Author Topic: Video on planned obsolescence.  (Read 16981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11332
  • Country: ch
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #75 on: April 10, 2021, 01:01:03 pm »
but it certainly would reduce their maximum drop distance, for example.
Not sure about that. It may actually increase robustness since glass is compressed. Think about is as if it was a spherical structure with tension cables inside preventing its deformation.
I suppose that is possible. I’m certainly not an expert on glass.

Either way, can’t you just try to be a tad less pointlessly argumentative?! I mean, come on, you already got a person on the internet to admit they were wrong, can’t that be enough for you?!? ;)

Let’s instead focus again on the person making silly arguments about incandescent lamp design, like how we should just make the filaments way thicker...
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6126
  • Country: 00
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #76 on: April 10, 2021, 01:04:08 pm »
[...]
Let’s instead focus again on the person making silly arguments about incandescent lamp design, like how we should just make the filaments way thicker...


Hey -  I resemble that remark!   :D
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11332
  • Country: ch
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #77 on: April 10, 2021, 01:10:23 pm »
[...]
Let’s instead focus again on the person making silly arguments about incandescent lamp design, like how we should just make the filaments way thicker...


Hey -  I resemble that remark!   :D
::ducks::

No hate intended, just to be clear, just a bit of a collegial hard time. :p
 
The following users thanked this post: SilverSolder

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19344
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #78 on: April 10, 2021, 02:09:44 pm »
Or maybe it’s because it’s actually not. The useful lifespans of Apple products is well above average, and this has been the case since the 80s.* Apple provides OS updates for its phones and tablets for 5+ years, far above the 0-2 years typical in the Android world. (My iPad is from 2014 and still gets OS updates, and is still more than snappy enough for daily use. My 2015 iPhone 6S running the current iOS is nearly as snappy as my year-old SE. I only upgraded because I couldn’t get replacement parts quickly enough due to COVID delays, and my screen was cracked.)
I haven't seen any evidence that Apple products don't last as long as their competitors. The consensus seems to be they're fairly reliable. Apple frequently get criticised for making new products incompatible, with accessories designed for older products and updates which deliberately slow the device down.
That doesn’t mean those accusations are true! Apple has been using the same connector on its phones since 2012. And while some versions of iOS were annoyingly slow on very old hardware, Apple put a lot of effort into fixing that, and iOS 12 sped up older devices dramatically. (On iOS 11, my iPhone 6s was annoyingly slow. On iOS 12, it was as snappy as on iOS 9. iOS 13 and 14 didn’t slow it down at all.)

I think many people don’t understand that adding new software features, which they have, does take up storage and runtime resources. There are 3 options I can think of:
1) don’t let the new software run on older hardware at all
2) restrict some new features to newer hardware that can handle it without being too slow
3) release all features for all devices, even if doing so makes it sluggish overall, or even if running some new feature requires dreadfully slow software emulation for something newer devices do in hardware

You see the problem? No matter which approach Apple chooses, some people will complain that it’s planned obsolescence, even though 2 and 3 in actuality extend the useful life of the device compared to the alternative.

Re-engineering software to be more efficient takes a lot of work, which isn’t always feasible to do with every release. For many, many years Apple has had the approach of a few years of “feature” OS releases, followed by a “performance” release that adds few features but does a ton of cleanup. That doesn’t get the same press as new features, of course.

(That’s a common way of developing software: do an initial release of a feature using code that works reliably, but hasn’t been optimized for performance. Then later go back and see how you can speed up the main code paths.)
Oh, I can see your point, but other companies don't attract the same level of criticism: why is Apple any different?

Quote
Quote
*Through the mid 2000s, researchers continuously found that Windows PCs were replaced after an average of 3 years, while the average Mac was replaced after 4-5 years. Between the longer lifespan and the dramatically higher resale value, the higher up-front cost was more than compensated. Since then, the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot, but the much higher resale value of used Macs is still the case.
That's not been the case for a long time though. I've had the same computer for nearly five years and it was nine years old, when I got it. The only upgrades were the RAM and a solid state hard drive.
Huh? I said “Since then [the mid-2000s], the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot”. Doesn’t that perfectly agree with your experience?? 14 years ago was 2007, and to me, the middle of the 2000s was 2005.

What’s definitely still the same is the appreciably higher resale value of Apple products. A used Mac will retain far more value than an equivalent PC. (This can make used PCs excellent bargains for a buyer, whereas I have never found it sensible to buy used Macs. Great if you’re selling one, though!)
Yes, the PC I'm currently typing this from was made in 2007. It's an Intel Duo, with 3GB RAM, upgraded from 1GB and a solid state hard drive. It still does all I need, since I don't game, edit videos, or use 3D CAD, I'll keep it, until it breaks, or someone gives me a new one.

I wouldn't consider buying a Mac. They seem overpriced, for what they are.

Quote
Oh, I'd forgotten about the crappy cables, which I believe were due to Apple going halogen free and nothing to do with planned obsolescence, so it didn't enter my mind. Going by the dates on that screenshot, none of the complaints are recent, so hopefully it's been resolved now. I've had similar problems with halogen free cables, on a project I've worked on.
Yep, it was when Apple went PVC-free. Those first few years of PVC-free cables they used were awful. I don’t know what material it is (it’s not silicone, since it readily melts), but it was terrible. I concur that they appear to have gotten it under control, though they’ve never reached the high reliability of truly top-quality cables like Anker. (But those cables also cost a lot of money, and they’re a lot bulkier than Apple’s sleek cables.)
The cable I had an issue with was low smoke halogen free. The insulation on the conductors was so soft, I could strip it with my fingernails.
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6126
  • Country: 00
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #79 on: April 10, 2021, 02:20:45 pm »
[...] No hate intended, just to be clear, just a bit of a collegial hard time. :p


OK I'll take the bait!  :D

Where did we get to...

We have established that an incandescent filament gets rid of its heat via radiation (yes, 20% escapes via other means including gas convection, we'll ignore this for now).

All else being equal:

1) Doubling the length of the filament essentially doubles its ability to emit radiation for a given current (think: two bulbs in series with a current source).

2) Doubling the thickness of the filament essentially halves its ability to emit radiation for a given current (think: two bulbs in parallel with a current source).

3) Doubling both the length and the thickness of the filament therefore balances out perfectly (think: four bulbs in series-parallel with a current source).  The 'problem' is that since the same radiation is now coming from 4x the original source area, the intensity (temperature/colour) of the radiation is now 4x lower per bulb... we do get the expected total amount of energy being radiated, but at a lower frequency / longer wavelength, shifted towards red (heat)!


Our ancestors, before the invention of planned obsolescence, came up with the idea of coiling the lamp filament, which reduces its ability to radiate (due to the inside of the coil "containing" the radiation) which means: the coiled filament runs hotter for a given current.  Thus, coiling the filament let them use a thicker, longer wire while still getting a good colour (wavelength) of the emitted radiation.

(Note: Everything here is thinking out loud, for discussion/entertainment purposes, and not statements of fact!)




« Last Edit: April 10, 2021, 02:30:30 pm by SilverSolder »
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11332
  • Country: ch
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #80 on: April 10, 2021, 02:33:54 pm »
That doesn’t mean those accusations are true! Apple has been using the same connector on its phones since 2012. And while some versions of iOS were annoyingly slow on very old hardware, Apple put a lot of effort into fixing that, and iOS 12 sped up older devices dramatically. (On iOS 11, my iPhone 6s was annoyingly slow. On iOS 12, it was as snappy as on iOS 9. iOS 13 and 14 didn’t slow it down at all.)

I think many people don’t understand that adding new software features, which they have, does take up storage and runtime resources. There are 3 options I can think of:
1) don’t let the new software run on older hardware at all
2) restrict some new features to newer hardware that can handle it without being too slow
3) release all features for all devices, even if doing so makes it sluggish overall, or even if running some new feature requires dreadfully slow software emulation for something newer devices do in hardware

You see the problem? No matter which approach Apple chooses, some people will complain that it’s planned obsolescence, even though 2 and 3 in actuality extend the useful life of the device compared to the alternative.

Re-engineering software to be more efficient takes a lot of work, which isn’t always feasible to do with every release. For many, many years Apple has had the approach of a few years of “feature” OS releases, followed by a “performance” release that adds few features but does a ton of cleanup. That doesn’t get the same press as new features, of course.

