Comment by x-complexity | Hacker News Reader

Comment by x-complexity | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> "Our economy isn’t one that produces things to be used, but things that increase usage."

...the quote, *AS A SOUNDBITE*, only sounds good on a surface level, but collapses under the slightest test. All products in some form or another increase the usage of resources in order to reach a certain goal.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-anti-economy/

The article, where the quote originates from, contextualizes the quote marking (a) the difference between products in service of an actual goal, (b) products that are only meant to look good on a balance sheet, and (c) how companies have morphed towards (b) in order to attract investor funds and increase share prices / company market values.

The quote, BY ITSELF AND WITHOUT CONTEXT, is a twisted Neo-luddist version of its original self.

I think it means increase usage of the thing itself, and I think it's a good insight. While there is a natural supply and demand curve, unscrupulous growth-focused businesses optimize their products (unhealthy food) and services (gambling, social media, mobile games) for high levels of consumption (at least for a portion of vulnerable users), irrespective of harmful effects. It's the tobacco industry model reborn.

I think a more generous interpretation of this is simply one that is critiquing planned obsolescence and addicting algorithm. Some things need to increase usage by nature, but how many services have you used that really needed a subscription as a necessary model to work?

My hot take is planned obsolescence doesn't exist.

It's a side effect of items being built to cost, and the marketing phenomenon that consumers follow fashion trends.

Your car doesn't have planned obsolescence: it has a warranty period. If you want a longer one, you'll pay more because that is not a free service to provide.

That’s a reductionist view. Have you read “Made to Break” by Giles Slade? A great book on this subject. Make no mistake, there’s a lot of deliberate planning and effort that goes into designing things to break after a point in time, for nothing else but profit, the environment be damned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com