• captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not necessarily, if the point of failure is the battery connect then this is able to continue until complete failure. It’s the opposite of one way planned obsolescence is done of putting the expected point of failure in a position where it is no longer operable at all or repairable

    • idunnololz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This concept is infact compatible with planned obsolescence. You can design things that break overtime on purpose, have that thing still work, just work not as well over time.

    • clausetrophobic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you mean “nothing to do with”? The title literally says “the opposite of planned obsolescence”, which is planning the failure of a device. This is showing the planned continued use of a device when parts of it fails.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Planned obsolescence is taking steps to ensure the device fails.

        But if I have a device that requires four batteries to function and one of them fails and this causes the device to stop working, that’s not planned obsolescence, it’s just not graceful degradation. It isn’t planned obsolescence because the device isn’t useless, I just need to put some new batteries in.