By Toyin Obire

In today’s fast-moving markets, new technologies have a proclivity for becoming old news fairly quickly. Against this backdrop, consumers now have to deal with the challenge of technological obsolescence, a situation where technology-based products and services lose their appeal, even though they are still in good working condition. What was stylish and popular last year is suddenly no longer in vogue this year. The result is the very pervasive urge to upgrade to bigger, slimmer, faster, smarter and ultimately, better.

Going hand-in-hand with this loss of appeal for older product models is the preference for replacement as opposed to repair of faulty gadgets, especially when new product iterations have been introduced. During the eighties, most consumers would not immediately resort to buying a replacement appliance if their television set, refrigerator or audio system had a technical problem. As a first step, the option of repairing the gadget would be investigated. This option was often available at a relatively reasonable cost.

Today, technology innovations with features that cannot be updated and easily-damaged vital parts that cannot be replaced flourish. Even where the option of repair is available, the cost is so high that the prospect becomes somewhat ridiculous. In 2012, I purchased a mobile device for just a little over N90,000. Two years later, the screen of the device was damaged in a minor accident. I took a trip to Computer Village to have the screen replaced and was met with a rude shock. Replacing the screen would cost N45,000, net of service charges! Also, since 2012, the device had seen two new iterations and a price drop to N60,000. I immediately started contemplating buying a new device.

Echoing my thoughts, the repairman brought me out of my reverie. ‘Aunty, why don’t you just buy last year’s model? It is N70,000. Or if you really like this type, buy a new one for N60,000 instead of fixing this old one for N45,000. It will be waste of money o. The side is already peeling and the battery is not good again,’ he said.

For many consumers, it would be difficult to understand why a company would go out of its way to ensure that its products are engineered to go wrong. Questions on the subject range from the ridiculous to the thought-provoking -Why don’t we have gadgets with shatter-proof screens despite the availability of bullet-proof glass in the market? Why do some mobile device manufacturers permanently seal batteries within their products instead of giving consumers the leverage of being able to remove and replace these batteries when they begin to drain too fast? Is product durability being deliberately diminished to increase bottom-line from revenue accruing from new sales and repairs? Some mobile phone users have even complained that their device becomes less responsive and loses battery power faster around the period of release of new product models.

A number of pundits view the aforementioned as evidences of planned obsolescence, a situation where manufacturers ensure that their products have a relatively short life cycle in order to force consumers to keep upgrading and also design new products in such a way that users would not be predisposed to keeping the old. The term dates back to the 1920s in the United States where a certain individual suggested that the government should stimulate the economy by placing fake expiry dates on consumer products to encourage people to buy more often.

Market trends spanning decades have also shown that manufacturers could have strong motivation to diminish product durability, especially where there are limited choices for consumers. An example of such motivation can be drawn from the activities of the Phoebus Cartel, a union comprising General Electric, Phillips and a handful of other light bulb manufacturers.  The union existed in the early 20th century to control the manufacture and sale of light bulbs. Before the formation of the cartel, light bulbs were known to burn for upwards of 2,500 hours. After its formation, members’ bulbs were regularly tested and those with light bulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours were punished. The 1,000 hour life cycle of light bulbs is still being maintained today.

From software companies sidestepping support for older technology, leaving users with no choice but to buy newer product models, to car manufacturers making slight changes to vehicle design, leaving owners of older models thinking that their vehicles are now antiques, there is an increasing pressure on consumers to upgrade.

Nevertheless, there is a silver lining in the cloud of technological obsolescence. Sometimes, genuinely superior products are introduced. The process becomes even necessary in the face of rapid advancements in the technology sector. In addition, Nigeria’s expanding middle-class, with its significantly higher disposable income, is being armed to conveniently support a lifestyle of continuous psychological persuasion to upgrade to the latest consumer technology – the economy gets a boost from this spending.

But the route is not for everybody. Replacing products that are still in good working condition can become an addiction that could make the attainment of economic independence impossible. The onus is on every consumer to curb such spending if it is being undertaken at the detriment of personal finances or takes funds away from more essential needs.

Toyin Obire is a communications consultant at Target Seven, a Lagos-based public relations consultancy.