Imagine you’re looking to buy a particular hi-fi product.
In their marketing, the brand tells you they designed the product to deliver more detail, pump rich bass, dampen vibrations, play high-res music, and more.
But what if they also told you they designed it to have software standards that will be obsolete within three years? Or that they’re already planning to release a new version with better materials and more features…and that it will drive the current model’s price down below what they’re asking you to pay right now? Or even that they’re planning to start charging a monthly fee for access to all its features?
Not the word track of a savvy salesman to say the least, but unfortunately in the hi-fi industry, statements like those are too often true. Mind you, it’s really not a salesperson or even a retailer who’s at fault when that kind of information gets omitted...
It’s a manufacturer—one who indulges in a little something called planned obsolescence.
Harsher words might call it “intentionally designing something to become useless or irrelevant.” In engineering, it’s a benevolent practice that allows engineers to predict when a part or assembly will fail, so they can replace it beforehand. In retail manufacturing however, the goal is to keep consumers coming back for more.
Planned obsolescence in this regard has been around for more than a century and, in fact, presents itself far more often in industries other than hi-fi.
For instance, in the 1920s, the big lightbulb makers implored their engineers to cut the 2,500 hour average lifetime of their bulbs. They then formed a global cartel and imposed fines on factories whose bulbs lasted more than 1,500 hours. Meanwhile the famed “Centennial Lightbulb” in California has been illuminated for more than 100 years, suggesting this technology could serve its customers for quite a while longer.
A better, more modern example of planned obsolescence might be the iPhone. Famously, Apple was exposed for its 2017 software updates which intentionally slowed down older models without informing users. They’ve also released numerous, unnecessary connector designs to corner their own little accessory market. And they’ve removed the analog output jack from their products, encouraging the use of wireless earphones—which become obsolete themselves, given they’re battery powered.
Feels like we’re being thrown into a consumer washing machine, no?
Maybe the sting really comes from being sold everything great about a product, while having certain intentional design features omitted from the conversation because, well…we might not buy it then.
Make no mistake however: planned obsolescence seems to have its role in our modern economy. For instance, there are many jobs that rely on the one-two punch of planned obsolescence and advertising. If smartphones at large were presented on utility and designed to last, the infrastructure needed to meet the initial demand would quickly shrivel up.
Plus, as long as there’s money to be made in an industry, there will be passionate people dedicating themselves to it. That means more designers coming up with unique and exciting aesthetics, and more engineers pushing to innovate (even if most of those innovations are trivial).
My positon on this matter though, is that planned obsolescence has no place in hi-fi. It may support an industry where nearly everyone owns the product—like smartphones—but it has no business in one where most of the market is untapped. It’s no mystery that a very thin sliver of the population is aware that high fidelity audio makes their music more enjoyable. The average consumer thinks spending a few hundred on a soundbar is akin to buying spirits from the top shelf. That is to say, they’re simply unaware of the true hi-fi experience.
Planned obsolescence comes in many forms, and not all of them are seen in
hi-fi.
It ranges from designing products to fail deliberately (which I’ve yet to see)…to digging for minor updates and trivial design changes to “justify” releasing new versions of products (which I see fairly often). The latter is obviously less outrageous, but it still comes at the consumer’s detriment.
For most, hi-fi is a journey. You start in one place and gradually move to another. This is often due to budget and experience. Budget wise, you may buy a system you can afford today, and then upgrade later. Experience wise, you may buy a system you love today, and then over time develop a desire for a more refined sound. In both cases, upgrading is part of the process.
Planned obsolescence is at odds with this. It encourages manufacturers to forego design choices that enhance longevity. This can be functional (like digging for trivial “innovations”) or perceptual (like upgrading the look and bumping the model number to drive new sales). Both result in new versions of products, driving down the resale value of existing ones and making it harder for users to upgrade.
This practice is more common in the low-to-mid price range. Think AV receivers that practically have “model years,” where they add an HDMI eARC, tick the model number up by one, and render the 9-month-old version undesirable. Or new electronics (DACs, amps) that are practically identical to the previous version, except they look fancier and have way more marketing hype around them.
In high-end it’s much less common. But the reality is still that pushing for new releases for the wrong reason—to increase sales volume—betrays existing customers. It causes new versions of products to come out more often than they should, shortening each model’s time in the spotlight, dulling the joy of owning it, and driving its market value down sooner.
There are right reasons to push for new releases...
One reason is to offer a new aesthetic option (such as a colour or finish). Importantly, this must be done without offsetting the perceived value of the original lineup by calling it a new product.
The other reason is to make a demonstrable improvement upon a product’s performance. And when done in that way, new releases are more spaced out, resolving the problems I mentioned above. There’s also concrete merit to justify the new product: engineering improvements that differentiate it from the previous model. This makes it clear that it’s a different product, so existing customers aren’t left feeling cheated.
Ultimately, I believe the difference comes down to this: Does the manufacturer prioritise their R&D department or their sales department?
Of course both of these departments are crucial and must be nurtured. But which is the priority? The answer to that question sets the foundation for everything else related to product quality, long-term customer satisfaction, and industry-wide impact.
Now, one might think that if some brands are indulging in planned obsolescence—and prioritising their marketing departments—others have to follow suit in order to stay competitive. After all, marketing drives revenue…and more revenue means more resources to put towards both marketing and R&D.
But an audio company that prioritises R&D can absolutely be successful. Take the Scottish manufacturer Linn, for instance. One-third of their company consists of engineers. That’s a lot…and it shows in their results. Their product lifecycles are exceptionally long. For example, the current Ekos SE tonearm has been out for a whopping 19 years.
Since Linn continually prioritise R&D—and as a result, have long-standing products that their end-users love—it gives them a ton of credibility when they say “we’ve just released a new product, and it’s well worth your attention.” It also subtly states, “if one of our products is currently available, it’s the best we can create for its price.”
Choosing a product from a manufacturer like this—one that prioritises engineering and R&D—is how hi-fi enthusiasts can avoid the pitfalls of planned obsolescence.
The products created by these brands hold their perceived value, even when their competitors are churning and burning their own models. Often these long-living products become even more desirable when superceded, because then they’re only available through rare second-hand opportunities.
Another way to avoid planned obsolescence in hi-fi is to choose products which are modular and upgradable (which unsurprisingly, tend to be produced by merit-focused brands that prioritise R&D). This lets you start at a performance level you can afford today, and then jump up in sound quality later without having to buy a completely new product. You also avoid other risks this way, such as if a new distributor steps in and dumps the price of a product you own (thereby tanking your trade-in value).
The best part of all this is that hi-fi enthusiasts—the end-users themselves, both the lovers of music and of gear—can steer the world towards a better place for their passion.
Because at the end of the day, planned obsolescence will continue as long as it’s beneficial to the companies doing it. As an analogy: if people keep clicking and buying products through pop-up advertisements, then pop-up advertisements will continue to exist. Whether they’re frustrating or rude or unethical is irrelevant.
As long as there’s a choice (and in hi-fi, there’s a choice) consumers can vote with their dollars. They will ultimately decide to what degree the industry is built on merit, performance, and value…or on hype, speed, and manipulation. I know what I’d like it to be built on. How about you?
