Designed to break—or designed to sell?
A phone with a weak battery, jeans with a small tear, a perfectly good laptop that cannot run new software: each presents a different reason to replace something. Yet modern shopping culture often treats them alike. Rather than asking whether a product can be fixed, we ask what the latest model costs.
It is tempting to say that everything was built to last in the past. Some older appliances were mechanically simpler and easier to open. However, surviving examples do not tell us how many failed. Today's products may also be safer, more efficient or more capable. The real question is not whether every old product was superior, but why repair has become inconvenient or uneconomical in so many cases.
The phrase 'planned obsolescence' describes deliberate strategies that shorten a product's useful life or encourage earlier replacement. A sealed battery or software restriction can make repair harder. But an item failing after a few years is not, by itself, proof of a deliberate plan. Ordinary wear, design trade-offs, manufacturing defects and changing customer preferences may also explain it. Evidence matters.
Fashion illustrates a different kind of obsolescence. A cheap shirt may still be wearable when it is declared out of style. Rapidly changing trends, targeted advertising and low prices encourage customers to buy more frequently. This is sometimes called perceived obsolescence: the product still works, but we no longer want it. The environmental costs of production and disposal may be far less visible than the price tag.
Repair is not automatically the cheapest option. A new small appliance may cost less than the labour needed to diagnose an old one. Missing spare parts can make the calculation worse. Community Repair Cafés, second-hand markets and clothing alterations offer alternatives, but they cannot solve every problem.
EU rules have begun to shift the incentives. Since July 2026, the right-to-repair measures have required manufacturers to offer repairs for specified product groups covered by EU repairability requirements, normally at a reasonable price. Separate EU consumer rules applying from September 2026 strengthen protection against misleading claims about durability and certain early-obsolescence practices. These are targeted measures, not a universal guarantee that anything can be fixed.
Who should change first? Consumers can buy less and maintain what they own. Manufacturers can make parts available and design for repair. Governments can help align prices with environmental costs. Perhaps the most useful question is not who deserves all the blame, but what would make keeping a product genuinely easier than replacing it.