(That’s a common way of developing software: do an initial release of a feature using code that works reliably, but hasn’t been optimized for performance. Then later go back and see how you can speed up the main code paths.)
Oh, I can see your point, but other companies don't attract the same level of criticism: why is Apple any different?
The media, and most of the computer industry, has always treated Apple differently, mostly because they simply do not understand Apple’s success*. And now that Apple is, and has been for years, one of the most successful and largest companies in history while maintaining industry-leading customer satisfaction (which they also don’t understand*), they know that putting Apple in a headline will get more clicks.


*They cannot wrap their heads around the concept of people willing to spend more (sometimes**) on a better-designed product. They can’t let go of the concept of specs above all else, not understanding that the specs alone don’t tell the whole story, that a product is more than the sum of its parts. And the rest of the industry is salty because they got outperformed by people they perceived as “slackers” or artists, not “proper” engineers.

**Apple refuses to make bargain basement junk, that’s true. But their pricing is largely similar to other high-quality manufacturers. A ThinkPad isn’t any cheaper than a MacBook. And I have literally (literally!!) had people argue with me that Samsung’s most expensive phone was way cheaper than Apple’s most expensive phone, at a point in time where Apple’s most expensive was $999 and Samsung’s was $999. In my world, $999 and $999 are actually the same, but maybe that’s just me... And they wouldn’t budge from their claim even when provided with screenshots of stores that carried both, showing the same price for both!  :o
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11332
  • Country: ch
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #81 on: April 10, 2021, 02:46:34 pm »
Quote
Quote
*Through the mid 2000s, researchers continuously found that Windows PCs were replaced after an average of 3 years, while the average Mac was replaced after 4-5 years. Between the longer lifespan and the dramatically higher resale value, the higher up-front cost was more than compensated. Since then, the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot, but the much higher resale value of used Macs is still the case.
That's not been the case for a long time though. I've had the same computer for nearly five years and it was nine years old, when I got it. The only upgrades were the RAM and a solid state hard drive.
Huh? I said “Since then [the mid-2000s], the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot”. Doesn’t that perfectly agree with your experience?? 14 years ago was 2007, and to me, the middle of the 2000s was 2005.

What’s definitely still the same is the appreciably higher resale value of Apple products. A used Mac will retain far more value than an equivalent PC. (This can make used PCs excellent bargains for a buyer, whereas I have never found it sensible to buy used Macs. Great if you’re selling one, though!)
Yes, the PC I'm currently typing this from was made in 2007. It's an Intel Duo, with 3GB RAM, upgraded from 1GB and a solid state hard drive. It still does all I need, since I don't game, edit videos, or use 3D CAD, I'll keep it, until it breaks, or someone gives me a new one.
And? Still doesn’t answer my question of why you disputed my claim, even though your experience is a perfect example of my claim!

I wouldn't consider buying a Mac. They seem overpriced, for what they are.
Well, “overpriced” is a value judgment, not an objective fact. (When comparing one product vs another from a different vendor.) Clearly, the millions and millions of people that buy Macs do think they’re worth it, or else they wouldn’t buy them!

And as I said, their TCO is actually quite favorable due to the high resale value and low support costs. (Some years ago, when hell froze over and IBM started letting their employees choose whether to be issued a PC or a Mac, they found out that the long term TCO of the Macs was appreciably lower than that of the PCs, because the Macs needed only a small fraction as much support as the PCs. And think about that: that’s the experience of a company that not only invented the IBM PC, but is now specialized in IT consulting. As I said: a product is more than the sum of its parts, and Apple has produced a killer product.)

