to newer alternatives, even if it remains operational.[12][32] This process is driven by rapid innovation cycles, where superior performance metrics—such as processing speed, energy efficiency, or data capacity—supplant prior standards; for instance, the transition from 3.5-inch floppy disks, which held 1.44 MB of data and were standard until the early 2000s, to USB flash drives offering gigabytes of storage by 2004, made floppy drives incompatible with modern systems and effectively obsolete.[32] In hardware contexts, technical obsolescence manifests when legacy systems fail to support updated software; a 2024 analysis noted that businesses using Windows 7, unsupported since January 14, 2020, face security vulnerabilities and incompatibility with contemporary applications, compelling upgrades despite functional hardware.[33] Functional obsolescence, by contrast, arises from inherent design limitations or changes in utility standards that diminish an asset's effectiveness or desirability, independent of wear or technological incompatibility.[1] In real estate appraisal, it is quantified as a value reduction due to outdated features like inefficient layouts or obsolete fixtures; for example, homes built in the mid-20th century with single-pane windows, no central air conditioning, a 3-bedroom layout with only one bathroom, or lacking a garage incur functional obsolescence under modern energy codes and buyer expectations, with appraisers deducting costs equivalent to retrofitting—often 5-10% of property value in affected markets as of 2024.[34][35] This can be curable, such as replacing an undersized electrical panel costing 5,000, or incurable, like a building's awkward floor plan requiring structural redesign, as seen in pre-1970s commercial properties retrofitted for open-office trends post-2020.[36] Beyond property, functional obsolescence affects manufactured goods when ergonomic or regulatory shifts outpace design; aircraft like the Boeing 707, introduced in 1958, became functionally obsolete by the 1970s due to noise regulations and fuel inefficiency relative to twin-engine jets, leading to phase-outs despite airworthiness.[37] The distinction hinges on causality: technical obsolescence stems from external technological progress eroding relative performance, whereas functional obsolescence reflects internal inadequacies exposed by evolving functional requirements or preferences.[38] Both contribute to asset devaluation—technical via incompatibility costs and functional via adaptation expenses—but empirical data from depreciation analyses show functional factors often dominate in long-lived assets like infrastructure, where a 2018 guide estimated functional obsolescence accounting for up to 20% of total depreciation in industrial plants due to mismatched production standards.[39] Mitigation involves proactive redesign or modular architectures, though market dynamics accelerate both, as evidenced by the 40% annual decline in value for consumer electronics post-launch due to iterative improvements.[14]Planned and Style Obsolescence
Planned obsolescence encompasses strategies where manufacturers intentionally limit a product's functional lifespan or compatibility to accelerate replacement cycles and sustain demand. This can involve engineering components to fail prematurely, such as using substandard materials in appliances, or rendering devices obsolete through software updates that withhold support for older hardware. Empirical evidence includes the degradation of lithium-ion batteries in smartphones, which typically retain only 80% capacity after 300-500 charge cycles, prompting upgrades despite viable core functionality.[40] Such practices emerged prominently in the early 20th century; the Phoebus cartel, established in 1924 by companies including Philips, Osram, and General Electric, enforced a 1,000-hour lifespan standard for incandescent bulbs—halving the 2,000-2,500 hours achievable in earlier designs like the Centennial Light bulb, installed in 1901 and still operational as of 2025—to boost sales amid post-World War I market saturation.[29] The cartel fined non-compliant members and operated until its dissolution around 1939 due to geopolitical disruptions.[41] The concept gained formal articulation in the 1930s amid economic pressures. In 1932, real estate broker Bernard London proposed in his pamphlet Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence that governments mandate product expiration dates, such as for automobiles after three years, to stimulate consumption and counter deflation by destroying excess goods.[42] This idea influenced industrial strategies, though it was the 1954 speech by designer Brooks Stevens that popularized the term, framing it positively as "instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary" to drive economic vitality.[43] Stevens's view aligned with postwar consumer culture, where firms like Procter & Gamble introduced non-refillable razor blades in the 1920s, designed to dull after few uses, generating recurring revenue; by 2023, disposable razors accounted for over 70% of the global market despite recyclable alternatives.[40] Critics, including economist John Kenneth Galbraith in The Affluent Society (1958), argued this fostered wasteful resource allocation, prioritizing short-term profits over durability, with studies showing appliances like washing machines lasting 20-30% less in the 2010s compared to 1970s models due to cost-cutting in components.