James Patterson’s new book is a blast. Literally so because 1,000 readers are being offered Private Vegas as a self-destructing app. Once you start reading the book, you only have 24 hours to finish it and each page disappears forever as soon as you turn it. Panicked readers will also be able to track each other’s progress and steal time from others.

It’s a brilliant marketing effort that panders to our love of self-destruction. Remember the original series of Mission: Impossible starring Peter Graves? I still get breathless (lack of exercise is also a factor here) every time I watch one of the old episodes and I hear: “This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck Jim.” Famous last words: for the tape, of course, because Jim Phelps is just indestructible.

Take self-destruction to extremes and it becomes planned obsolescence. Now the two might be sides of the same coin. However, while we appreciate a bit of self-destruction, when it comes to technology, we just hate the concept of planned obsolescence. The former may make us feel like a modern-day Steven Hill, but the latter cages us like lab rats endlessly legging the constant wheel of consumerism.

Planned obsolescence fuels an endlessly lamenting Greek chorus of conspiracy theories. Software that is only upwardly compatible: been there. Products that become dysfunctional the moment a shiny new upgrade is launched: done that. Batteries that run out of juice five minutes after a recharge: got the t-shirt.

Admittedly, obsolescence does favour manufacturers and producers since consumers will have to buy one product, say a laptop, multiple times rather than only once. This naturally stimulates demand and supply. However, obsolescence is not always planned. It’s obvious that when a new operating system is launched, this will make old devices very sluggish. And batteries cannot be recharged to infinity and beyond: they all have a finite number of charges.

That’s Moore’s Law – which says that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years – in practice. So on average, you have to change your technology of choice every two years in order to keep your computing power up-to-date.

Then there’s the matter of design and aesthetics. Whenever a new phone is launched, this makes old generation phones look unattractive. The new phone is sleeker and slimmer: an old phone will naturally look frumpy. I mean, compare yourself now with how you looked five years ago: you get the point.

Moreover, without obsolescence, planned or otherwise, technology would be much more expensive. We frequently succumb to nostalgia for the good old days when our grandparents would buy a vacuum cleaner and it would last them a lifetime. That’s true. However, back then, technology cost much more than it does today. If a company decides to use parts that have a lifespan of five rather than 20 years, this translates into lower costs of production and ultimately, a more attractive price tag for the consumer.

And maybe, obsolescence is not just something that is inbuilt in the nature of things: it could also be fuelled by our desire to own something a little newer and a little better than what we have. It’s this desire which pushes manufacturers and producers to constantly innovate: an endless cycle of creation which necessarily feeds on destruction.

techeditor@timesofmalta.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.