How Real is Programmed Failure?

In my company we definitely do NOT WANT anything to fail. We strive to get the longest life possible out of all our products, and make them to the highest level of quality.

Things fail, but not because it was intentional.

I suggest you read some of the design journals from the 1950. You will find a lot of open discussion about how fast they can make things break.

Many years ago I bought a Canon ZR camcorder which was pretty impressive at the time. Canon, instead of using standard form factor batteries, used a proprietary battery that only they make. Soon after they discontinued the camera they stopped making the batteries. Now these batteries are only good for about 500 charge/discharge cycles which is only a few years of use. So now I have a perfectly good camcorder which I can't use because I can't get batteries for it. Thanks Canon!

For more on planned obsolescence see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

You should take up strongly with Canon.As consumer you have right to get spare batteries atleast for 10-15 years. If they do not agree then fire a Canon Shell to them by suing them in consumer court.If you keep quiet then many like you will also suffer.

Would it be possible to find a battery with similar output and make some leads that extend from the camera terminals where the old battery sat, outside the camera if necessary, to your new battery?

Might sound a hassle, but a small battery velcro'ed to the side of your camera would not be that intrusive would it?

Have you tried to contact the headquarters? Those companies usually have some stock of old spares lost in a warehouse. You may buy a few so you can use the camcorder until you decide to buy a new one.

I cannot speak to the consumer market, which is where the myth you refer to got started, but I can assure you aviation would not be an area you would stay in business very long.

From my experience I am going to call "urban legend" on this one. As for planned obsolescence, well that is different, however this is created by creating the mechanical parts of the product in an extremely cost-effective (read flimsy and breakable) way. Cell phones are a good example.

The flip side is that as technology rapidly develops, consumers demand the latest technology (at the lowest price). Computers and cell phones are really good examples. Its not like you can keep your home computer for 8 years or your cell phone for 6. There are exceptions (like my 8 year old computer and 6 year old cell phone). In the end it actually makes sense to produce a product that costs less and just lasts the expected lifetime of the product. Obviously not all products are made like this, but that is the wonderful thing about consumer choice - you can spend the extra money and buy a higher quality alternative if you want.

This ignores poorly-written and improperly tested code that causes products or equipment to fail at the most unopportune time (like just after the warrenty has expired), but what do you expect if you buy a really cheap product.

Yes, perhaps it just a misunderstanding. Maybe someone (not a designer) heard of planned obsolescence, got his own misinformed opinion and spread the rumor.

It might be a matter of perception on the part of the consumer.

Consider the case of bucksaws and axes.

At Canadian Tire you can buy a bucksaw for $5. new blade included. A fresh blade alone cost nearly as much, and they never fit as well as the factory blade. If you are a lunatic you can get out your tools and sharpen the old blade by hand... depending on how much you value your labour per hour, it could be a pretty expensive deal. Hard to do it for the $5 really.

Axes: they are making them with lousy soft steel. Not only they chip immediately you hit a little rock or so, they fall off the handle within a year. ho ho. You can sharpen them till you're blue, or till they are worn down to the falling-off handle. An old axe is worth 20 of them. The steel was good, they don't chip, stay sharp and hold to the handle. I might go hunting the flea markets and garage sales, hoping to find one of these treasures, because they just don't make em any more....

Sorry, I see no relation between both examples.

In the case of the axe it doesn't sound like something designed so it fails and forces you to buy again. It just sounds like a lousy product. Perhaps there is a business opportunity there. How much would cost to order 1000 casts of axes? Maybe nodular cast or impact resistant tool steel.

That has to do with companies resorting to cheaper materials to cut costs in order to stay competitive.

You get what you paid for.

You can pay a few dollars for some set of tools from Harbor Freight or you can go purchase your tools from Snap ON. One set of tools will out last the other, and they should because you paid more for them. With Sears you pay more for the tools and they aren't really the best quality but you can have them replaced for free for ever after.

I am still using following home gadgets mostly made in U.S and U.K:-

1.'Oyster' Massager made in U.S in 1970.

2.'Murphy Richards' iron made in U.K in 1954. I have only changed cord.

3.'Sears' Land line phone made in U.S in 1980.

4.'Oyster' Hair Dryer made in U.S in 1991.

5.'Yashica' Elctro Camera made in Japan in 1970.

Old is gold.So I am too .

gussosa

Built in Programmed failure is the one thing that Murphy (Murphy's Law) hates with a vengeance. It is a good way to avoid brakes or damage were they are the least needed. Not only in the mechanical world.

They had them on old sailing ships, to be sure that the spare mast would fit if the mast would come down and brake at a given point. Every electrical power fuse does just the same. 'Programmed failure' is an awkward word and is or can be confusing for some.

The German word for it is "Sollbruchstelle" which translates to "the point were it shall brake" and leaves no doubt about its function and necessity.

Yeah, good old Murphy has a bit less "Schadenfreude" ever since the conception of the above. He'll possibly hit me hard for this one but then again, he does it all the time. I just get up, dust myself off and keep going.

BTW, Murphy is not an urban legend/myth either, he and his Law are part of every day life. Programmed failure is an insurance policy against the bastard. Hope this clears it up a bit.

I have read the other posts but I think this is what you were refering to. If not, I apologies for wasting your time, Ky.

Thanks ky, that sounds like what I am talking about.

So there is a programmed failure. It just means a fuse, electrical or mechanical, that breaks down to prevent further damage.

Again, maybe just misinformed people heard about this and misunderstood it.

The myth probably started as people had to deal with Sollbruchstelle and planned obsolescence. Both things came around when designers started to scrutinize costs in the equipments. One is to protect a pricier part of the equipment by allowing a cheaper one to fail before, the second one is meant to deliver an equipment that lasts only for the expected time of use given factors like the pace of technology and consumer behavior.

Did I get this right?

That's the way I understood your question. Both interpretations are correct.

I drove A Holden Kingswood (1972) for 1.6 million km. Had engine reconditioned at 900.000km. If the rust would have not been beyond control I would be driving it now. It was a thirsty little bugger but with that little straight 6 and some other easy accessible parts. Repairs could be done with a beer in hand. She was a true representation of how simple things could be if built for ever.

The car I am driving now is a shame to engineering. No more fixing a problem with a spanner and some fence wire. Computer diagnosis and all that fancy stuff. The authorized car repair shops can diagnose anything they like and charge accordingly.

You got it right. I got it right. The people that design cars (and others) fail in what is really needed. Getting into a car that lights up like a Christmas tree and has no advantage over analog governing systems is a waste of materials and technology.

Gosh I loved that car!

Have a great day, Ky.

The U.S. Navy was first to start this system in the military called 3M and a component to 3M is PMS. Material Maintenance Management and Planned Maintenance System.

It is a process of conducting maintenance on equipment whether it needs it or not. Most of it involved inspections for any signs of wear. Some of it involves replacing parts that are expected to fail within a certain period of time regardless of whether it is wearing, or even been used, it gets replaced. This is their measure to avoid any down time that would prevent the ship from being mission capable during periods between planned ship yard refitting periods.

I've heard many times those things related to "programmed failure". In critical services (for example, where human lives are involved) such us aviation I don't think it's a common practice.

Other quite different thing happen with home appliances and many other less critical equipment: Any device has it's own "design life", It apply to all engineered parts, but when business and money are involved sometimes somebody could think that a too long "design life" should be bad for the business.

Could you imagine any company CEO asking the designers to make an electric bulb that lasts 100 years? and a car designed to travel 10 million miles?

To find a balance between a reasonable design life (not a "programmed failure time") and a reasonable cost/price/benefit is a common thing for honest companies.

Kind regards

Hello Kwetz,

I say straight away I am talking of built in obsolescence.

NOT programed failure...............

This is an interesting thread thank to the OP gussosa!(How are you my friend?)

I think some posts seem to be saying it should not and cannot be planned in aircraft, ships etc. Maybe I have read and not understood what has been written, I am not sure? I understand in my own mind that in industry for example. There must be planned obsolescence. As, every machine you get that is for an 'industrial' use, is better built, heavier gauge and is solidly bolted together, and often has replaceable parts, so it is not a 'disposable item'! I am talking of say an electric drill or other hand held power tools. If you get some of the most popular with the 'weekend' builder, they will only ever use that machine for a tenth or less time the professional machine is used for, so the popular cheap, sale items are always bound to be less strong and have a shorter built in obsolescence.

This does not mean 'professional' equipment does not have a built in obsolescence as well. It means the more expensive professional tools are expensive because better quality steel, more carefully designed and finished cases in very much stronger metal and or good strong safe plastic and, the right type for its use, which is not fragile. But, for most 'working' machines they are built heavier for the expected hard use.

Any aircraft as may have been said, is even more in need of close study and feedback to the manufacturers, so some kind of time cycle can be figured out. A couple of my family work on aircraft maintenance and, as long as the Logs of Use (Do not know the proper term) are properly maintained, the life of a landing wheel or a passenger door, tail fin actuators to the thin metal strips used as fillers between the actual body sections, to stop wear and tear, is 'designed into that product'. There is now enough evidence from tens of millions of miles use, to say how long any part should last. Everything, wear and replacing parts on a schedule has to be better than wait for aircraft to start crashing before it is realised that the maintenance cannot be skimped upon. Any accidents from breaks and fractures can be traced back to in-proper logging of use as in air miles traveled, or where the part has been fitted to a plane where it should really have gone for renewal and or completely refurbished. Or thrown out if the end of its life has been reached

Built in obsolescence is crucial...........

Take care................

Hello babybear,

I agree with you. And with some other colleagues which compares old manufactured items with new design ones.

The reason as I see it is the deeper knowledge of some materials/processes/equipment... behaviour nowadays than it was let's say 40 years ago. This knowledge makes possible to reduce what it's usually called "design safety factor" and I use to call "lack of knowledge factor"

Anyway, in my post I was talking about "honest" companies which really means "honest management" (Companies are not living beings) And unfortunately, the actual "fashion" don't include things so obsolete as honesty (Just have a look at the news headlines)

Well, I'm going to have my daily "serotonine inhibitor dose" while I look at the 2nd great snow over Madrid in this month (I can't remember such a thing, maybe is because of global warming)

Kind regards

Kind regards

Unusual - I think I agree with everything written in this thread (so far).

High volume consumer products can be designed to "minimise production cost". In that case, the design requirements will include a minimum lifetime under legitimate conditions of use. As most companies have relatively long horizons, that lifetime will be intended to satisfy the customer sufficiently that he buys from them again. Some might think of this as "programmed failure", but that is not the intention.

However, I can think of two examples where there is genuine programmed failure.
The first is a matter of safety - some products can become dangerous after a certain amount of use (or become unsafe simply as a result of age). In that case it makes sense to build-in a safe failure mechanism that precedes the known dangerous condition. Because of (for example) variation in the manner of use, the programmed failure can be required considerably before the dangerous failure would typically occur - which can be galling for all concerned.
The second appears to be my body

It seems like the fuse concept, but working with an aging parameter.

Maybe some Taijiquan and herbs would help your body?

As a last resource you always have steroids (consult your endocrinologist)

Thanks for the insight pal.

It is very real for consumer items. Look at the IPOD. The outer case is made so it is very easily dropped and they charge $50 or more for the so called extened warranty.

So they are in fact adding $50 or more to the cost because many people drop them and the small hard drive replacement cost as much as the whole IPOD cost.

Try and hold one in a store and actully operate it with only one hand without dropping it. lol

The NEW Digital TV's oonly have a life of 6 to 8 years while I have tv's that are 30 years old that still work great.

Here is a good example: cordless screwdrivers. Even if the consumer product is not intended for use every day, how is it that these beasts give up their capacity to charge to reasonable power levels? It has happened to me twice: by the third or fourth recharge, the tool can't muster enough power to drive a screw without predrilling the hole, and I end up having to do it by hand... Any of you guys have a fix for this problem? (Yoohoo.. I'm getting a blister - GLarson)

Programmed Failure does not exist it is called the products live cycle now, especially in consumer goods (or mobile phones) which is 3 to 5 years (if i am correct). Off course with new laws the producing manufacturers cannot have breaking down equipment no more, that is why they come up with new non backward compatible products so everyone has to change to the new product, (vista?)

Programmed failure a myth I don't think so. I is not always strait forward. For 20 years GM made cars that could be stolen with a rock and a screwdriver or hardened finger.

Two of the engineers on this forum brought cases of withholding tech that would have made at very little added cost: 200,000 mile tires from a major tire manufacture; Wankel engine rings and cylinder that would last 500,000(?). If I remember correctly. They both worked for the companies involved.

In industry I have not seen it. In consumer goods it seems more normal.

Lets face it why spend a nickel more when it will make the product last long past warranty. Some will spend a nickel or more to make it last but twice warranty. Better brands will usually make good products. When the bean counters are in control the consumer will lose.

I have had issues with Cannon products myself and will not buy them new and only used when the price is right. Yet Cannon industrial tools I have no issue with and have seen some neat stuff.

Some goods are phased out by fads promoted by manufactures. Buy our new and improved because your friends already have it. Other goods are not as dynamic so they depend on your knowing they make long lasting products. Some will make cheap versions that are more affordable. They know they will fail because of the cheap plastic gears and pot metal parts that can not hold up. I've had two Singer and one Montgomery Wards sewing machines. The new Singer did not last and was not worth the cost to repeatedly fix it. While both of the ones older than me are still going but have needed some maintenance.

Cuba still drives our cars from the 50's, bet that could not happen for 50 years with todays cars and yes they could bypass all the computers and make them run just fine. The Car manufactures plan for them not to last. Not because it is cheaper but because it is profitable in the long (midterm) run.

The same thinking is where the bean counters have led to where they beg for bailouts when they skimmed their own companies for mid term profits to pay stockholders, unions and upper management record payoffs.

Brad

Verdict- you missed the point. A long lasting Wankel was developed trying to get it to fail at a predetermined point. The project was stopped because shorter or much longer was the outcome not the planned failure point.

And I would like to see a 7500 HP Wankel in a dragster.

Brad

About cars, I have had this argument with a friend long time ago. It seems to me that new cars have more built-in failure mechanisms to better the safety of the passengers. You could throw an old Chevrolet pickup in a ditch and it would work fine after rescuing it with the tractor. Try that with a new one and there is a good chance it falls down to pieces. Explorer vehicles, where availability is more important than safety have to be custom made or tuned.

Besides, the expectations of the current consumer are far higher than those of our grandpas. I learnt to drive (age twelve) in an old Ford Falcon, using beer cases as seats, without any seat belts. You could grew muscle with that gear stick. It broke down all the time. However, we were used to that. The current car user would try to buy a new one as soon as the gears "make noises" or the doors don't close quite well or the clutch is tricky.

Ahh, the sound of slamming the car's door. I miss that one.

Hum.. Failure for safety, does not compute.

Crush zones I can minimally understand, Airbags only when used with non functioning restrain system.

Now planned failure because the poorly built product is no longer safe sounds like a manufactures justification for making a product a consumable that should not be one.

Brad

Actually it makes some sense. When you lighten a vehicle to add other systems, the stresses are increased and the overload margins are decreased.

A more fragile machine that is less robust. What I find odd is here I can buy aftermarket parts that are cheaper, lighter and more robust than what I get from the factory as a complete unit. Volume should decrease the price and increase quality not the other way around.

Brad

We called it Planned Obseletence here.

They plan the failure by using a cheap wire or a fuse that blows really easy. Some hand held electronic have a small fuse that blows and consumer do not know to replace it just go buy a new one.

The fine print of the warranty is a good place to hide the fuse replacement instructions since few people ever read the owners manuel of anything.

I don't think it's designing failure but to design things with a predictable lifespan. The majority of revenue for most companies is repeat business. You won't get much repeat business if what you make lasts forever.

So what if Sears has a guarantee with their tools that if it breaks you can go in and have it replaced for free. The strategy is they get you to go into the store and with you in their store, increases the chance that you'll buy something too.

Automobiles: Automobile manufactures expect people to buy or lease a new car once every three years. That strategy worked pretty good for the American automotive industry. When the Japanese automobiles came along, the American Automotive strategy backfired because the Japanese automobiles required less mainenance and lasted longer on the road. The American Auto manufacturers were entrenched in their philosophy and very slow in making any changes until around 1980, but then I think it is too late. All the die hard Ford owners are starting to die from old age.

I'm just using Ford as a representative of the Automotive industry, I'm no saying they are doing any better or any worst then anyone else.

I think you get the jist of what I'm saying.

In a sense, programmed failure gives room for software companies to change the base architecture for software. Otherwise, people will keep their versions and demand that is can communicate with later versions. Because this will put a massive burden on the newer, supposedly better architectures, Programmed failure may allow newer programs to be more efficient and give the new traits that users are demanding. Since consumer demand changes, programs require change. Programmed failure allows companies to remain as dynamic as the consumers, its just a question of where to put the failure so it works the best.

Since software failure isn't really time dependant, good Programmed failure would require cooperation between hardware, programs, drivers, and program updates.

I disagree if Our company delivered a machine operating program with lots of bugs the customers would go elsewhere but in PC operating systems one supplier seems it is OK to deliver bug ridden software and calls it an improved version. The same program should be used for it does its Job, if the customer ask for different or new features then it is time for a new version or add-on's bugs should never be the main reason for a new version