[44] Style obsolescence, distinct yet complementary to functional variants, arises when aesthetic or perceptual shifts render products undesirable, independent of performance degradation. Manufacturers exploit this through rapid design iterations that emphasize superficial changes, such as color schemes or body shapes, to evoke inferiority in prior versions. General Motors pioneered annual model year styling under Alfred Sloan in 1923, introducing visible updates like chrome accents and fenders to differentiate from competitors and prior models, which increased U.S. auto sales from 1.5 million units in 1921 to over 4.5 million by 1929 by tapping psychological drivers of status and novelty.[45] In fashion, nylon stockings exemplified this in the 1940s, engineered with a tendency to "ladder" or run after minimal wear, combining material fragility with style-driven replacement; DuPont's post-World War II marketing positioned them as disposable essentials, sustaining demand despite durable silk alternatives.[40] Empirical data from consumer surveys indicate style factors influence 40-60% of electronics upgrades, as with smartphones where new form factors or camera aesthetics prompt disposal of functionally adequate devices, contributing to e-waste volumes exceeding 62 million metric tons globally in 2022.[46] While planned and style obsolescence correlate with higher turnover—evidenced by U.S. household appliance replacement rates doubling from 10-12 years in the 1970s to 5-7 years by 2010—they face scrutiny for causal links to environmental strain, including accelerated resource extraction and landfill accumulation. Proponents counter that these mechanisms fund innovation; for instance, iterative smartphone redesigns have reduced energy per computation by 10,000-fold since 1980, though durability trade-offs persist. Regulatory responses include France's 2015 law fining non-repairable goods and the EU's 2021 right-to-repair directives mandating spare parts availability for 7-10 years, aiming to extend lifespans without stifling markets.[47] Independent analyses, such as those from the IEEE, affirm deliberate lifespan controls in select industries but caution against overgeneralizing, noting natural technological evolution often outpaces engineered failures.[29]Economic and Inventory Obsolescence
Economic obsolescence refers to the diminution in an asset's value arising from external economic or locational factors beyond the property's physical condition or internal functionality, such as shifts in market demand, regulatory changes, or neighborhood deterioration.[48] [49] Unlike physical or functional depreciation, it stems from incurable externalities that impair utility or desirability, often measured as the difference between the asset's replacement cost and its market value after adjustment.[50] For instance, a commercial property may experience economic obsolescence if nearby infrastructure improvements divert traffic, reducing footfall and rental income, as seen in cases where shopping centers lose tenants following employer relocations or demographic shifts away from the area. In real estate appraisal, such losses are quantified using income or sales comparison approaches, with external factors like rising crime rates or poor school districts exemplifying curable or incurable declines in property appeal.[51] Inventory obsolescence occurs when held stock loses economic viability due to diminished demand, technological advancements, or changes in consumer preferences, rendering it unsellable at original cost and necessitating write-downs or disposals.[52] Common triggers include inaccurate demand forecasting, end-of-product lifecycle phases, or supply chain mismatches, where overstocked items fail to move amid evolving market conditions.[53] In accounting practice, firms establish reserves for estimated net realizable value, such as writing down $4,000 on $5,000 of obsolete goods recoverable at only $1,000 through salvage or discounting.[54] For example, electronics manufacturers frequently face inventory obsolescence from rapid innovation cycles, as seen in the write-off of outdated components post-2020 semiconductor shifts driven by global supply disruptions.[55] Both forms impose direct financial burdens, with economic obsolescence eroding fixed asset values in balance sheets via appraisal adjustments, while inventory obsolescence triggers immediate expense recognition under standards like ASC 330, potentially inflating cost of goods sold by 5-20% in affected sectors such as retail or manufacturing.[56] Mitigation strategies emphasize proactive monitoring, such as periodic obsolescence reviews using ABC analysis or just-in-time inventory to curb overaccumulation, though external drivers like regulatory enactments—e.g., environmental laws phasing out certain materials—remain largely unavoidable.[57] Empirical data from U.S. tax assessments indicate that economic obsolescence claims, when substantiated by market evidence, can reduce assessed values by up to 30% in adversely impacted locales.[58]Social and Moral Dimensions
