83
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + +
→I disagree with the tone of this article, I think it needs a considerable rewrite.: new section
"This strategy is even readily admitted by the product developers themselves;"
"This strategy is even readily admitted by the product developers themselves;"
I wouldn't call it a "strategy" of planned obsolescence to warn that a battery will not last for an infinite number of charge/discharge cycles. This should be reworded...
I wouldn't call it a "strategy" of planned obsolescence to warn that a battery will not last for an infinite number of charge/discharge cycles. This should be reworded...
== I disagree with the tone of this article, I think it needs a considerable rewrite. ==
Obsolescence happens, it is an unavoidable result of improving technology and goods that aren't perfectly durable. One example in the article is the bateries in devices being soldered in, but there are good reasons for this, it literally improves the durability of the device and prevents damage. In order to compete these devices all need specialized batteries and the advantage of specialized batteries more than pays for the service costs associated with the occasional replacement. I've been using the same iPod since 2005 and I've seen a considerable reduction in battery life (associated with the number of cycles I've put on the Li-Poli battery) but my natural frugality has prevented me from upgrading, because it's got a tolerable level of obsolescence. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 00:23, 5 April 2011 (EDT)