To be clear: nobody is saying that ONLY Apple makes a good system. Nor is anyone saying that an Apple product is ALWAYS the best fit for a particular purpose or user. What just irritates me is the frequent attitude of “it’s not the right fit for me, therefore anyone who chooses it is an idiot”. :/
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6126
  • Country: 00
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #82 on: April 10, 2021, 03:13:16 pm »
[...] What just irritates me is the frequent attitude of “it’s not the right fit for me, therefore anyone who chooses it is an idiot”. :/   

Obviously, it is confusing to some that both minivans and supercharged Mustangs can be called "cars"!  :D

« Last Edit: April 10, 2021, 03:14:50 pm by SilverSolder »
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19344
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #83 on: April 10, 2021, 03:35:28 pm »
Quote
Quote
*Through the mid 2000s, researchers continuously found that Windows PCs were replaced after an average of 3 years, while the average Mac was replaced after 4-5 years. Between the longer lifespan and the dramatically higher resale value, the higher up-front cost was more than compensated. Since then, the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot, but the much higher resale value of used Macs is still the case.
That's not been the case for a long time though. I've had the same computer for nearly five years and it was nine years old, when I got it. The only upgrades were the RAM and a solid state hard drive.
Huh? I said “Since then [the mid-2000s], the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot”. Doesn’t that perfectly agree with your experience?? 14 years ago was 2007, and to me, the middle of the 2000s was 2005.

What’s definitely still the same is the appreciably higher resale value of Apple products. A used Mac will retain far more value than an equivalent PC. (This can make used PCs excellent bargains for a buyer, whereas I have never found it sensible to buy used Macs. Great if you’re selling one, though!)
Yes, the PC I'm currently typing this from was made in 2007. It's an Intel Duo, with 3GB RAM, upgraded from 1GB and a solid state hard drive. It still does all I need, since I don't game, edit videos, or use 3D CAD, I'll keep it, until it breaks, or someone gives me a new one.
And? Still doesn’t answer my question of why you disputed my claim, even though your experience is a perfect example of my claim!
I didn't dispute your claim. You imagined it.

Quote
I wouldn't consider buying a Mac. They seem overpriced, for what they are.
Well, “overpriced” is a value judgment, not an objective fact. (When comparing one product vs another from a different vendor.) Clearly, the millions and millions of people that buy Macs do think they’re worth it, or else they wouldn’t buy them!

And as I said, their TCO is actually quite favorable due to the high resale value and low support costs. (Some years ago, when hell froze over and IBM started letting their employees choose whether to be issued a PC or a Mac, they found out that the long term TCO of the Macs was appreciably lower than that of the PCs, because the Macs needed only a small fraction as much support as the PCs. And think about that: that’s the experience of a company that not only invented the IBM PC, but is now specialized in IT consulting. As I said: a product is more than the sum of its parts, and Apple has produced a killer product.)

To be clear: nobody is saying that ONLY Apple makes a good system. Nor is anyone saying that an Apple product is ALWAYS the best fit for a particular purpose or user. What just irritates me is the frequent attitude of “it’s not the right fit for me, therefore anyone who chooses it is an idiot”. :/
I'm neutral on Apple. A friend of mine gave me an old iPhone which I'm extremely grateful for, but I could no way in my right mind justify the cost of a new, or even second hand one. If you like Apple that's fair enough. I put it in the same category as designer labels, expensive cars, with custom number plates, posh frocks etc.
 

Online David Hess

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16545
  • Country: us
  • DavidH
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #84 on: April 10, 2021, 04:31:19 pm »
There is no fan in my refrigerator. The evaporator is in the top of the enclosure and cools by convection. It's much more reliable than a fan. I have seen refrigerators with a fan, but I doubt they're more efficient, because the extra energy used to circulate the air, will probably outweigh the tiny saving in improved evaporator efficiency.

Frost free freezers use forced air convection so require a motor for the evaporator.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19344
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #85 on: April 10, 2021, 04:52:56 pm »
There is no fan in my refrigerator. The evaporator is in the top of the enclosure and cools by convection. It's much more reliable than a fan. I have seen refrigerators with a fan, but I doubt they're more efficient, because the extra energy used to circulate the air, will probably outweigh the tiny saving in improved evaporator efficiency.

Frost free freezers use forced air convection so require a motor for the evaporator.
I don't have a problem with frost in my fanless refrigerator.

My freezer does frost up, but every couple of years, I take all the food out, cover it in bubble wrap and switch it off for an hour or so, with a bucket near the door. The ice quickly melts and can easily be removed using a butter knife. I don't see why anyone would bother with a frost free freezer. Doing this every year or two, is of little inconvenience.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19344
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #86 on: April 10, 2021, 05:05:16 pm »
[...] No hate intended, just to be clear, just a bit of a collegial hard time. :p


OK I'll take the bait!  :D

Where did we get to...