Technological obsolescence contributes to social inequality by exacerbating the digital divide, where lower-income and older populations struggle to access or maintain up-to-date devices, limiting participation in education, employment, and services. For instance, as of 2021, 24% of U.S. adults in households earning under $30,000 annually lacked smartphone ownership, hindering their ability to engage in digital economies reliant on current technology.[59] This gap persists despite broader adoption trends, as rapid obsolescence demands frequent upgrades that disproportionately burden marginalized groups, widening socioeconomic disparities.[60] Obsolescence also drives labor market disruptions through skill and job displacement, as automation renders traditional roles obsolete while creating demand for new competencies. Estimates suggest 400 to 800 million workers globally could face displacement by 2030 due to automation, though empirical reviews indicate that job creation often offsets losses over time via compensating economic mechanisms.[61][62] Socially, this fosters instability, particularly in sectors like clerical work, where up to 40% of hours could be impacted by AI advancements.[63] Morally, planned obsolescence raises concerns of consumer deception and breach of trust, as manufacturers design products with intentionally limited lifespans to accelerate replacement cycles, conflicting with engineering ethics codes that prohibit deceptive practices. The National Society of Professional Engineers' Canon 5 explicitly advises against actions that deceive or defraud the public, yet tactics like software-induced slowdowns in smartphones or non-replaceable printer chips prioritize profit over durability.[64][65] Critics, including historical analyses from the 1950s, argue this treats consumers as means to economic ends rather than autonomous agents, eroding professional integrity and fostering a culture of engineered waste.[65] These practices also pose moral dilemmas in resource allocation and intergenerational equity, as shortened product lives—such as the annual discard of 100 million cell phones in North America—generate e-waste that burdens future generations and vulnerable communities with toxic disposal.[66] While defenders claim obsolescence spurs innovation and growth, ethical scrutiny emphasizes the deception inherent in concealing lifespan limitations, undermining informed consumer choice and repair rights.[65]Causes and Drivers
Technological Innovation Cycles
Technological innovation cycles describe the recurrent process by which advancements in science and engineering generate superior technologies that displace and render prior ones functionally obsolete. This dynamic, often modeled as S-curves of technological progress, involves phases of invention, diffusion, maturity, and eventual supersession, accelerating obsolescence as each cycle compresses the viable lifespan of incumbent systems.[67] Economist Joseph Schumpeter formalized this as "creative destruction" in his 1942 work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, positing that capitalism's engine of growth lies in entrepreneurs introducing innovations that disrupt established markets and technologies, thereby eliminating inefficient or outdated production methods.[68] Empirical analyses confirm that such cycles underpin long-term economic waves, with innovations like steam power in the 19th century or electricity in the early 20th displacing manual and mechanical predecessors, fostering sustained productivity gains at the cost of short-term sectoral obsolescence.[69] In the semiconductor industry, Gordon Moore's 1965 observation—later termed Moore's Law—exemplifies how exponential improvements drive rapid obsolescence, with transistor density on integrated circuits doubling approximately every two years, enabling exponential gains in computing power while devaluing prior hardware generations.[31] This has resulted in typical computer hardware becoming obsolete within 2 to 4 years, as newer chips offer superior performance, energy efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, compelling upgrades in consumer and enterprise systems.[20] By 2022, the corollary effect extended to broader consumer electronics, where accelerated innovation shortened average product lifecycles; for instance, the Consumer Technology Association's 2022 study found U.S. consumers expecting smartphones and laptops to last 2-3 years before replacement, down from longer horizons in prior decades due to iterative advancements in processors, batteries, and software integration.[70] Broader data underscores the trend: the average lifespan of S&P 500 companies, many tied to technological paradigms, declined from about 65 years in 1928 to 15 years by 2000, reflecting intensified innovation pressures that obsolete business models reliant on legacy technologies.[71] Patent-based measures of technological obsolescence, analyzing citation patterns, reveal that innovations in fields like information technology exhibit shorter "technology cycle times"—the period from patent filing to peak influence—compared to slower-evolving sectors like chemicals, with computing cycles averaging under 5 years by the 2010s.[72] These cycles not only stem from pure technological superiority but also from complementary ecosystem effects, such as software optimizations that exploit hardware advances, further marginalizing incompatible older systems. While some critiques attribute partial obsolescence to non-technical factors like planned design choices, causal evidence from patent and market data prioritizes innovation-driven displacement as the primary mechanism.[73][10]Market and Consumer Dynamics
