Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
I generally believe most of the unrepairability we see in tech is coming from consumer preferences more than planned obsolescence. Thin, waterproof phones are inherently hard to repair. I’m sure obsolescence is a factor that motivates companies in that direction too, but reputation around longevity does influence purchasing decisions, so it’s not something which they can do “for free” as it were. Making phones thin and light, on the other hand, is positive for sales.