Catherine Rampell seems to think product obsolescence is a bad thing but has figured out that Apple isn’t the only company to improve products. This is the most ridiculous argument of the year.
I noticed that my sad old iPhone 4 was becoming a lot more sluggish. The battery was starting to run down much faster, too.
Imagine that. A 3-year-old phone’s battery is running down.
I could pay Apple $79 to replace the battery, or perhaps spend 20 bucks more for an iPhone 5C. It seemed like Apple was sending me a not-so-subtle message to upgrade.
This isn’t the first time that tech analysts and random crazies on the Internet have noted that breakdowns in older Apple products can often coincide with when upgrades come onto the market.
I’m thinking one of the random crazies works for the New York Times.
If iPhones work forever, people who already own the devices won’t buy new ones. Furthermore, selling products with finite life spans can be good for consumers, depending on their tastes and how informed they are.
The iPhone 5S and 5C offer fewer quantum improvements. Consumers are more likely to want their old phones to continue working at peak condition in perpetuity, and to feel cheated when they don’t.
Except for all that math that doesn’t support that premise.
If you can brainwash consumers into developing new tastes that make the old stuff look uncool for aesthetic rather than functional reasons, you still have a shot at harvesting more sales from your existing customer base. But it seems Apple may have already figured this out too. Just check out the wait times for the iPhone 5S in that shiny new gold color.
And the New York Times used to be a good newspaper with stellar reporting and insightful analysis. Now it’s merely populated with hit-whoring new age writers with a personal axe to grind.