Market competition intensifies obsolescence by compelling firms to accelerate innovation cycles to maintain or gain market share, as slower adapters risk losing consumers to rivals offering superior features or performance. In industries like consumer electronics, this dynamic has shortened product lifecycles, with replacement every two years becoming normative across many sectors due to heightened rivalry and demand for incremental upgrades.[74][75] Empirical analysis of patent data reveals that technological obsolescence, driven by competitive pressures, correlates with firm-level innovation rates, where faster obsolescence of prior technologies enables sustained market leadership.[10] Consumer behavior further propels obsolescence through preferences for novelty, enhanced functionality, and social signaling, often prioritizing perceived improvements over durability. Studies of smartphone replacement indicate that planned elements, such as limited software support and marketing of marginal upgrades, align with consumer tendencies to replace devices every 2-3 years, despite functional adequacy of older models, as users seek better cameras, batteries, or processing speeds.[5] A 2022 Consumer Technology Association report quantified expected lifespans in consumer tech, finding televisions at 6.5 years, desktop computers at 5.7 years, and smartphones shorter still, reflecting demand-driven shortening influenced by advertising and peer trends rather than pure technical failure.[70] Psychological factors, including dissatisfaction with "outdated" aesthetics or status loss, amplify this, as evidenced by surveys showing even environmentally conscious consumers intending quicker replacements for perceived obsolescence.[76] Economically, these dynamics sustain growth via recurring demand but impose hidden costs, as constant upgrades elevate long-term consumer expenditures while firms capitalize on high-margin replacements. In defense and aerospace, consumer electronics' rapid cycles have spillover effects, incentivizing analogous practices in regulated markets to match commercial pace, though this risks over-investment in fleeting technologies.[77] Overall, while benefiting from genuine advancements, markets exhibit a feedback loop where consumer appetite for "better" validates obsolescence as a profit mechanism, substantiated by lifecycle data showing acceleration from competitive and behavioral pressures rather than isolated technical decay.[78]Regulatory and Policy Influences
Government regulations frequently accelerate obsolescence by imposing updated safety, environmental, or performance standards that existing products cannot meet without costly retrofits, thereby compelling consumers and industries to adopt newer technologies. For example, the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive, implemented in 2006, prohibited the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, and other substances in electrical and electronic equipment, which directly contributed to the obsolescence of legacy components and devices reliant on those materials, as manufacturers shifted to compliant alternatives.[79] Similarly, the 1987 Montreal Protocol and its amendments phased out ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), rendering millions of refrigerators, air conditioners, and insulation systems obsolete worldwide by the early 1990s, as production and servicing of CFC-based equipment became restricted under national implementations like the U.S. Clean Air Act amendments.[80] In the automotive sector, evolving emission standards exemplify regulatory-driven obsolescence, as stricter limits on pollutants force the retirement of older vehicles unable to comply. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, such as the Tier 3 standards finalized in 2014 for model years 2017 and later, reduced allowable nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, accelerating the phase-out of pre-2000s diesel engines and contributing to higher scrappage rates for non-compliant fleets, with estimates indicating that such policies have shortened average vehicle lifespans by promoting cleaner, more efficient models.[81] These measures, while aimed at reducing air pollution—evidenced by EPA data showing a 99% drop in vehicle emissions since 1960—nonetheless impose economic burdens on owners of functional but outdated assets, illustrating how policy priorities can override product longevity.[81] Countervailing policies seek to mitigate planned obsolescence by extending product usability and penalizing deliberate shortening of lifespans. France's 2015 energy transition law criminalized planned obsolescence, defining it as techniques intended to prematurely reduce durability, with penalties including up to two years imprisonment and fines of €300,000 or 5% of annual turnover, leading to investigations against firms like Apple for software practices that hindered repairs.[82] Complementing this, right-to-repair legislation in jurisdictions such as New York (effective 2023 for electronics) and the European Union's 2024 Ecodesign Regulation for sustainable products mandates access to parts, tools, and documentation, aiming to curb manufacturer restrictions that accelerate replacement cycles; studies suggest these could extend device lifespans by 20-50% in affected categories, though enforcement challenges persist due to intellectual property conflicts.[83] Such frameworks reflect a policy shift toward durability standards, as advocated in analyses calling for explicit bans and reparability indices to balance innovation with waste reduction.[84]Economic Impacts
