Talk:Obsolescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removal

I removed the following because it doesn't fit the definition at the begining of the article. Replace it if you like, but try to resolve the contradiction. ike9898 22:14, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Intentional physical obsolescence
  • A product is designed to last for a specific lifetime (example: home entertainment electronics)
  • If a product will be technically or stylisticly obsolete in five years, many marketers will design the product so it will only last for that time (this is done through a technical process called value engineering — great euphemism!)
  • Doing this will reduce the cost of making the product, and lower the price to consumers (unless there is a lack of competition in the industry, in which case the cost reduction will probably not be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower price)

[edit] Term applied to People

I don't agree that a the word 'obs.' can be applied to people. I realize it may be used this way sometimes, colloquially, but I really don't think it's right. The person's service might be obsolete- the service a cobbler provides is now pretty much obsolete in the US, but the person isn't. Whether or not anyone 'wants' him as a person, and whether or not he performs any use to society isn't really at issue. It's just not a word you apply to people. No one will stop you from using it this way, but it is confusing. Here's an equivalent example: If someone is commiting crimes, you could say that the person is 'malfunctioning', and in a way you would be correct, but it's likely to just confuse the person you are talking to. So....I'm going to change it a little. ike9898 20:46, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Next time you pass by an old age home take 10 minutes and go inside. You will find many examples of people that are being treated as obsolete, that is unwanted, no longer useful etc. mydogategodshat 04:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Whatever. This is the end of this argument for me. I would just like to reiterate that some words are applied to people and some aren't. It's a convention of modern English. You can make up your own conventions, but that really sort of defeats the purpose of communication. ike9898 14:11, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
We may not like the fact that some people are treated as if they are no longer useful, and we may not like the fact that this fits the definition of obsolescence exactly, and we may not like the fact that people sometimes use the term in regards to people, but that is no reason to hide or deny the fact in an encyclopedia. mydogategodshat 19:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete Words

Perhaps someone could compile some of the obsolete words from wikipedia and create a list of them on this page, or on a separate article?

Nah. --74.111.24.115 00:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question of NPOV

The following sentence does not strike me as neutral: "Fortunately, since companies prefer to maintain their consumer base, they have a strong incentive to support products for several years after their release." Apparently, whoever wrote it never tried to buy a compatible charger for their six-month-old cell phone at the store where they bought the phone. Bob Badour 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolescent

Perhaps the article should expanded to include things which are Obsolescent- ie, the actual item itself is no longer made, but the spare parts and accessories which enable it to remain functional are? For example, there are a lot of firearms in calibres which have been out of production for years (The British stopped making .303 rifles in 1956, for example), yet modern commercial ammunition is readily available and there are people who make spare parts for them, enabling owners to continue using their rifles despite the fact they're technically obsolete. The same could be said of a number of items, ranging from Dot Matrix printers to old Radios and TVs that used Valves/Vacuum Tubes instead of transistors... --Commander Zulu 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoyances

How many of you are annoyed how companies make electronics obsolete? I myself didn't buy a DVD player until 2005, way after the technology was released. From what I heard, in a few more years there won't be DVD's at all, requiring me to purchase whatever latest technology that exists. They are already doing it with TV's by disabling Analog TV signals. Soon we'll all have to purchase a new technology, and I think it's pretty screwed up. What do yall think, do you agree this is wrong, or do you agree that making things obsolete is a way to make technology better? --MidnightScott (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that DVDs or even CDs will be rendered obsolete for at least 10 years. They're still fighting the BlueRay versus HD-DVD battle, and that won't be settled for at least two or three more years. You can still buy cassette players, VCRs, and even vinyl LPs, for cryin' out loud. — Loadmaster (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)