One of the joys of attending a liberal arts college is that I was able to take classes like Philosophy of Color and Sociology of Pop Culture and other entertainingly random subjects that somehow came together to earn me a degree. In one such random class, my professor showed us the movie Kinky Boots. I assure you this is not something that would happen at a state school.
The basic premise of the movie is as follows: The main character has been passed down his father’s shoe business, which is proud of the fact that it makes its shoes that last forever. Unfortunately, the fact that its shoes last forever means that no ones needs new shoes, sales are falling and the factory is soon going to go out of business.
To make a long story short, the main character then meets a drag queen and realizes the niche market for “kinky boots” (hence the title) — tall, sexy, leather, high heel boots that will support the weight of a man.
And it saves the business.
I’m sure you’re wondering why I’m telling you this … and part of the reason is that it reminds me of my friend Kevin. No, Kevin is not a drag queen (that I’m aware) and does not make kinky boots in his spare time (I’m pretty sure). Instead, it reminds me of Kevin because there are few things that Kevin enjoys more than talking about how awful corporations are and, more specifically, talking about how much he hates Apple.
Why?
Well, one of his top complaints is pretty simple: That the company essentially engineers its products to die after a certain period of time. His Mac battery isn’t going to last forever, his iPhone probably won’t either and his iPad will probably require an update. (Yes, he does own all three of those products despite his disdain for the company … as I’m sure is true for countless people who love ripping on Steve Jobs’ legacy.)
Anyways, this reminds me of Kinky Boots … or Kinky Boots reminds me of Kevin … because Apple does the exact opposite of what the Kinky Boots guy does (at first). Still, both shed light on a simple reality: Products can’t last forever, because then the businesses behind them won’t last at all.
Just look at Apple’s most recent quarter: The company sold 47.8 million iPhones, which was 29% than the year before … and still wasn’t enough for investors. They were expecting 50 million. Similarly, revenue gained 18% to $54.5 billion — more than most of us can fathom — but also not quite enough. The company lost more than the total value of Nike or Target or Guatemala’s GDP as a result.
I would guess it would have been even worse if countless iPhone-buyers weren’t replacing their older versions.
Granted Kevin — or someone — would probably argue that in the case of Apple, part of the issue is that its publicly traded and shareholder expectations rule … while in Kevin’s ideal world consumer’s interests (well, Kevin’s interests) would instead be paramount.
But Apple is just one example. It might sound ideal to have the consumer come first and products last forever, but that’s not good for the economy as a whole … and that’s then bad for everyone, whether or not we make the connection. The tough reality is that our society is built around economic growth … and the bottom line is that shorter product life cycles are actually a better thing in that regard. Heck, that’s why countless companies actually work to make everything from razors to refrigerators last for LESS time.
But that’s not really my point either. My point is that everyone needs to get off Taylor Swift’s back.
Yes, you heard correctly.
Let me explain.
Recently, an Internet meme has been going around in defense of Miley Cyrus. Essentially, the gist is this: Miley is often called a ‘slut’ when she has been with the same guy for four years and is now engaged. Taylor, on the other hand, has been with around 14 guys in the same time period and is considered innocent, lovely, elegant, etc.
First of all, let me say that I love Miley Cyrus. I’ve always have been a huge defender because I think she has been over-hated since her and Billy Ray hit the screen with Hannah Montana (partly because I enjoy arguing with people) and I think her new haircut looks awesome and I wish I could pull it off. And second of all, I would agree with the many Internet commenters saying that there’s no need to imply Taylor is a ‘slut’ in order to make the point that Miley isn’t.
But most of all, my point is this: Just like the dude in Kinky Boots made shoes and Apple makes tech gadgets, heartbreak is Taylor Swift’s business. She has made millions on naive ideals of love, four chords and curly hair. And she has to keep the life cycle of that heartbreak short if she wants to keep it up.
Sure, she dated an 18-year-old when she’s like, what, 22, but come on, like you wouldn’t sacrifice a few ideals to make a few more bucks? It’s no different than Apple considering making a cheaper iPhone, or the dude from the movie deciding to make red leather boots.