Positive Effects on Growth and Innovation
Obsolescence incentivizes firms to invest in research and development to replace outdated technologies, thereby accelerating innovation cycles and contributing to sustained economic expansion. In Joseph Schumpeter's framework of creative destruction, the displacement of inferior products and processes by superior innovations—manifesting as obsolescence—serves as the primary engine of capitalist progress, enabling reallocations of resources toward higher productivity uses and yielding net societal gains through improved goods and services.[17] This dynamic contrasts with static economies, where resistance to obsolescence stifles advancement; empirical analyses of historical patent data spanning 85 years demonstrate that technological disruptions, inclusive of obsolescence effects, elevate total factor productivity and aggregate wealth by redirecting capital from low-yield incumbents to emergent high-growth ventures.[85] Endogenous growth models incorporating obsolescence via embodied technological progress further illustrate its role in amplifying output; simulations show that creative destruction, by eroding the value of legacy capital stocks, compels ongoing modernization, resulting in higher steady-state growth rates compared to scenarios with persistent asset longevity.[86] Cross-country evidence corroborates this: economies with elevated capital depreciation rates—indicative of rapid obsolescence—exhibit stronger long-term GDP growth, as depreciation proxies for the intensity of innovation-driven renewal, with data from 1960–2010 revealing a positive correlation between such rates and per capita income expansion in developed nations. In practice, obsolescence has propelled sector-specific booms; the semiconductor industry's progression from vacuum tubes to integrated circuits, rendering prior hardware obsolete by the 1970s, spurred R&D expenditures exceeding $100 billion annually by the 2000s and underpinned a computing sector contributing over 5% to U.S. GDP by 2010 through efficiency gains and novel applications.[88] Similarly, planned elements of obsolescence in consumer electronics, such as iterative smartphone upgrades, have been defended by industry analyses as sustaining demand that funds innovation pipelines, with empirical surveys linking shorter product cycles to heightened firm-level patent outputs and market entry by startups challenging incumbents.[5] These effects extend to job creation, as obsolescence-induced churn generates demand for skilled labor in emerging fields, outweighing displacements in net terms per labor market studies of automation waves.[89] Critics from environmental perspectives often overlook these upsides, yet econometric decompositions attribute up to 50% of U.S. productivity growth from 1950–2000 to creative destruction processes, including obsolescence, rather than mere factor accumulation, underscoring its foundational role in raising living standards without reliance on biased institutional narratives favoring stasis.[90]Costs and Resource Allocation
Obsolescence imposes significant financial burdens on consumers through accelerated replacement cycles, with empirical estimates indicating an average annual additional cost of $1,043 per U.S. household attributable to shortened product lifespans in categories like electronics and appliances.[91] These expenses arise from the need to discard functional items prematurely due to functional, stylistic, or economic factors, diverting household budgets from savings or other investments toward repetitive purchases. In the smartphone sector, for instance, rapid iteration driven by perceived improvements has been linked to replacement frequencies that elevate lifetime ownership costs beyond those of durable alternatives, as modeled in consumer behavior studies.[5] At the firm and industry level, obsolescence triggers substantial redesign and mitigation expenses, particularly in electronics manufacturing, where part unavailability can necessitate product redesigns costing between $20,000 and $2 million per instance.[79] Inventory obsolescence further exacerbates these costs by rendering stockpiled components or finished goods unsellable, leading to write-offs that tie up capital and strain liquidity; poor forecasting in supply chains amplifies this, as seen in sectors reliant on diminishing manufacturing sources.[92] End-of-life processing of obsolete items often yields insufficient returns from recycling or resale to offset disposal fees, creating net economic losses for processors.[93] Resource allocation suffers from these dynamics, as capital and labor shift inefficiently from maintenance or upgrades of existing assets to procurement of replacements, reducing overall productivity in affected firms. Empirical analysis of U.S. firms reveals that technological obsolescence correlates with diminished future growth and suboptimal resource distribution, where resources are reallocated away from high-value innovation toward reactive mitigation rather than proactive development.[10] In broader economic terms, this misallocation manifests in operational inefficiencies, such as compatibility issues and downtime from legacy systems, which hinder integration with modern infrastructure and elevate total ownership costs across industries like defense and computing.[3] External factors, including regulatory changes or market shifts, compound economic obsolescence by imposing unforeseen costs on asset values without internal remedies, further distorting investment priorities.[13]Environmental and Sustainability Considerations
