Designed to Be Replaced: How Planned Obsolescence Fuels Waste in the Digital Age

12 November 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

The Streaming Divide: Why Pop Superstars Earn Millions While Most Musicians Struggle to Survive

Landmark Negligence Cases That Changed Personal Injury Law

Success Starts with Choosing the Right Business for You

As the festive season approaches and millions prepare to give new phones as gifts, there is an uncomfortable truth beneath the shine of packaging and ribbon. Globally, smartphone sales continue to grow, and by late 2025, analysts expect more than 180 million new phones will be gifted worldwide over the Christmas and holiday period. The result is a surge of electronic waste, much of it tied to devices that still function perfectly well.

Pile of discarded cell phones and electronics in a landfill, under overcast skies. Scattered cables and tires create a sense of waste.

This phenomenon is closely linked to planned obsolescence, the practice of deliberately designing products to have limited lifespans so that they are replaced sooner than necessary. While technological progress drives convenience and innovation, the environmental cost of constant replacement is becoming impossible to ignore.

The Roots of Planned Obsolescence

The idea of designing for failure is not new. In the early twentieth century, companies sought ways to increase sales in an already saturated market. One of the earliest and most infamous examples came from the Phoebus Cartel, formed in the 1920s by major light bulb manufacturers such as General Electric, Osram and Philips. They agreed to limit the lifespan of light bulbs to around 1,000 hours, ensuring repeat purchases and steady demand.

In the automotive industry, General Motors took a more subtle approach. Under the leadership of Alfred P. Sloan Jr., GM introduced yearly styling updates to its vehicles, making older models look outdated even if they were mechanically sound. By the 1950s, this idea of “dynamic obsolescence” had become a core part of the car industry’s marketing strategy. Consumers were encouraged to buy a new car not because the old one had failed, but because it no longer looked fashionable.

This approach worked so well that the average ownership period of a new car in the United States fell from five years in the 1930s to around two years by the mid-1950s.

The Modern Battlefront: Electronics

Today, the same principles apply to consumer electronics. Phones, laptops, tablets and even smart appliances are updated annually with minor design or software changes. Marketing emphasises the new features while subtly implying that last year’s model is inferior.

Software updates also play a role. Older devices often stop receiving updates, making them less secure and incompatible with new apps. Hardware designs that prevent users from replacing batteries or repairing parts further shorten a product’s usable life.

The environmental impact is staggering. In 2024, the world produced around 62 million tonnes of electronic waste, a figure expected to reach 75 million tonnes by 2030, according to the United Nations Global E-waste Monitor. Only about 20 per cent of this waste is properly recycled.

When we consider that tens of millions of new phones will be purchased and gifted this Christmas, the scale of the problem becomes even clearer. Each device requires metals such as lithium, cobalt, gold and nickel, all of which come from resource-intensive mining processes that damage ecosystems and contribute to carbon emissions.

The Environmental Cost of Short-Lived Design

Planned obsolescence harms the environment at every stage of a product’s life cycle.

Manufacturing requires extraction of raw materials, water use and energy-intensive production.
Distribution and transport add carbon emissions and packaging waste.
Disposal leads to landfill waste and the release of toxic substances, including lead, mercury and cadmium.

Devices that could have been repaired or refurbished often end up discarded because it is cheaper to buy new than to fix the old. Repair restrictions and closed design systems make it even harder for consumers to extend product life.

The environmental consequences of this pattern go far beyond landfills. E-waste frequently ends up exported to developing countries, where informal recycling exposes workers to hazardous materials without proper safety equipment.

Is Planned Obsolescence a Design Flaw or a Business Strategy?

Manufacturers argue that regular product refreshes promote innovation and create jobs. They claim that shorter product cycles allow faster adoption of new technology, such as energy-efficient screens or improved processors.

However, critics point out that this cycle primarily benefits profit margins rather than the planet. Many of the annual “upgrades” in smartphones or consumer electronics are incremental rather than revolutionary. A new colour, camera mode or interface rarely justifies replacing a working device.

In effect, marketing has replaced mechanical failure as the main driver of obsolescence. Consumers are encouraged to buy the latest model not because they need it, but because they feel left behind if they do not.

The Global Response

Governments and regulators are beginning to take notice.

The European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan now requires manufacturers to make products more durable, repairable and recyclable.
France has introduced a repairability index that scores electronics based on how easy they are to repair.
The United Kingdom has introduced Right to Repair legislation, forcing appliance manufacturers to supply spare parts for up to ten years.
In the United States, several states have passed or proposed similar laws to give consumers and independent technicians access to parts and repair manuals.

Public attitudes are also shifting. A growing number of consumers now consider environmental sustainability in purchasing decisions, especially during holiday periods. The second-hand and refurbished electronics market is thriving, and companies offering longer warranties are gaining favour.

A Sustainable Approach to the Festive Season

With Christmas around the corner, consumers can make choices that help reduce waste.

Repair instead of replace: A simple battery replacement or software refresh can extend a phone’s life by years.
Buy refurbished: Certified refurbished devices perform as well as new ones but come at a lower environmental cost.
Recycle responsibly: Use verified e-waste collection schemes rather than general waste disposal.
Support brands committed to sustainability: Some companies now design phones with modular parts that can be easily swapped or repaired.

Every small decision makes a difference when multiplied by millions of households.

Planned obsolescence may once have driven economic growth, but its environmental consequences are now undeniable. The constant cycle of buying, discarding and upgrading has created one of the fastest-growing waste streams on Earth.

As we enter another season of gifting and consumption, the challenge is clear: innovation must no longer mean replacement. It must mean resilience, repair and responsibility.