We have established that an incandescent filament gets rid of its heat via radiation (yes, 20% escapes via other means including gas convection, we'll ignore this for now).

All else being equal:

1) Doubling the length of the filament essentially doubles its ability to emit radiation for a given current (think: two bulbs in series with a current source).

2) Doubling the thickness of the filament essentially halves its ability to emit radiation for a given current (think: two bulbs in parallel with a current source).

3) Doubling both the length and the thickness of the filament therefore balances out perfectly (think: four bulbs in series-parallel with a current source).  The 'problem' is that since the same radiation is now coming from 4x the original source area, the intensity (temperature/colour) of the radiation is now 4x lower per bulb... we do get the expected total amount of energy being radiated, but at a lower frequency / longer wavelength, shifted towards red (heat)!

The filament cools through radiation. The longer and thinner it is, the more it will radiate heat and cool.

Making the filament thicker doesn't drastically reduce the efficiency. It will be more robust, thus should be able to run hotter, given the same life time, although there might be a tiny increase in losses, if it conducts heat back through the electrical connections. In balance, the higher temperature should increase the efficiency.

Yes, it's true that a lower filament temperature is less efficient, as more radiation is in the invisible IR range.

Quote
Our ancestors, before the invention of planned obsolescence, came up with the idea of coiling the lamp filament, which reduces its ability to radiate (due to the inside of the coil "containing" the radiation) which means: the coiled filament runs hotter for a given current.  Thus, coiling the filament let them use a thicker, longer wire while still getting a good colour (wavelength) of the emitted radiation.
And that's still how mains powered filament lamps are made.

Lower voltage lamps don't use a coiled, coiled filament, because it's too thick.

One thing to bear in mind is that any light emitted, which hits the filament from neighbouring turns in the coil is not wasted. It prevents that part of the filament from losing heat, thus keeping it hot, enabling it to emit more light.
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6126
  • Country: 00
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #87 on: April 10, 2021, 05:23:26 pm »
[...]
One thing to bear in mind is that any light emitted, which hits the filament from neighbouring turns in the coil is not wasted. It prevents that part of the filament from losing heat, thus keeping it hot, enabling it to emit more light.

Exactly - this is the stroke of genius behind the coiled filament: it runs hotter for a given thickness of wire.   So, you can increase the thickness and length a little, which will lower the brightness a little - ending up where we were, but with a thicker filament that will therefore last longer!

The next step in the evolution was never taken by the cartel...  is the coil (or double, triple coil) really the last word in what is possible with this concept?
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11332
  • Country: ch
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #88 on: April 10, 2021, 07:38:16 pm »
Quote
Quote
*Through the mid 2000s, researchers continuously found that Windows PCs were replaced after an average of 3 years, while the average Mac was replaced after 4-5 years. Between the longer lifespan and the dramatically higher resale value, the higher up-front cost was more than compensated. Since then, the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot, but the much higher resale value of used Macs is still the case.
That's not been the case for a long time though. I've had the same computer for nearly five years and it was nine years old, when I got it. The only upgrades were the RAM and a solid state hard drive.
Huh? I said “Since then [the mid-2000s], the average useful lives of both PCs and Macs has risen a lot”. Doesn’t that perfectly agree with your experience?? 14 years ago was 2007, and to me, the middle of the 2000s was 2005.

What’s definitely still the same is the appreciably higher resale value of Apple products. A used Mac will retain far more value than an equivalent PC. (This can make used PCs excellent bargains for a buyer, whereas I have never found it sensible to buy used Macs. Great if you’re selling one, though!)
Yes, the PC I'm currently typing this from was made in 2007. It's an Intel Duo, with 3GB RAM, upgraded from 1GB and a solid state hard drive. It still does all I need, since I don't game, edit videos, or use 3D CAD, I'll keep it, until it breaks, or someone gives me a new one.
And? Still doesn’t answer my question of why you disputed my claim, even though your experience is a perfect example of my claim!
I didn't dispute your claim. You imagined it.
No I didn’t, I simply read what you wrote. Ending a reply with “though” means you’re disputing the original statement to some degree.

