A few years ago, I bit the bullet and replaced my aging Mac computer with a brand new iMac G5. I loved it! It was fast enough for me. It had lots of storage space. All my old, tried-and-true programs worked fine on it.
Computers kept evolving, but I had no reason to change. Everything still worked perfectly. I did have browser issues and had to switch from Netscape to Internet Explorer and finally to Firefox, but otherwise everything was copacetic. I had no need to keep changing operating systems or buying new software. Why should I? Everything I used every day was still suitable for my needs and my computer still had plenty of storage space, even after several years. The software still did everything I needed it to do.
Then the worst happened. Firefox changed one too many times. Suddenly going on-line was a big bundle of bombs! The final straw was having three years worth of emails totally vanish. I mean GONE. Eaten alive. Disappeared. Abducted by aliens. Panic city!
So, reluctantly, I upgraded to a new-to-me computer with Intel. Still a Mac, but despite being less than a year old, it was already obsolete of course. I had to get a replacement, because I needed Internet access for my on-line writing and artwork. Then, to my horror, I discovered that not a single one of my old programs would run on on the new machine!
As a result, I still have to use my older "new" computer for all my graphics, then transfer it over to the newer machine to post anything on-line. It's a pain in the butt (to put it mildly). I have to keep switching my printer back and forth between the two. The scanner is still with the older computer. Oh yes, and I still have my really old computer, because that one still runs floppy disks but won't burn CDs, and the middle-aged one will burn CDs but has no floppy drive. With tons of stuff still on floppies, I now have three computers, all needed for different reasons.
I understand changing technology. Honest! But I DO have a problem with forcing people to buy new just because a company decides to "upgrade" its product every year or two. If you have a 10-year-old car kept in good condition, there is no one saying you have to buy a new car just because because the roads have been upgraded. You can still drive your car on public roads. You don't have to replace perfectly good tires because someone has invented a newer, more perfect tire.
I have no problem with people wanting the newest and latest and fastest. I just want computer companies to recognize that many of us can't afford costly upgrades every few months or even every couple of years, and that when dramatic changes force customers to buy new equipment and then spend weeks redoing or transferring data, it costs us more than just the price of the computer or software — it costs us lost productivity and therefore even more money. When lack of money is the reason we didn't keep buying new to begin with, it's like a kick in the head.
Would it be so hard to create some kind of interface to allow old programs to run on newer computers, or new software to work on older computers? That should be a no-brainer for a society that can send men to the moon, build space stations, invent things like multi-function cell phones that allow you to take pictures and play games on the Internet, or build cars that can park themselves.
I can park my own car, thank you very much, and I have no desire to walk on the moon, but something that would let me keep using a computer and software for a reasonable amount of time without having to keep buying new would be a dream come true.

Well said, Terry! I feel the same way. I do understand marketing and business, but I also feel that when we invest this much money and time into a product, it should at least last a few years!
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the now-famous hierarchy in rural sociologist Everett Rogers's book _Diffusion of Innovations_. The Innovators are the youth, neophilic, love to take risks, etc. Then come the Early Adopters. A cultural milestone has been reached with the Early Majority. Then come the Late Majority, and finally, the Laggards.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Laggard. Mostly 'cuz I'm cheap, but I also find that, if it ain't broke, I ain't a-fixin' it. And besides, I'm really comfy with my gizmo and sure the NEW ONES can do so much more, but I don't really NEED that stuff.
But I think you're right: with the ephemeralization of computers, Rogers's hierarchy should include the Forced To Upgrade, and where would they go? I'm thinking before the Laggards?
Designed obsolescence seems to me a hallmark of Late Capitalism, and with you and me (and the other Readers here) being in the 99%, how are we going to continue to upgrade? At what point can we not afford to upgrade?
I've yet to get an iPod, figuring they will get cheaper and cheaper and better and better and smaller and lighter and...I'll be able to get one of a vending machine in a few years by just feeding in a $20.
For me, it isn't just that I can't afford new, but that I don't need new. But when computer companies force you to upgrade in order to keep using the product, to me that is just wrong. Why should I be forced to buy a software upgrade that has umpteen bells and whistles that I will neither use or need, just to stay online or continue working?
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be so bad if the changes didn't come so quickly. But these days, you barely get a brand new computer and operating system before three more have come out, each more advanced than the previous one, but with new features most people will neither need nor use. Artificially created obsolescence in order to force people to keep buying!