cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/37646129
Source: Reddit post— Private front-end.
Samsung Statement to Android Authority:
Samsung is committed to innovation and enhancing every day value for our home appliance customers. As part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen that value, we are conducting a pilot program to offer promotions and curated advertisements on certain Samsung Family Hub refrigerator models in the U.S. market.
As a part of this pilot program, Family Hub refrigerators in the U.S. will receive an over-the-network (OTN) software update with Terms of Service (T&C) and Privacy Notice (PN). Advertising will appear on certain Family Hub refrigerator Cover Screens. The Cover Screen appears when a Family Hub screen is idle. Ad design format may change depending on Family Hub personalization options for the Cover Screen, and advertising will not appear when Cover Screen displays Art Mode or picture albums.
Advertisements can be dismissed on the Cover Screens where ads are shown, meaning that specific ads will not appear again during the campaign period.
That’s just not true. It’s not so much planned obsolescence as it’s companies making appliances to fit a price point and using lower quality parts to do so.
You can absolutely still buy appliances that will last decades, but they are expensive. 50 years ago you could absolutely buy a cheap washer that would need to be fixed frequently.
Are you suggesting that planned obsolescence doesn’t exist?
Never mind, you didn’t suggest, you straight up said it.
How about this (not OP): most things people attribute to planned obsolescence are not planned obsolescence.
I am suggesting that companies specifically designing products to fail at a specific point isn’t as prolific as people like to claim.
Cheaper parts have lower MTTF specs, so by default a cheap product will fail sooner than an expensive one.
That’s not to say that expensive appliances can’t use cheap parts, but I’d argue the main goal is to increase profit margins rather than to increase turnover.
Yeah. It’s not “how evilly can we design this to only last three years”, it’s “how cheaply can we design this to last only at least as long as it has to”. There’s a difference between making it fail and just not caring if it continues.
Like how the mars rovers had a design lifetime of like three years or whatever, and anything past that was just a bonus. NASA didn’t design them to fail after three years, they designed them to last at least three years at minimum.