You gotta do what you gotta do. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta eat, Taylor’s gotta fall in love … over and over and over and over and over again. Don’t hate her for being a businesswoman disguised as a hopeless romantic.
She went on The Ellen Show (as my dad told me) and Ellen teased her relentlessly about her countless ex-boyfriends. Taylor, in response, expressed that she wished she could for once come back on the show and be dating the same guy she had been dating the time before.
Nonsense, people. That would be like Tim Cook saying he wished he could make the iPhone last forever. He doesn’t want that. Taylor’s heartbreak is her money-maker … and her longevity.
All the haters are just mad they didn’t think of it first. “So you mean I should date John Mayer even though he will probably be an asshole to me and make me cry, then write a song about it and get millions? Ugh, FINE. I guuuuesssssssss. (Five weeks later.) Okay, who’s next?”
Brilliant.
Nothing is meant to last forever.
Last year, the average law student spent approximately $1,500-$2,000 on textbooks. Why? Has the law been dramatically altered in the last few years? Has traditional doctrine been replaced by modern legal theories? Nope. The vast majority of cases are from the 1800’s and early 1900’s. So why do we need a Wolters Kluwer 9th Edition torts book? Because textbook publishers needlessly shift, reorganize, and supplement every single year. If you work for Wolters Kluwer, this is a phenomenal business strategy. Students need to be able to follow the correct pages. Suppress the used textbook market, and force them to upgrade.
On one hand, this stimulates economic activity. Textbook companies are producing a product, students purchase that product, and the cycle carries along merrily. But business is not an end in and of itself (Yes, Alyssa, I know what you’re thinking. Nothing is ever in and of itself….). Business is not meant to solely serve itself. Consumers should be the focus.
True, nothing lasts forever. But that is irrelevant because “forever” isn’t the benchmark.
Even if you accept the idea that planned obsolescence is good for business (which I still question), it is undoubtedly a disaster for the consumer and society at large. We have transformed into a mass production, mass consumption society. Continuous obsolescence and replacement leads to massive waste, environmental externalities, and results in less money in the consumer’s pockets. All three create a continuous drag on the economy.
And what happens to that business when consumers realize they are being duped? It implodes. Consumers fight back with their choices. Students order books from craigslist. Some choose not to buy textbooks at all, and instead rely on the free supplements at the library. How did the Japanese take over the U.S. car market? While GM basked in its arrogance, the Japanese offered a quality product that was fuel-efficient, structurally sound, and designed to last.
And now kids burn homes in Detroit on Halloween just for shits and giggles.
Considering he’s presently only 22 I hate to see what happens when “Grumpy Old Man” actually becomes a grumpy old man…
I’ll try to make this relatively quick.
1. To start, I don’t think you can compare Apple products to college textbooks. An iPhone, for example, is a high-end smartphone — the definition of discretionary spending. No one is making you buy it, much less making you buy the newest one.
2. Plus, I would guess that if you went to law school, shelling out thousands of dollars for tuition, you would probably be kind of pissed if your textbooks were from 1980. Not that you would admit it now, but the grass is always greener. This is America. We have new products released all the time because, DUH, that new product is what’s going to buy us happiness. And while in some textbooks updates may NOT be necessary, sometimes, updates ARE completely necessary. You can’t generalize.
3. Sure, Toyota and Honda have risen to prominence because they made a fairly affordable and durable product — because that’s what consumers wanted. I agree with the idea that you should vote with your money, but I find it hard to take it seriously when you own all the Apple products there are.
4. Plus, there’s a risk for businesses in terms of short product lives. If another company decides to get ballsy (like in the case of Toyota and Honda automakers) and make something far more durable, others (like GM) risk losing market share to them. They are different strategies, but that doesn’t mean one is right and one is wrong.
5. Eventually, if durable products sell, the competition becomes to make the most durable products (but still not TOO durable). As a result, you end up jacking up the price of those new, long-lasting ones to make the longer cycle sustainable. Tell me you wouldn’t still be complaining. As a consumer, why don’t you take advantage of this upgrade cycle to buy the iPhone 4, for example, at a substantial discount just because its not the 5?
