Planned obsolescence is the practice of designing or marketing a product so that its useful economic life is shorter than it could reasonably be. The product may physically wear out, become difficult or expensive to repair, lose software support, or simply be made to feel outdated by a newer model. The European Parliament has described planned obsolescence as the intentional production of goods and services with short economic lives.
The idea is controversial because not every product failure is planned. Components wear out, batteries degrade, technology advances, and safety requirements change. The important distinction is between normal aging and decisions that deliberately or predictably shorten the period during which a product remains practical to use.
From Light Bulbs to Annual Model Changes
One of the most frequently cited historical examples is the Phoebus cartel, created by major light-bulb manufacturers in the 1920s. Companies including Osram, Philips and General Electric-related businesses coordinated parts of the international incandescent-bulb market. The cartel established a target bulb life of about 1,000 hours and tested manufacturers’ products against that standard. Historians have therefore treated Phoebus as an important early example in the history of planned obsolescence, although technical trade-offs between bulb life, brightness and efficiency also existed.
The expression itself became part of economic debate during the Great Depression. In 1932, American real-estate broker Bernard London published Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence, proposing that products should have legally defined lifespans as a way to stimulate consumption and employment. His proposal was never adopted, but the phrase survived.
Industrial designer Brooks Stevens helped popularize a different interpretation in the 1950s. Instead of making a product literally stop working, manufacturers could persuade buyers that an existing product was no longer desirable. Frequent styling changes, new colors, redesigned bodies and yearly model updates could shorten the psychological lifespan of a perfectly functional product.
The automobile industry demonstrates this distinction particularly well. A car does not have to be engineered to fail after a certain number of years. Regular redesigns, changing infotainment systems, discontinued trim levels, increasingly complex electronics and the declining availability of particular components can gradually make an older vehicle less attractive or more expensive to maintain. That is different from deliberately installing a component intended to fail on a predetermined date.
For thepowerknowledge reader, this distinction matters: planned obsolescence is not one single engineering trick but a group of commercial and technological strategies.
How Planned Obsolescence Works Today
Modern products can become obsolete in several different ways. Physical obsolescence occurs when components wear out and their replacement is difficult or uneconomical. A relatively inexpensive component may be integrated into a larger assembly, meaning the entire unit must be replaced when one small part fails.
Repair-related obsolescence occurs when products are difficult to open, spare parts are unavailable, specialist tools are required, or the cost of repair approaches the cost of a new product. None of these factors alone proves deliberate planned obsolescence, but together they can significantly shorten the practical life of a device.
Digital products add another mechanism: software obsolescence. A phone, television, computer or connected appliance may remain mechanically functional but gradually lose access to applications, security updates or online services. Hardware life and software life have therefore become increasingly difficult to separate.
Batteries provide a particularly clear example of the complexity involved. Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries naturally lose capacity as they chemically age. Apple, for example, explains that chemically aged iPhone batteries can affect peak performance and that replacing the battery can improve device performance. Battery degradation itself is therefore not evidence of planned obsolescence. The more relevant questions are whether the battery can be replaced, how much replacement costs and whether the rest of the device can continue functioning afterward.
There is also perceived obsolescence. A five-year-old car may still perform its basic purpose perfectly, while advertising and product design make its dashboard, headlights or infotainment system appear outdated. Smartphones follow a similar cycle. Cameras gain additional lenses, screens become brighter and processors faster, but many existing devices continue performing everyday tasks adequately.
This is where consumer psychology becomes as important as engineering. Commercial power does not always come from making an old product fail. Sometimes it comes from convincing its owner that functioning is no longer enough.
The Right to Repair Is Changing the Equation
Governments are increasingly focusing on product durability and repairability rather than trying to prove what a designer intended years earlier. The European Union’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which entered into force in July 2024, created a framework for requirements covering issues including durability, repairability, resource efficiency and recyclability.
Rules specifically covering smartphones and tablets began applying in the EU in June 2025. Their purpose includes making these devices more durable, energy-efficient and repairable. The EU’s Right to Repair framework also gives consumers stronger possibilities to request repairs for certain products that are technically repairable under EU rules, including appliances and mobile phones.
Another European consumer-protection initiative directly addresses early obsolescence and misleading environmental claims. EU rules adopted for the green transition restrict certain practices involving premature product replacement and misleading information about durability. The relevant consumer rules are scheduled to apply from September 27, 2026.
These policies reflect a broader change in how product value is measured. Purchase price is only one part of the equation. Repair costs, software support, spare-part availability, battery replacement and expected service life can matter just as much.
For consumers, the most useful response to possible planned obsolescence is therefore not to search for a hidden expiration date. Before buying an expensive product, it is more practical to ask how easily the battery can be replaced, how long software updates are promised, whether independent repair shops can obtain parts, and whether major components are replaceable separately.
The same logic applies to automobiles. A vehicle designed around serviceable components, widely available spare parts and long-term technical support may remain economically useful for decades. Another car can become uneconomical to repair much earlier even though its engine and body are still functional.
Planned obsolescence sits at the intersection of engineering, economics and consumer behavior. Some historical cases involved explicit attempts to control product lifespan, while modern obsolescence is often more complicated. Products can be pushed toward replacement through repair costs, software, design changes and changing expectations without ever containing a component designed to fail on a particular day.
Understanding that difference is useful knowledge. The real question is rarely whether a product lasts forever. It is whether its usable life was reasonably determined by technology — or unnecessarily shortened by the way it was designed, supported and sold.
Ready to see power and knowledge in a new way? Start here:
🔗 Why a Smart Course on Drinking Glasses is Worth It
🔗 Explore More at The Power Knowledge
Photo by Quincy Sandbank