There is absolutely nothing wrong with planned obsolescence.
There are exactly two alternatives to planned obsolescence. Planned infinity, which is an impossible engineering constraint. And unplanned obsolescence, which you know from temu products, which break after days of use, as they are designed with massive flaws.
If you are engineering a product you absolutely need to plan how long the product will last. The "alternatives" are significantly worse, especially for the consumer.
The Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 are planned for obsolescence, the parts they are made up of are designed to last a specific amount of time and use and are discarded afterwards. This is not some nefarious greedy management/engineering decision, but a reasonable tradeoff to make aviation possible, cost effective and safe.
Of course this is distinct from malicious engineering, which is the totally unrelated practice of building things which have specific negative properties. E.g. intentional design flaws.
There are exactly two alternatives to planned obsolescence. Planned infinity, which is an impossible engineering constraint. And unplanned obsolescence, which you know from temu products, which break after days of use, as they are designed with massive flaws.
If you are engineering a product you absolutely need to plan how long the product will last. The "alternatives" are significantly worse, especially for the consumer.
The Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 are planned for obsolescence, the parts they are made up of are designed to last a specific amount of time and use and are discarded afterwards. This is not some nefarious greedy management/engineering decision, but a reasonable tradeoff to make aviation possible, cost effective and safe.
Of course this is distinct from malicious engineering, which is the totally unrelated practice of building things which have specific negative properties. E.g. intentional design flaws.