Quote
I wouldn't consider buying a Mac. They seem overpriced, for what they are.
Well, “overpriced” is a value judgment, not an objective fact. (When comparing one product vs another from a different vendor.) Clearly, the millions and millions of people that buy Macs do think they’re worth it, or else they wouldn’t buy them!

And as I said, their TCO is actually quite favorable due to the high resale value and low support costs. (Some years ago, when hell froze over and IBM started letting their employees choose whether to be issued a PC or a Mac, they found out that the long term TCO of the Macs was appreciably lower than that of the PCs, because the Macs needed only a small fraction as much support as the PCs. And think about that: that’s the experience of a company that not only invented the IBM PC, but is now specialized in IT consulting. As I said: a product is more than the sum of its parts, and Apple has produced a killer product.)

To be clear: nobody is saying that ONLY Apple makes a good system. Nor is anyone saying that an Apple product is ALWAYS the best fit for a particular purpose or user. What just irritates me is the frequent attitude of “it’s not the right fit for me, therefore anyone who chooses it is an idiot”. :/
I'm neutral on Apple. A friend of mine gave me an old iPhone which I'm extremely grateful for, but I could no way in my right mind justify the cost of a new, or even second hand one. If you like Apple that's fair enough. I put it in the same category as designer labels, expensive cars, with custom number plates, posh frocks etc.
Except it’s a luxury car costing the same as the leading mainstream brand, since Apple and Samsung cost the same. The iPhone SE I’m using now is a $500 phone whose CPU/GPU performance exceeded any android phone available at any price at the time of release. (So it’s not as though wanting iOS forces you to buy a $1300 phone.) The difference between Apple and designer clothes is that the Apple products still have substance behind them: a $1000 MacBook is demonstrably and substantially superior to a $400 laptop. A $100 t-shirt is not any better made than a $40 one (nor is the $40 one any better than the $15 one).
 

Offline JohnnyMalaria

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1154
  • Country: us
    • Enlighten Scientific LLC
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #89 on: April 10, 2021, 08:41:47 pm »
There is no fan in my refrigerator. The evaporator is in the top of the enclosure and cools by convection. It's much more reliable than a fan. I have seen refrigerators with a fan, but I doubt they're more efficient, because the extra energy used to circulate the air, will probably outweigh the tiny saving in improved evaporator efficiency.

Frost free freezers use forced air convection so require a motor for the evaporator.
I don't have a problem with frost in my fanless refrigerator.

My freezer does frost up, but every couple of years, I take all the food out, cover it in bubble wrap and switch it off for an hour or so, with a bucket near the door. The ice quickly melts and can easily be removed using a butter knife. I don't see why anyone would bother with a frost free freezer. Doing this every year or two, is of little inconvenience.

Ambient humidity plays a role. In spite of the complaints, it never gets that humid in the UK.
 

Offline Buriedcode

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Country: gb
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #90 on: April 11, 2021, 04:07:27 am »
One of the problems I see when the phrase planned obsolescence is brought up is the vast difference in the examples.  Light bulbs, cables, tools, laptops etc..   it makes it almsot impossible to compare these.

Different products have different uses, different "duty cycles" (how often does one use/move a USB cable to charge a phone, vs a HDMI cable that sits behind their TV static for years), different enviroments, different operating parameters etc.. Add to this that pretty much all products - save a few niche ones - have markets that cater for a wide range of budgets.  Holding up the most high-end of one products, and comparing it to the absolute lowest is silly.

Example: light bulbs, LED or otherwise..  Outdoors or indoors? mounted down or up? Turned on/off how many times a day?  On for how many hours at a time? Humidity?

Other things can further muddy the waters making such discussions hard to draw conclusions from.
For example: one could assume that generally, with products that have several "teirs" of quality based on price point, the higher the price - the better the "quality" and therefore, presumably the greater the chance of that lasting longer.  But with certain products that are considered high-end (for example, Apple macbooks), they are marketed towards those who have a higher disposable income and are more likely to "upgrade" or obtain the latest gadget, meaning the lifetime of their product - for that particular demographic - can be rather short.    One could easily argue this is planned obsolescence, and perhaps it is, but is it a conspiracy?  The engineers are after-all meeting their spec - which includes the way their consumers will use the product.

Designers could then take this into account and improve functionality at the cost of longevity.  Reducing cost could be done, but then it would no longer be targetting the high-end market.  Lifespan is part of the spec.

And the much greater range of quality we have these days makes many points about "things were made to last" somewhat moot, as there were often very few choices in quality, if at all, so of course there were more products that lasted longer - if half were cheap and failed in a few years, the other half were the "high end" and lasted much longer.

Again I'm not claiming that planned obsolescence isn't a thing, I've no doubt it is - making things last forever isn't a great business model (unless that is the entire point of your product), but it is very difficult to know how much planned obsolescence there is when there's little in the way of similar operating conditions.

 

Offline helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: us
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #91 on: April 11, 2021, 04:35:57 am »
It has very many convenient fig leaves to hide behind, in other words.
While physical objects are great examples that, well and truly, they don't make them like they used to, the new frontier (for decades already) has been planned software obsolescence. There are many examples in the "Eagle will be part of Fusion360" thread.
 

Offline amyk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8240
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #92 on: April 11, 2021, 05:39:17 am »
I could make the same statement about electronically commutated motors which replaced shaded pole motors in refrigerator evaporators because of EPA requirements.  I have never had one of these shaded pole motors fail, but I have had to replace the electronically commutated motor in my new refrigerator 6 times now in 10 years, and they cost $30 each.

I'm kind of surprised to hear they're THAT bad. Did you look into what actually failed? I've had the shaded pole motors fail before but it was only the bearings. My friend had a fridge in a rental house that would make weird chirping noises, I immediately identified it as bearing failure in the evaporator fan motor but they had no clue what it was.

Bearing wear after a year is insignificant.  The electronics are failing.  The original and all of the replacements except one come from Switzerland but the most recent one, which has lasted the longest so far, was made in China.   :-//
I suspect power surges may be killing them. There's a video about those you might like:
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #93 on: April 11, 2021, 07:05:28 am »
There is no fan in my refrigerator. The evaporator is in the top of the enclosure and cools by convection. It's much more reliable than a fan. I have seen refrigerators with a fan, but I doubt they're more efficient, because the extra energy used to circulate the air, will probably outweigh the tiny saving in improved evaporator efficiency.

Frost free freezers use forced air convection so require a motor for the evaporator.
I don't have a problem with frost in my fanless refrigerator.

My freezer does frost up, but every couple of years, I take all the food out, cover it in bubble wrap and switch it off for an hour or so, with a bucket near the door. The ice quickly melts and can easily be removed using a butter knife. I don't see why anyone would bother with a frost free freezer. Doing this every year or two, is of little inconvenience.

Ambient humidity plays a role. In spite of the complaints, it never gets that humid in the UK.


We have a cabin that is on an ocean inlet and a few years ago the defrost thermostat failed intermittent open so it stopped defrosting. The evaporator froze into a solid block of ice and then without air circulating past the thermostat that controls the fridge temperature that ran constantly until the refrigerator section was frozen and a bunch of cans of soda exploded. I cleaned it all out and thawed the thing and then after only about 3 months it froze into a solid block of ice again and after that I figured out what was going on. In a high humidity environment not having automatic defrost would be a real pain.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #94 on: April 11, 2021, 07:18:41 am »
Exactly - this is the stroke of genius behind the coiled filament: it runs hotter for a given thickness of wire.   So, you can increase the thickness and length a little, which will lower the brightness a little - ending up where we were, but with a thicker filament that will therefore last longer!

The next step in the evolution was never taken by the cartel...  is the coil (or double, triple coil) really the last word in what is possible with this concept?

The advantage of the coiled coil filament is that it takes a very long filament which would have high thermal losses into a small package that not only has lower thermal losses (which is what you just referred to) but it also enables a much simpler support structure. Early tungsten lamps used a cage filament where it zigzagged up and down between an array of radial support wires at the top and bottom of a stem. Expensive to manufacture, and high losses, not only from the lengthy exposed filament but from the large number of support wires conducting heat away.