6. More than looking at the car-makers, though, what about the parts? We have built rocket ships that can survive triple-digit temperatures and clear the atmosphere. You don’t think we could make a muffler that lasts 20 years? We could. But why would we? Then we couldn’t sell more mufflers. Replacing your Mac battery is the same exact thing.
7. Plus, you make it sound like there is never a reason to replace or upgrade anything — that it is forced on helpless consumers. Countless people CHOOSE to buy new cars, because they want newer technology, the status symbol, added features, etc — not just because their cars die. They choose to buy new iPhones because they want the latest apps or specs.
8. You also seem to create a false division between the idea of businesses and consumers. You overlook the fact that countless consumers are the ones that work for the companies you’re mentioning, whether it’s Apple or a textbook company or another company. The person making new textbooks gets a paycheck for doing so, then turns around and makes its own consumers choices. The economy works in one big circle. I’m not saying it works perfectly, or that maybe the people at the top of Apple make far more money than those at the bottom and that it is a problem that should be addressed, but that’s a separate issue. Without upgrade cycles and consumers, those people don’t have jobs to begin with.
9. And now kids burn homes in Detroit on Halloween just for shits and giggles. Good point. You should tweet that from your iPhone once you’re done reading your law school text books.
1. First, I would hardly call a cell phone “discretionary spending” in the 21st century. It’s a practical necessity. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that planned obsolescence spans beyond “discretionary spending” and beyond apple. It’s a societal problem with very real consequences.
2. Substance being roughly equal, I would rather have a 1980 textbook for $10 than a 2012 textbook for $200. Of course we can’t generalize. I never said updates are never necessary. I said unnecessary updates are unnecessary. Technology is always pushing forward. Products will inevitably be altered and upgraded. But we don’t want to be reinventing the wheel.
3. I never said Apple doesn’t make a good product. They do. It is their business practices that I find disgusting. I’m a spoiled daddy’s boy who unwillingly gets this stuff for Christmas. I’m a poor post-grad. I haven’t voted with my feet because I have no feet to vote with.
4. They are vastly different strategies. One drains our pockets and leads to waste and externalities. The other is somewhat more sustainable. I choose the latter.
5. Fine. Jack up the price. In the end, the costs (and not just monetary) of the buy-replace-buy-replace model will far outweigh that of the durables.
6. Why would we? Because not doing so drives us into the ground. A mass consumption / mass waste society is not sustainable. Of course, the muffler that lasts 5 years will bring in more money than the muffler that lasts 20 years. But at what cost to the consumer and society at large?
7. That is precisely my point. People often do not have the opportunity to “CHOOSE” under this system. You want to go to law school? Buy the new textbooks because the others are obsolete. You want to use your laptop for more than 2 years? Buy the new $500 battery when the old one explodes. You want the iPhone 5? You’re going to have to buy a new charger because the old one won’t fit in the hole. Backwards compatibility is not allowed.
Your argument is circular. Product X is produced. Person 1 buys Product X. Product X serves its lifespan until its planned obsolescence. Thus, a new Product Y is needlessly produced. Because Product X no longer is compatible with daily needs. Person 1 buys Product Y. Are they really “choosing” to buy Product Y?
Sure, some items are chosen by people who want the added features, newer technology, and so forth. But even then, their desires are socially constructed by the companies seeking their business. Look at fashion…
8. Again this is circular. Apple Worker makes $500 a week to pay for his Gizmo 1 and Gadget 2. Gizmo 1 and Gadget 2 become obsolete. Apple Worker works another week to purchase Gizmo 3 and Gadget 4. And so on… If I was Mr. Apple Worker, I’d rather buy Gizmo 1 and save my money for, you know… food. That sounds like a sickening cycle if you ask me.
To top it off is the staggering waste that accompanies this system. What are cell phones, laptops, shoes, microwaves, and everything that is plastic made of? Oil. But luckily we’ve got tons of that stuff under the sand. And further, it’s super clean. Trees love CO2, right? So keep calm and carry on! Throw that old phone away!
