Comments by "MrCarGuy" (@MrCarGuy) on "The Selection Accumulator; a Jukebox's Brain" video.

  1.  @Derpy-qg9hn  That's a silly, Marxist-driven, thought process. It's absolutely wrong. The free market is defined by sentiment and propensity to purchase again. Therefore, if planned obsolescence is truly that terrible and maddening to you, you need to speak up about it and avoid giving them your business. Ultimately, it is a failure of the consumer to understand why it's a disposable society that is preventing a huge movement against it (though you are seeing some good progress in Right to Repair). The true reason why planned obsolescence is a good model for some applications is finance logic. Most consumers use heuristics to find the best combination of price and brand favorability (some care much more about price than brand and vv). In the same way that leasing a car is more affordable or preferable (fewer number of payments, give up ownership, and avoid time spent selling/depreciation) for a consumer, it is more logical for businesses to try to lower the price of anything if there is a certainty the person will repurchase in X amount of time. (Perceived obsolescence is also relevant and sometimes they don't need to design things to fail: With quickly advancing tech, or trends like clothing, this is done because most consumers are not laggards and want new things within a certain amount of time.) Overall, I would personally rather pay more for tech that wasn't designed to fail before its potential life. This can be done without going to a Marxist society where competition (and subsequent innovation) is not encouraged.
    7