(Note: I’m by no means saying that in the future there won’t be ignorant, apathetic customers. I’m saying that few businesses will be able to rely on them for profits.)

Customers have bigger loupes, louder voices and longer memories. Trade no longer takes the form of the monetarist ideal of anonymous exchange of goods for the best price (it is doubtful that it ever did). It is becoming highly politicized. People are demanding transparency on organizations’ supply chains from sweat-shop involvement to carbon footprint. It won’t be long before they demand an heirloom mobile phone.

True to form, it probably won’t be the incumbents that figure this out, but a disruptor on the horizon.

“You think you have the newest model and you don’t. How would you feel if you just bought a new car – you drive off the lot and all of a sudden you have the last year’s model because the company just came out with a new one while you were shopping? Just makes you feel so jipped.”

“Today in the same market space there are sometime 4 and 5 releases of the same product with minor hardware and software modifications at the expense of high product churn rate because of poor quality.”

I really wonder why the product development cycle has to push for quantity over quality just to meet timelines and keep up with the market. Who’s market space is this in the first place? Why should companies have to constantly compete for who releases the “newer and improved” models first?

When I first got my MacBook Pro I vowed to make it last five years…it’s been two and I can definitely notice a difference. I absolutely love using it, but I’ll be damned if it lasts more than another year before I’ll have to purchase another one – not necessarily for its “new and improved” features, but simply because the hardware is failing. And what’s funny is that when I went into the store to inquire about a component for my laptop, I found out that it was not available in the store and that I would have to either look for it online or through external sources. An example of how only newer products are readily supported, and therefore virtually forced upon us as consumers.

This creates another concern: with so many consumers having to replace their current products with newer ones, the older products get wasted and just “R.I.P.” in storage or basements as mentioned in the article. Sure, recycling is encouraged but only the more environmentally conscious bunch actually take the step to do so. There needs to be a prevalent system put in place where these products don’t go to waste.

As important as aesthetics and functionality is, it is also important to consider durability as a scale of measure for design evaluations, or at least get solid feedback on this aspect. Sure, ease of use is important, but the thing has to work properly in the first place, and hence product, process and system durability does play a huge role in the perception of a design.

Most companies lose the connection with the user after the purchase. By offering newer, better products they guide us in getting more and better experiences. The current economy shows it works. Yet, it is not really in line with our notion of sustainability and durability; buying more greener gadgets doesn’t help the world…

I believe sustainable experiences should be the focus, instead of sustainable products.

Product-Service-Systems (PSS) seem promising to achieve this. A company makes a long-term commitment to offer good quality products. Putting many versions on the market seems less attractive.

Question for us is; what kind of relationship do we desire with a product or company? Do we want to settle with them or still flirt around?

Thanks for the interesting post, it keeps me thinking…

Perhaps a deeper question – is why we feel the need to upgrade and replace in the first place?

* Perhaps there is a real need where technology is truly superior and better all around?
* Perhaps its peer pressure?
* Perhaps its when people see a better alternatively staring them in the face?
* Perhaps its all of the above?

I do like the idea where design says – “this will not only benefit you but benefit others as part of the buy” (and not just business)

Gets you thinking and thanks

When Safari was playing up, clearly a software problem, I recieved a brand new phone after sending it away to be repaired.

As a consumer who avoided buying a new phone for many years, specifically as I didn’t want to bring another phone into the world, I’m now responsible for two, due to the apple replace rather than repair policy.

This proved to me as a UX practitioner that good design and a corresponding UX starts right at the top of the food chain, it’s the design of the company, the manufacturing, the supply chain etc. and all these ‘invisible’ aspects which have an effect onthe UX, and as a result brand perception.

It’s all very well that an interface has been honed for a great UX, but it’s definitely time for the commercial and policy-making divisions of these producers to step up if they want their products, and their brands to endure.

It goes back to the old story of the lightbulb, it is actually very easy to make lightbulbs that don’t burn out for decades/hundreds of years (by increasing the size of the filament), but lightbulb companies have colluded and monopolized the market to sell you a lightbulb that you will need to buy over and over again. Unfortunately consumerism driven by strong capitalistic forces expands this phenomenon across all industries.

Within the current profit-driven system we live in, it seems to be a challenge to find business models that would encourage the durability of design, especially with consumers constantly seeking out the lowest prices / most fashionable products, it becomes a chicken-and-egg debate (are we to blame the companies or the consumers). This brings me to another interesting question that popped into my head, how can value durable design? Can companies with a strong focus on durable design survive in the cut-throat market? Seems like a tricky interaction between listening to the voice of consumers, companies, and the role of government regulation..

Just some quick thoughts upon glancing over your article…