If consumers demand it and manufacturers respond, the devices under next year’s Christmas tree could tell a different story, one of sustainability instead of waste.

Current Most Read

The Streaming Divide: Why Pop Superstars Earn Millions While Most Musicians Struggle to Survive

Paul Francis
1d
4 min read

For millions of music fans, every song is just a click away. Streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and their competitors now generate billions of dollars in annual payouts. Yet for many artists, the income is barely enough to live on. Meanwhile, a small group of global superstars enjoy platform-shattering success and headline tours that gross tens of millions.

Grid of colorful squares displaying music genres like Chill, Jazz, Latin, R&B. Each square features album art and genre text.

What is driving this gap? And how does it affect the new generation of musicians trying to build careers from their craft?

The Vast Payouts, But Not for Everyone

In 2024, Spotify revealed that it had paid out more than US$10 billion in royalties to the music industry. On the surface, this appears to be a thriving ecosystem. However, the distribution of that money tells a very different story.

According to independent data, artists who own their masters earned an average of US$3.41 per 1,000 streams globally in 2024, down from around US$4.04 in 2021. That is equal to about US $0.0034 per stream. If an artist earns 100,000 streams in a month, they might make only US$340.

Streaming services typically use what is called a pro-rata payment model. Revenue is pooled together and divided according to each artist’s percentage of total streams. In practice, this benefits major artists with the biggest catalogues, label backing and playlist exposure. Smaller acts receive only a fraction.

The Top Three Per Cent Take the Prize

The upper tier of the music world is thriving. Large-scale artists, major labels and streaming megastars command huge global audiences and, as a result, absorb the majority of the payouts. Spotify’s disclosures show that only a very small number of artists earn six-figure sums, and even fewer reach seven or eight figures.

These artists also benefit from multiple income streams, including live tours, merchandise, brand sponsorships and sync licensing. For them, streaming is only one part of a much larger financial picture.

In contrast, mid-tier and independent artists face an entirely different reality: low streaming income, high touring costs and fierce competition for attention.

Touring: The Lost Income Stream

Touring has long been the lifeblood of working musicians. It provides not only income but also exposure and connection with fans. Yet the economics of touring have changed dramatically.

Shirley Manson from Garbage sings passionately into a microphone on stage, wearing sunglasses and a black sleeveless top. Bright stage lights in the background. — Image by Concerttour, via Wikimedia Commons

Frontwoman Shirley Manson of the band Garbage has been one of the most vocal critics of the modern music economy. During the band’s 2025 North American tour, she stated that Garbage would no longer attempt full-scale headline tours in the region because the costs had become impossible to sustain for “a band like us with a 30-year career.”

She pointed out that the average musician makes about US$12 a month from streaming. Rising fuel costs, staff wages, travel expenses, insurance and venue fees make touring a financial risk even for acts with decades of experience.

If an established band like Garbage cannot justify a tour, the situation for emerging artists is even more difficult.

Why It Is So Hard for New Artists

1. Algorithms and Exposure

Streaming platforms depend heavily on algorithmic curation and official playlists. These are dominated by major-label artists and global hits. For newcomers, breaking into these lists is extremely difficult without marketing support or label funding.

2. Low Payouts Per Stream

With an average of only a few thousandths of a dollar per play, musicians need millions of streams to earn a modest income. Many independent acts never reach those numbers, particularly if they are working in niche genres.

3. Touring Costs

Live performances require significant investment: travel, crew, accommodation, equipment, promotion and management. When streaming revenue cannot cover those costs, artists often face a choice between going into debt or not performing at all.

4. Limited Alternative Income

Other income streams, such as merchandise, fan subscriptions and brand partnerships, require upfront investment and constant marketing. The modern artist must act as a full-time entrepreneur, not just a creator.

5. Lack of Collective Representation

The power in the industry still rests with major labels, streaming platforms and live promoters. Musicians have little collective bargaining power. Shirley Manson has said, “There’s no effective union for musicians that fights for young musicians,” highlighting how vulnerable creators are in the system.

Reforms That Could Help

Many artists and advocates are calling for reforms to make the industry fairer:

User-centric payment models: Each listener’s subscription fee would be divided only among the artists they actually play, instead of being pooled across the entire platform.
Transparent royalties: Artists are demanding clear information on how streaming payouts are calculated and divided.
Touring support: Some suggest public or private funding to help mid-tier artists continue performing live.
Union representation: A stronger collective voice could help secure fairer contracts and protect creative rights.
Diverse income sources: Encouraging direct fan funding, independent distribution, live streaming, and non-traditional deals can help artists stay independent.

The Reality of the Numbers

To put it in perspective: at US $3.41 per 1,000 streams, an artist would need nearly 300,000 monthly plays to make US $1,000. This does not include taxes, label cuts or management fees.

Meanwhile, top artists such as Taylor Swift, Drake and Ed Sheeran receive hundreds of millions of plays per month and can negotiate higher royalty splits through their labels. The gap between these global names and working musicians continues to widen every year.

The Future of Music

The digital era has made it easier than ever to release songs, but far harder to make a living from them. For many, the dream of a sustainable music career now feels out of reach.

As Shirley Manson warned, when only the most commercial voices can afford to continue, “you’ll lose generations of esoteric, creative weirdos.” The danger is not only economic but cultural. A world without risk-taking, diverse music is one that loses its heartbeat.

If the industry wants to stay vibrant, it must find a way to support artists beyond the top three per cent. Because innovation, authenticity and emotional connection often come from the middle — not the mainstream.