An iPhone is absolutely discretionary spending. A cell phone is a necessity, but an iPhone is a high-end smartphone and is far from one. It costs over $700 without carrier subsidies. That’s like saying a Mercedes Benz is a necessity just because our society is based around cars. And granted, we could never prove this point. But not just you, but most people, tend to complain no matter what. If we were only offered old textbooks, I doubt you would be sitting there thanking the Lord that you weren’t paying more. You would probably say you would rather pay more to have a nicer one. Sure, you won’t admit this, but this is America and the grass is always greener.
Also, you absolutely have feet to vote with. If you don’t want unnecessary upgrades, don’t buy a new laptop for law school when your old one works just fine.
Also, you give no credit to the consumers ability to choose. If you don’t want to buy new textbooks, don’t go to lawschool. (On a side note, why do many people go to law school? To get high-paying jobs. Why? To buy more things.) If you don’t want to buy a new Mac battery, don’t buy a Mac. There are other laptops and, heck, they’re even cheaper! If you want the new iPhone 5, don’t bitch a bout a new charger. I’m sorry you don’t have the “opportunity” to choose a luxury smartphone without having to buy a new accessory. Backwards compatibility often is allowed, though, even if not in the the case of the iPhone 5. Maybe you shouldn’t buy the iPhone 5 if that’s your problem.
Also, I know countless Macs that have lasted longer than 2 years. Also, how can you argue that Product Y is “needlessly” produced while arguing it doesn’t meet daily needs? Also, there are far more options than Product X and Y, so yes, they are choosing.
And the argument about socially constructed desires? Give me a break. Where is the responsibility of the consumers? Why are you the only one who can see through these socially constructed desires? And if you see through them, why do you still make purchases based on them? You make consumers sound like helpless, passive receivers.
If Mr. Apple doesn’t have to buy Gizmos in the first place. I guess you believe society is making him do it and that he has no choice, but that’s ridiculous. He has a choice. He doesn’t have to follow desires. He doesn’t have to buy a new phone. He doesn’t have to buy the new charger. And if he doesn’t buy the new phone that requires a new charger, and neither does anyone else, then Apple won’t keep creating new products.
The environmental waste argument is a whole different ball game. But from your point of view, I’m just a helpless consumer that makes choices that aren’t really choices based on what society tells me to do. If that’s the case, I don’t even feel bad about any of this shit. It’s not my fault. They’re making me WANT to NEED a new iPhone. Goddamn you APPLE.
Buy new textbooks or don’t go to law school
Buy $500 mac battery in 2 years or don’t buy a Mac at all
You call those choices? Consumers shouldn’t sit complacently and accept such “choices.” However, they do. Everyday. Why? First, they often don’t know realize they are being sold a product that is designed to fail. Second, they don’t have an alternative choice. Even if they do have an alternative choice, the alternative is similarly designed to fail. It’s a false choice.
I don’t care about what is discretionary spending and what constitutes a necessity item because planned obsolescence reaches both categories equally. Apple is just one example. PC’s are not any different. AT&T, Samsung, Xbox, Ford, Light bulbs… you name it. Planned obsolescence is broader than cell phones and consumer electronics; it’s “the way business is done.” Voting with your feet is often not an option. Just because it’s the standard practice doesn’t mean it isn’t unethical and disgraceful.
You’re the one making it a false choice in this argument. That’s the one plus of our rampant consumerism: we have countless choices. It’s never one product or one alternative.
You also make it sound like you are the only genius smart enough to realize products aren’t meant to last forever. Sigh. I wish the rest of the dumb consumers were as smart as you.
Other than that, your argument sounds like nothing more than an oversimplified conspiracy theory.
And another reason many consumers accept such “choices” is because they aren’t unrealistically optimistic about things they buy lasting forever.
When in doubt, attack the person, not the argument.
How was that attacking you?
I loved the post and the videos to support as such. Hence the way I like to ad pics to my poems but I am impressed and sometimes I admit you are a little over my head until I read your posts a few times and then the AHA bulb goes off and I so GET you and it is so worth the effort to really actually read your points of view. Becoming enlightened at my age? You bet honey! And I have found I actually can think for myself! Imagine that! I love the way your posts make me do that!
I found your exchange enlightening as well!!! Both sides so enthused and then what happened? I hate it when they take their ball and go home just when the game starts getting good!