Resource Depletion and Waste Generation
Obsolescence accelerates resource depletion by shortening product lifespans, prompting consumers to replace functional items with new ones that require extraction of raw materials such as metals, rare earth elements, and minerals. This cycle of rapid turnover, often driven by design choices that limit durability or compatibility, increases the demand for virgin resources; for instance, the production of consumer electronics demands finite supplies of materials like cobalt, lithium, and tantalum, whose mining contributes to environmental degradation and supply constraints.[94] [95] A primary manifestation is the surge in electronic waste (e-waste), where obsolescence in devices like smartphones and computers leads to their discard despite residual functionality. In 2022, global e-waste generation reached 62 million tonnes, equivalent to 7.8 kg per capita, marking an 82% increase from 2010 levels and projecting to 82 million tonnes by 2030 if trends persist.[96] [97] Only 22.3% of this e-waste was formally collected and recycled in 2022, leaving the majority to accumulate in landfills or informal processing sites, where hazardous components leach toxins into soil and water.[98] Planned obsolescence exacerbates this by embedding features like non-upgradable batteries or proprietary parts, rendering repair uneconomical and disposal inevitable.[99] Beyond electronics, obsolescence in appliances and vehicles similarly amplifies waste volumes and resource pressures; for example, the frequent replacement of white goods due to stylistic or efficiency-driven updates strains supplies of steel, copper, and plastics derived from petroleum. This pattern not only depletes non-renewable stocks but also generates secondary environmental costs, including energy-intensive manufacturing and transportation emissions, underscoring a causal link where shorter product cycles directly correlate with heightened extraction rates. Empirical analyses indicate that extending product durability could reduce material throughput by up to 50% in select sectors, highlighting obsolescence as a modifiable driver of depletion.[100][15]Potential Mitigations and Circular Economy Approaches
Circular economy principles address obsolescence by shifting from linear "take-make-dispose" models to systems emphasizing reuse, repair, refurbishment, and recycling, thereby extending product lifespans and minimizing waste generation.[101] These approaches counteract planned obsolescence, which accelerates replacement cycles and contributes to the 62 million tonnes of global e-waste produced in 2022, equivalent to 7.8 kg per capita and projected to reach 82 million tonnes by 2030 if unchecked.[102] By prioritizing strategies such as modular design and remanufacturing, circular models can reduce resource depletion; for instance, repairing devices instead of discarding them delays landfill contributions and cuts associated carbon emissions from new production.[103] Right-to-repair policies exemplify regulatory mitigations, mandating access to parts, tools, and documentation to enable independent or third-party repairs, which empirically lower e-waste volumes and environmental footprints.[104] In jurisdictions adopting such laws, product longevity increases, with studies indicating that extending electronics lifespans by even one year can significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions tied to manufacturing and disposal.[105] The European Union's Circular Economy Action Plan (2020) integrates these by requiring durable, repairable designs and empowering consumers through labeling on product longevity, aiming to foster markets for refurbished goods and reduce virgin material use.[106] Complementary incentives, like extended producer responsibility schemes, compel manufacturers to internalize end-of-life costs, incentivizing anti-obsolescence features such as upgradable components.[107] Modular product design represents a technical mitigation, allowing component-level replacements to adapt devices to new technologies without full substitution, as demonstrated by Fairphone's smartphones, which feature swappable modules like batteries and displays for user-led repairs.[108] This approach has enabled Fairphone models to achieve higher sustainability metrics, with 43% of materials in the Fairphone 5 sourced sustainably and modular architecture extending usability beyond typical obsolescence timelines.[109] Broader adoption could yield systemic benefits; frameworks identifying 10 circular strategies (e.g., refurbish, repurpose) show potential to optimize end-of-life pathways, though challenges persist in scaling due to initial design costs and supply chain dependencies.[110] Empirical evidence from repair-focused interventions confirms waste reductions, but long-term efficacy requires enforcement against proprietary barriers that perpetuate rapid turnover.[111]Management Strategies