The next step in evolution was the IR reflecting coating, it was taken and it did work, but it was too little, too late. Shortly after it was refined into a really good product LED bulbs started dropping in price and it was obvious that tungsten lamps were never going to compete even if massive gains were achieved. Several other innovative lamp types suffered the same fate, Electron Stimulated Emission, essentially a crude flood gun CRT with a lighting phosphor, electrodeless induction, ceramic metal halide and other HID lamps were all displaced.

It's a lot like the way carburetor development pretty much ceased once fuel injection became affordable. It was obvious that no matter how much development went into creating better carburetors they were never going to compete with EFI. Carburetors still have their uses, as do incandescent lamps, but they are no longer mainstream and it is not due to conspiracy but because other technologies offer compelling advantages in mainstream applications.
 
The following users thanked this post: SilverSolder

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #95 on: April 11, 2021, 07:28:53 am »
But it’s a big difference compared to the ~0.7 bar of the gas fill that we actually used in general illumination light bulbs, which is the point. Making a bulb that can temporarily withstand a vacuum during manufacturing is different from making one that can withstand a vacuum and household abuse at the same  time without breaking. Think about how fragile light bulbs already were, and then imagine if they were prestressed by a vacuum. No, they wouldn’t shatter if you touched them, but it certainly would reduce their maximum drop distance, for example.

I have a lot of light bulbs, including examples of gas filled and vacuum filled lamps of various sizes. The glass envelope is not really any different between them to my eye. It's possible that there are differences but if so I don't think it's significant. Just surviving the bumps from normal handling probably requires more strength than a small vacuum filled bulb holding off the ambient pressure. Something else to consider, the pressure inside a gas filled bulb changes considerably depending on the temperature of the bulb. Putting a burned out bulb in a microwave oven makes a pretty spectacular show from the fill gas ionizing, but don't leave it in there very long or it will explode due to the pressure created inside the bulb by the hot gas.
 

Online David Hess

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16545
  • Country: us
  • DavidH
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #96 on: April 11, 2021, 10:46:52 am »
I suspect power surges may be killing them. There's a video about those you might like:

That could be.  As I mentioned earlier, LED bulbs have an appallingly short operating life here.
 

Offline SilverSolder

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6126
  • Country: 00
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #97 on: April 11, 2021, 11:14:38 am »
[...] Carburetors still have their uses, as do incandescent lamps, but they are no longer mainstream and it is not due to conspiracy but because other technologies offer compelling advantages in mainstream applications.

That is a good point, and obviously not an example of conspiracy (or, in modern parlance, "antitrust").   I was more thinking, if the cartel hadn't blocked progress at the stage where they thought "good enough to make money, let's shut down competition now", what could the humble light bulb have become before the advent of the LED?
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19344
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #98 on: April 11, 2021, 01:51:12 pm »
There is no fan in my refrigerator. The evaporator is in the top of the enclosure and cools by convection. It's much more reliable than a fan. I have seen refrigerators with a fan, but I doubt they're more efficient, because the extra energy used to circulate the air, will probably outweigh the tiny saving in improved evaporator efficiency.

Frost free freezers use forced air convection so require a motor for the evaporator.
I don't have a problem with frost in my fanless refrigerator.

My freezer does frost up, but every couple of years, I take all the food out, cover it in bubble wrap and switch it off for an hour or so, with a bucket near the door. The ice quickly melts and can easily be removed using a butter knife. I don't see why anyone would bother with a frost free freezer. Doing this every year or two, is of little inconvenience.

Ambient humidity plays a role. In spite of the complaints, it never gets that humid in the UK.
I can see how it would be an issue for a freezer, but a refrigerator? The evaporator on my fridge doesn't stay below freezing for long enough to ice over. When the compressor turns off, it thaws, the water drains off through a sump, going to a small tray on top of the compressor, at the back, where it evaporates. If the fridge is icing up, then it will be because the thermostat is set too low.
 

Online madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7693
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Video on planned obsolescence.
« Reply #99 on: April 11, 2021, 02:40:23 pm »
No-frost fridges with fan have also a defrost heater in the evaporator unit plus a defrost sensor (NTC). And if you're lucky your no-frost fridge has a design fault causing the drain to clog up with ice (can be fixed with a piece of aluminum sheet).
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf