Planned Obsolescence: A Feature, Not a Bug

Technology doesn’t last. That’s not a bug in the system—it’s a feature. Whether it’s software updates breaking compatibility, hardware mysteriously slowing down after a few years, or entire platforms being abandoned, planned obsolescence is embedded in the way we build and consume technology.

At our latest Tech Chat Tuesday - a member meetup we hold monthly - we dove into this issue from an industry perspective, not just how it affects consumers, but what it means for technology workers, businesses, and the digital economy. It’s not just about failing devices; it’s about the way we architect systems, the technical debt we accumulate, and the economic forces driving short-lived innovation.

The Business Model of Failure

Planned obsolescence isn’t just an unfortunate byproduct of innovationm it’s an economic strategy. Hardware manufacturers design products with finite lifespans to maximise sales, while software vendors push update cycles that erode compatibility with older systems. One of our attendees framed it bluntly:

"We’re working in a cowboy industry—people aren’t building tech to last. We prioritise getting the next release out over building something robust."

This relentless churn fuels growth of course, but it also creates massive inefficiencies, from wasted resources to increased security risks. It also means that technical debt accumulates, as companies push out quick fixes rather than engineering solutions for longevity.

Other industries have R&D, experimentation, and implementation, then change flattens out. With tech, we’re just in a constant state of upheaval."

The funny thing is, as an industry we seem to have accepted this as the norm, but at what cost?

The Security vs. Support Trade-Off

One of the main justifications for obsolescence is security. Once a product stops receiving updates, it becomes a liability, forcing businesses to replace software and hardware at the vendor’s discretion. The risk? Cyberattacks targeting outdated systems that companies no longer maintain.

"Companies are in a race between slow customers and the New York Times exposing their security flaws."

Security and product longevity should not be at odds, but in a model that prioritises rapid obsolescence, they often are. Businesses are told they must replace older equipment for security reasons, yet they often fail to budget for / keep up with continuous hardware or software refreshes. Meanwhile tech vendors use support cutoffs as a way to push new products rather than ensuring long-term stability.

"Why should businesses budget for replacement when they’re told every update is necessary?"

Accountability Over Convenience

The bigger issue here isn’t just the inconvenience of planned obsolescence—it’s the lack of accountability from tech companies driving these cycles. Unfortunately this means:

• Products aren’t designed for longevity—whether it’s software updates forcing out old hardware, cloud platforms discontinuing services, or proprietary systems making repairs impossible.

• Tech firms externalise the costs—forcing businesses and end users to deal with failing systems, security risks, and constant replacement cycles.

• There are no real consequences—regulators focus on competition, privacy, and security, but rarely challenge the economic model of forced obsolescence.

This isn’t a consumer problem; it’s an industry-wide failure. As one participant put it:

"We need to stop glorifying novelty and start building things to last."

Where Do We Go From Here?

We didn’t actually resolve this in the member discussion so here are my thoughts. First question - who can actually fix this? Is it on engineers to build better systems, on companies to prioritise long-term value over short-term gains? or on regulators to force accountability? The reality is, it’s all of the above—and right now, no one is taking full responsibility.

Tech vendors drive planned obsolescence because it’s profitable. They control the update cycles, the support timelines, and the supply chains. In theory, the market should push back—if a company consistently forces unnecessary upgrades, customers should demand better. But when entire industries operate this way, the choice disappears. We see this with hardware lock-in, forced cloud migrations, and software dependencies that break old integrations. There’s no incentive to do better when churn is built into the business model.

Some regulation has started to push back. New Zealand’s Right to Repair Amendment to the Consumer Guarantees Act is a step in the right direction, recognising that companies need to provide access to repairs and spare parts. But it doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t cover software obsolescence, doesn’t tackle deliberate design choices that limit upgradeability, and doesn’t include the same financial penalties we see in markets like the EU.

Other countries have gone further. The EU’s Digital Markets Act introduces obligations for interoperability and limits on anti-competitive behavior that forces unnecessary upgrades. France has introduced repairability scores for electronics, making it easier for buyers to choose longer-lasting products. In the US, state-level right-to-repair laws have started appearing, forcing manufacturers to provide repair information and parts.

But none of this really touches software. The way digital products are built, sold, and updated remains largely unregulated. There’s no equivalent of a minimum lifespan requirement, no mandated security updates beyond a short warranty period, no enforceable standards for interoperability. And without that, vendors will continue to externalise the costs of obsolescence, shifting the burden onto businesses, IT teams, and end users.

So yes, this is a regulation issue. But it’s also a conversation we need to have as an industry. Tech professionals know this cycle is unsustainable. We see technical debt mounting, we deal with legacy infrastructure that can’t be maintained, and we watch as security vulnerabilities force rushed migrations instead of long-term planning. If we don’t push for better standards—whether that’s in procurement, development, or regulation—nothing will change.

The real question isn’t whether planned obsolescence will continue. It’s whether we’re willing to challenge the assumptions that have made it normal.