Planned obsolescence and repairs

I have blogged several times earlier on disturbing features of the variant of capitalism that's pursued in the United States, which is also the ideological vanguard for global capitalism. This post will draw attention to the issues of declining product durability and emerging barriers to product repairs. 

Not long ago when people purchased goods, they prioritised durability as one of the important considerations. Similarly repairs of goods was a commonly accepted practice, one which supported a significant share of the informal market. But things have changed in the last 10-15 years in two important ways. 

1. Previously goods were renowned for durability. So people choose electronic and other goods (a refrigerator or a phone or a cloth) based on their durability. Brands were marked out for their durability. Now businesses have come to adopt the idea of "planned obsolescence" which intend to deliberately shorten the life of the product so as to encourage repeat purchases which will maximise the company's sales. The marketing departments of brands have been successful in relegating durability to the sidelines. 

Apple is the most famous example of a company pursuing "planned obsolescence" - by reducing battery life, operating system upgrades which slows down the phone or even becomes unavailable for older versions etc. 

I could not find out a paper or statistics about how the average durability of top brands have changed over the years. I am inclined to believe that the average durability of the top 10 global brands in different market segments has declined. 

France is a leader in regulating planned obsolescence, making it an offence punishable by up to €300,000 ($354,000) or up to 5% of the maker’s average annual French sales, whichever is higher. Manufacturers must also tell buyers how long their products are likely to last. 

2. As an economic activity repairing was as important as the purchase of goods themselves. It was largely the preserve of the informal economy. There were millions of self-operated private repair shops which repaired every electrical and other equipment, of all brands. While I've not come across any reliable statistics, it could be argued that the repair economy was perhaps one of the three or five biggest economic segments.

Like durability, as the modern economy has advanced, repairing too has shrunk. Slowly, in recent times, brands have put in place several measures to discourage and drive out repairing - brands started to not accept complaints on products which had been repaired outside; they said they started to offer their own higher cost authorised repairing services; the goods themselves were getting produced in a manner not easily repairable (instead of parts being screwed together, they were now either cast or glued together); the replacement parts of the goods became scarce or difficult to find, and so on. 

Apple, again, is a good example. I recently replaced one ear pod (paying about exactly half the cost of a pair). But the Apple store insisted that I hand over the old one back, presumably also because its parts should not become available for repair shops. Sample this example,

Corporate consolidation even affects farmers’ ability to repair their own equipment or to use independent repair shops. Powerful equipment manufacturers—such as tractor manufacturers—use proprietary repair tools, software, and diagnostics to prevent third-parties from performing repairs. For example, when certain tractors detect a failure, they cease to operate until a dealer unlocks them. That forcers farmers to pay dealer rates for repairs that they could have made themselves, or that an independent repair shop could have done more cheaply.

These have made fixing an equipment much more inconvenient, time consuming, and expensive than buying a new one. It does not help that technology too has contributed to this trend - less parts or fixtures, miniaturisation, large number of sensors, increased use of software etc. 

These trends have invariably elicited pushback. A "right to repair" movement, that demands firms provide consumers and independent repair shops with the same service documentation, tools and spare parts that they make available to authorised service providers, has emerged,

In America the movement has already managed to get relevant bills on the agenda of legislatures in a dozen states, including Nebraska. Across the Atlantic, the European Parliament recently passed a motion calling for regulation to force manufacturers to make their products more easily repairable.

The big breakthrough may be in the recent decision by the US Government,

Joe Biden signed an executive order in July giving owners the “right to repair” their own vehicles without voiding warranties. The UK introduced rules that legally require manufacturers to make spare parts available, while the European parliament has called for similar regulations to govern the sales of smartphones and laptops.

This is what the US executive order had to say,

In the Order, the President encourages the FTC to establish rules barring unfair methods of competition on internet marketplaces. Cell phone manufacturers and others blocking out independent repair shops: Tech and other companies impose restrictions on self and third-party repairs, making repairs more costly and time-consuming, such as by restricting the distribution of parts, diagnostics, and repair tools.

In the Order, the President encourages the FTC to issue rules against anticompetitive restrictions on using independent repair shops or doing DIY repairs of your own devices and equipment.

At the micro-level, there are innovative business models like the electronic waste recycling entity named Repair Cafes. An FT article writes,

Started in 2009 by Martine Postma, a Dutch journalist and environmentalist who “wanted to change people’s behaviour”, repair cafés are events held by an informal network of volunteers around the globe who give their time to mend devices that would otherwise end up on the scrapheap. The service is free and, depending on the expertise of the volunteers, attendees can bring items from computers and household appliances, to sweaters and socks that need darning... Their success rate, they say, hovers around 60 per cent. There are now more than 1,500 such “cafés” around the world.

The barriers on the repair economy may also be part of a much more disturbing trend of dilution of ownership rights themselves,

The global assault on repairability highlights a bigger problem, says Jason Schultz of New York University: what it means to own things in the digital age. Together with Aaron Perzanowski of Case Western Reserve University, he has written a book, “The End of Ownership”, which describes the many ways in which firms now limit what people can do with the stuff they buy, in particularly the digital sort. “Owners” are often not allowed to resell it, transfer it to another devices or mash it up with other digital goods. Companies have even started to limit what buyers can do with physical goods. Tesla, for example, does not allow its self-driving cars to be used to make money with ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft (apparently because the firm plans soon to launch its own such service, called “Tesla Network”). It will be interesting to see what happens if Tesla takes steps to enforce this anti-Uber rule.

The durability and repair movements are especially important for developing countries. As mentioned earlier, repairs are one of the largest employers in the informal economy. Smart phone repairs alone employ millions. For emerging consumers, durability is effectively an additional income that helps them expand their consumption basket. A reversal of this trend is another of the several corrections required in modern capitalism.