1510
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 119 points 1 year ago

Cool. Very cool. But this nothing to do with planned obsolescence.

Not this particular example, maybe, but the concept of a device remaining usable in failure runs counter to planned obsolescence.

[-] floppade@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Not necessarily, Apple for example makes interacting outside its ecosystem difficult on purpose for “calculated misery” iirc. It’s like when your boss cuts most of your hours instead of firing you. You don’t get optimal output or the benefit of transparency.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Not necessarily, if the point of failure is the battery connect then this is able to continue until complete failure. It’s the opposite of one way planned obsolescence is done of putting the expected point of failure in a position where it is no longer operable at all or repairable

[-] idunnololz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

This concept is infact compatible with planned obsolescence. You can design things that break overtime on purpose, have that thing still work, just work not as well over time.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 104 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While I see the point they're trying to make, what this person is actually saying is complete nonsense.

Graceful degradation is not the opposite of planned obsolescence they're two completely different concepts with nothing to do with each other.

Graceful degradation is where a product degrades in such a way as to maintain at least some functionality for as long as possible.

Planned obsolescence is where an item is intentionally designed to fail in order to get you to buy the next version.

Completely different concepts.

The actual opposite of graceful degradation, is progressive enhancement.

[-] lorty@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago

Yes, you could have both ideas in the same product: it retains some functionality as it fails, but it fails in a planned way to ensure it's lifespan is short enough.

[-] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

And oddly, the example of the flashlight isn’t even an example of either. Support for heterogeneous batteries is a feature, but it’s a stretch to call it “degradation”. It’s not like batteries fail randomly before they run out of juice.

[-] BluesF@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

The degradation in this case happens in the brain when you're trying to remember which type of batteries you need

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

I feel like the opposite is your multifunction refusing to scan because it needs ink.

[-] p1mrx@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago
[-] Lev_Astov@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Malicious degredation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] snooggums@kbin.social 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't get how working with less than optimal power sources that can be replaced has anything to do with planned obsolescence. It does not extend the life of the device, it just makes it work when you are short on batteries.

Working with less power available is what Apple got grief for when it throttled processing power based on battery life as a workaround for the planned obsolescence method of not making it easy to replace the battery.

[-] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 45 points 1 year ago

I'd argue that planned obsolescence is about designing something to break early and shorten its useful life, while graceful degradation is about designing things that are resilient, that work even after being broken, to give them as long a useful life as possible.

In that vein, the flashlight is a useful analogy even if you could argue it's not an exact example - it works when it power source is at full, it works when it has fewer power sources, it works when it has less energetic power sources, it just tones down its output to match the power it has available.

Apple, on the other hand, went out and said "if you don't buy a new phone we're going to make your old phone run slower". I think the battery life was just an excuse - did Apple really think its customers would rather have a slower phone than a phone with shorter battery life? Sounds ridiculous.

If you want a better example of graceful degradation in technology, think about solar panels. Solar panels gradually become less efficient with age - a 20-year-old solar panel is working at about 80% of its original efficiency. And for high efficiency needs, like powering a house where you have limited space to put solar panels, 80% might not be good enough anymore. But a solar panel that works at 80% is totally functional for other uses where less power is needed, so you can repurpose it and swap it out. And as long as somebody doesn't drop a rock on the panel and break it, it can keep going for decades more.

Less efficient panels can be repurposed for systems that need less power. Older computers can get new operating systems and be repurposed for less demanding uses. Some things can be repaired indefinitely, and some can't, but even things that gradually and inevitably decline in efficiency can be repurposed instead of being discarded. That's the sort of resilient design we need for a sustainable future.

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 year ago

TIL my middle-aged ass isn't obsolete, it's just gracefully degrading.

Eats chips

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I appreciate the thought, but I think you’re giving the concept too much credit, and also misunderstanding exactly what Apple did or why it was bad.

“Graceful degradation” is simply the existence of a wider range of failure modes. The flashlight is nice because there are more conditions where you can do something with it, but the life cycle of such a product is obviously not limited by the replaceable batteries.

Apple’s hidden power management hacks were also, in fact, an example of “graceful degradation”. As a lithium-ion battery degrades, high-amperage loads (i.e., the the processor when executing an intensive workload) will cause an increasingly large voltage drop. If the voltage supplied to the processor drops too low, the latches inside the processor will destabilize and begin to produce incorrect results (a 1 that should have been a 0, or vice versa). This is immediately catastrophic for obvious reasons.

Given this, you have two choices: either the device shuts down when the voltage drop becomes too large (at, e.g., 40% charge, depending on the specific properties of the battery), or you reduce the maximum current draw of the processor by reducing its clock frequency.

Apple chose the latter, which probably makes sense in the grand scheme of things. However, this was still pretty bad for two reasons: they didn’t inform the user that they were doing it, and first-party battery replacements were prohibitively expensive until recently. Because of this, most users would assume that their phone was slowing down because it was old, not because their battery could no longer supply adequate power to sustain the maximum clock frequency. Worse yet, even if they did somehow figure this out, it was rarely worthwhile to shell out the $130+ Apple was charging to replace the battery (which basically just involves removing two screws and a ribbon cable).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

It does extend the life of the device though. If your connectors/wiring/bulb fail anywhere on a single circuit flashlight (which most are) then your flashlight is dead. This flashlight has separate bulbs and a separate connection/port for each battery due to the non-sequential layout, so over time if any of them fail the others still function and the flashlight isn’t a total loss.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It rendered devices almost unusable, rather than just dim the backlight. And as you said, that was a consequence of other fuckery, so they rightly got flak for it.

[-] x_cell@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

It's not about the planned obsolescence of the flashlight, but of the batteries.

Suddenly, I don't need to buy a new pack of batteries if just one stops working.

[-] FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

No it’s definitely about the flashlight more than the batteries. Most flashlights just have one connection/channel from battery power to bulb, and if this single circuit fails at any point then the flashlight is useless. This flashlight has four separate ones due to the layout of the batteries, and they each operate individually, so if one fails anywhere you still have 3 that function just fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] theodewere@kbin.social 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

another way of looking at it is, the system is designed with human needs of the customer in mind first, and the economic needs of shareholders are somewhere farther down the line

[-] drathvedro@lemm.ee 49 points 1 year ago

Graceful degradation is cool, but progressive enhancement is where it's really at. The difference is that instead of working around the lack of capabilities, you design simple and robust core system, and then improve around it based on available capabilities.

[-] droans@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

The proper term isn't graceful degradation, but fault tolerance.

It just describes how many core systems or components can fail before the device itself stops working.

For example, a jet will have multiple redundancies for almost all major systems which allows many of them to fail in the air without causing the plane to crash or force an emergency landing.

[-] meliaesc@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

That's how you end up with Frankenstein scope creep.

[-] Klear@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

No! Frankenstein is the name of the designer!

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

You say scope creep, the client says added value

[-] Grippler@feddit.dk 3 points 1 year ago

They can call it whatever the fuck they want...show me the signed change order and I'll implement it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 30 points 1 year ago

I learnt about graceful degradation in relation to escalators and how they compare to elevators/lifts. Basically escalators become stairs, whereas lifts become cages.

It's been one of my favourite design concepts, alongside hidden design (design which improves things without being apparent/in your face about it)

Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's unrelated to planned obsolescence as in it's not about designing things to last, but for a design to be functional even if there's some issue outside the control of the product design. You can get graceful degradation along with planned obsolescence, they're not mutually exclusive.

Reminds me of the differences in design cultures in different companies, though I heard it in relation to countries but idk if that was a stereotype or not. What I heard was about differences in design philosophies towards a similar goal of a good product: one company over engineered their stuff to last a long time, whereas the other company relied on redundancy by putting in a second of anything that was likely to fail in parallel to the original.

[-] macaroni1556@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

Sometimes escalators also become meat grinders though. Less graceful.

[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

Just put your choice of meat on it, still graceful /s

[-] andrewth09@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Meat grinding is still functionality

[-] Umbrias@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

Escalators are usually not safe to use when broken. So this is a good example of the idea in a spherical cow sort of way, but not practically.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kshade@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It's too bad that modern websites don't do graceful degradation anymore, let alone progressive enhancement.

[-] eddietrax@dmv.social 5 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the convenience

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

My fleshlight works with a single AAA too 🙁

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Don't put yourself down describing your D-Cell as a AAA

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
1510 points (97.8% liked)

Solarpunk technology

2348 readers
2 users here now

Technology for a Solar-Punk future.

Airships and hydroponic farms...

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS