OT: Built-in obsolescence

That's not built-in obsolescence, that's built-in failure, or simply incompetent engineering. Since big electrolytic capacitors might be a fire hazard, it might also be a violation of safety laws.

There are times when, no matter how perfect the product, you will want to see it back for some maintenance attention. I have no qualms about programming in a safe halt in functionality to ensure that the equipment receives vital maintenance attention. Of course, pre-warnings about the impending cessation of functionality need to be given ahead of the actual cessation. There are, of course, items that should not cease to operate no matter how little maintenance they receive. However, to cease to operate through poor design is, in my book, really bad engineering practice and as MC rightly says, could even be dangerously unsafe.

Of course, one has to question the rush of the semiconductor industry into

0.45nm processes where it is becoming very easy for the devices to be damaged through normal use (ie:- electronics that wear out). Certainly it is becoming more important to examine the fab processes used to produce your new whizz-bang CPU's or SoC's. - ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett .................... Forth based HIDECS Consultancy ..... Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. ********************************************************************

It's actually very competent engineering with deliberate measures for the product to last only so much, see:

For an industry, it stimulates demand in the marketplace by ensuring a customer must come back into a buying mode sooner than had the product been built to last longer or indefinitely.

Anyway, in my opinion this marketing strategy should be banned and prosecuted and treated as deliberate act of sabotage.

Roman

I think they are misusing the word "obsolescence," which normally describes things that are becoming hard to use because of lack of supplies, interoperability problems, etc., rather than failures or defects.

Defective merchandise is not obsolete merchandise. I have a 126-format camera that is obsolete but not defective (as far as I can tell). I have a

35-mm camera that is defective but not obsolete.

"Obsolescent" means "in the process of becoming obsolete."

I agree.

There is NO NEED to engineer obsolescence into PC hardware; software vendors keep the buy cycle churning at a respectable speed without any need for skulduggery in design. Of course, Vista's release has people rethinking this and maybe deciding to stick with their old hardware, but by and large what I said is true.

The device you were inside was engineered with specific MTBF characteristics in mind. While you are correct insofar that the engineers who designed it didn't care if it died at {warranty} +

0.01us, you can be certain that no extra effort went into deliberately shortening its lifespan.

There is a hard limiting factor in the LCD anyway, which is the CCFL.

Do everyone a favor; never apply to work for Mattel or Hasbro.

I keep on seeing TFTs up to XGA (but mostly 800x480 and some 800x600) which come with LED backlight. It appears the LED backlight is a bit less even than on CCFL backlit ones but I have not seen one - anyone with impressions? It will probably do, of course.

I am mostly curious if anyone has impressions on how long-lived those backlights are; are they reparable (most CCFLs can be replaced)?

Quite true, of course. Vista seems to demonstrate they have reached the limit where bloating alone will not do so they built in various functionality limitation goodies...

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

I've only seen Apple's in a real life application (1440x900), it is utterly gorgeous but of course Apple can afford hand-carved displays decorated in gold leaf :)

The quoted numbers are 50K to 100K hours. However some of the earlier devices to come out with LED backlights (PDAs, mainly) have already encountered lifespan issues in less than 50K hours. Some vendors have talked about adding extra LEDs either to run a double-size array at half current (apparently this reduces wear on the phosphors) or have a redundant set with some kind of failover mechanism.

Much like CCFLs, the LED backlight is officially part of the LCD subassy and not "repairable" except in the hacker sense of the term.

I disagree. I don't think that designing for a short life is wrong. It is cheaper to build something for 3 years operation than 20. If it is only going to be used for 3 years -- a cell phone, for example -- do you expect the customer to pay the additional $50 for an extra 10 years expected life? It will probably loose in the marketplace.

There is a market for things built to last for a long time, but the market is usually smaller, resulting in hefty markups to recover the overhead.

My desire is that realistic lifetime expectations should be given, so the buyer can make an intelligent choice. If something is designed to last 5 years, say so. One way of saying so is with a specific warranty period. And, yes, I realize that the percentage of people qualified to make a warranty claim who actually do is probably very small.

--
Thad