Proactive Obsolescence Forecasting
Proactive obsolescence forecasting refers to the systematic prediction of when components, systems, or technologies will lose functionality, support, or market relevance due to technological advancement, regulatory changes, or supply disruptions, enabling organizations to implement mitigation strategies before issues arise.[112] This approach contrasts with reactive measures by leveraging data-driven models to estimate end-of-life (EOL) timelines, such as years to EOL (YTEOL), often drawing from independent component databases that track manufacturer announcements and market trends.[113] In industries like electronics and aerospace, where long-field-life products such as military systems can span 20-30 years, forecasting identifies vulnerabilities early, allowing for redesigns or alternatives that minimize downtime and costs estimated at up to 10 times higher in reactive scenarios.[114][115] Key methods include statistical models like Gaussian distributions to predict obsolescence dates based on historical lifecycle data, and probability-based approaches modeling obsolescence degree as a time-dependent function to quantify risk levels.[112][116] Machine learning techniques, such as hidden Markov models combined with compound Poisson processes, analyze sales trends, technology cycles, and part discontinuation patterns to forecast electronic component lifecycles with improved scalability over traditional methods.[117][118] More advanced frameworks incorporate deep generative modeling to augment sparse obsolescence datasets, enhancing prediction accuracy for rare events, while two-stage models use multi-criteria decision tools like ELECTRE I to prioritize key product features influencing functional obsolescence.[119][120] These techniques often integrate simulation for strategic diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages (DMSMS) management, projecting scenarios in complex systems.[121] In practice, engineering firms apply these forecasts to high-reliability sectors; for instance, defense contractors use lifecycle predictions to stockpile parts or qualify substitutes before OEM discontinuations, as seen in C5ISR systems where proactive planning avoids operational gaps.[122][123] Empirical evidence from product lifecycle models shows that incorporating obsolescence risk into design phases can extend system viability by 15-20% through targeted adaptations, though challenges persist in handling discontinuous innovations like semiconductor shifts that invalidate trend-based predictions.[124][125] Overall, while no model achieves perfect foresight due to causal uncertainties in technological evolution, validated forecasting reduces uncertainty by prioritizing empirical data over assumptions, informing decisions in resource-constrained environments.[115][126]Design for Longevity and Adaptation
Design for longevity and adaptation in product development emphasizes engineering products to endure physical wear, technological evolution, and shifting user needs, thereby mitigating functional, stylistic, and absolute obsolescence. Core principles include modularity, which enables component replacement without discarding the entire item; repairability through accessible parts and schematics; and upgradability via standardized interfaces for hardware and software extensions. These approaches contrast with practices that prioritize short lifecycles, aiming instead to extend utility through user-centric adaptability.[127][128] Modular design facilitates longevity by allowing targeted upgrades, such as swapping batteries, cameras, or processors, which reduces the need for full replacements. For instance, the Fairphone 4, released in 2021, features seven user-replaceable modules with standardized connectors, supporting over five years of software updates and repair without specialized tools. Similarly, the Framework Laptop, introduced in 2021, employs swappable modules for ports, storage, and graphics, enabling upgrades to newer processors while retaining the chassis, with the company providing open-source schematics and a marketplace for parts. These designs demonstrate how adaptability counters rapid technological obsolescence, as components can evolve independently.[129][130] Repairability scores and right-to-repair initiatives further promote adaptation by mandating designs that avoid glued components or proprietary fasteners. The European Union's 2024 Right-to-Repair Directive requires manufacturers to provide spare parts for up to ten years for appliances like washing machines and smartphones, incentivizing designs with disassembly in mind; studies indicate such policies can extend product lifetimes by 20-50% through increased repair rates, based on lifecycle assessments of durable goods. Empirical analyses link repair-focused design to reduced waste, with one review finding that enhancing durability via material selection and joint engineering lowers environmental impacts by conserving raw materials equivalent to 10-30% of a product's embedded resources over extended use.[131][132] Adaptation also incorporates software longevity, where over-the-air updates prevent functional obsolescence without hardware changes. Frameworks like those proposed in design research evaluate a product's optimal lifetime by balancing user attachment, technological foresight, and economic viability, ensuring products remain relevant amid innovation cycles. While adoption remains niche—Fairphone holds under 1% market share in smartphones—evidence from circular economy models shows that longevity-oriented designs can cut e-waste by up to 40% in modular electronics, though consumer willingness to repair depends on cost barriers and perceived value.[128][133][134]Controversies and Debates
Criticisms of Planned Obsolescence
Critics contend that planned obsolescence exacerbates environmental degradation by shortening product lifespans and accelerating waste accumulation, particularly electronic waste that contains hazardous materials like lead and mercury. In 2020, global e-waste reached 53.6 million metric tons, with low recycling rates—around 17.6%—exacerbating landfill pollution and resource extraction pressures from frequent replacements.[95] This practice contributes to greenhouse gas emissions through increased manufacturing and disposal, as short-lived devices demand repeated production cycles that emit methane and CO2 from decomposing waste.[135] From an economic perspective, planned obsolescence imposes substantial recurring costs on consumers by necessitating premature replacements rather than repairs or upgrades. A study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimated that it adds approximately $1,043 in annual expenses for the average American household due to failures in appliances and electronics designed for limited durability.[91] This model shifts financial burdens from producers to users, undermining long-term value and fostering dependency on continuous purchases, as evidenced by consumer surveys revealing frustration with non-repairable designs in sectors like smartphones.[136] Ethically, planned obsolescence is faulted for deceiving consumers about product longevity and prioritizing profits over quality, as illustrated by the Phoebus cartel formed in 1924 by major firms including General Electric and Osram. The agreement deliberately capped incandescent bulb lifespans at 1,000 hours—reduced from prior averages exceeding 2,500 hours—to stimulate sales, with members fined for exceeding this limit despite technical feasibility for longer operation.[29] Such tactics, echoed in modern examples like non-upgradable batteries in mobile devices, erode trust and contravene principles of informed choice, prompting regulatory scrutiny in regions like the European Union where right-to-repair laws aim to counter these practices.[5]Defenses and Empirical Evidence for Benefits
Proponents of obsolescence, particularly in its natural technological form, argue that it embodies Joseph Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, wherein innovations render older technologies or products obsolete, thereby spurring entrepreneurship, resource reallocation, and long-term economic advancement.[17] This process, described by Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), posits that without the displacement of outdated methods, economies would stagnate, as incumbents resist change to protect rents; empirical observations support that societies permitting such disruption achieve higher productivity, with citizens benefiting from superior goods, reduced work hours, and elevated living standards over time.[18] Empirical studies corroborate these benefits, particularly in capital-intensive sectors. For instance, analysis of U.S. computing equipment investment from the 1990s onward reveals that rapid obsolescence—driven by exponential performance gains under Moore's Law—facilitated substantial productivity accelerations, contributing approximately 0.5 to 1 percentage point annually to GDP growth during peak periods by enabling firms to upgrade capital stocks efficiently and integrate advanced capabilities.[137] Cross-country data further indicate that nations exhibiting higher rates of capital depreciation, indicative of accelerated obsolescence, sustain elevated long-term growth trajectories; a mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of the Basque Country demonstrates this positive correlation, attributing it to the incentives for continuous innovation and adaptation that obsolescence imposes on producers.[138] In consumer electronics and automobiles, obsolescence has empirically lowered real prices while enhancing functionality and safety. Semiconductor advancements, necessitating frequent chip replacements, have reduced computing costs by over 99% per unit of performance since 1970, democratizing access to powerful tools and fueling downstream innovations in software and services that add trillions to global output.[139] Similarly, automotive obsolescence, through iterative designs incorporating emissions controls and crash safety, has halved fatality rates per mile driven in the U.S. from 1.5 in 1980 to 0.7 by 2020, alongside fuel efficiency gains averaging 2-3% annually, yielding net societal benefits exceeding $2 trillion in avoided deaths and energy savings.[12] These outcomes refute claims of pure waste, as the causal chain from obsolescence to reinvestment yields measurable welfare improvements, though defenders acknowledge that excessive planned elements can distort if not market-disciplined.[140]References
- https://phys.org/news/2016-01-technological-obsolescence-economic-growth.html