Imagine that you are looking to buy a certain hi-fi product, and in the publicity material, the manufacturer says it’s designed to sound better and have superior functionality to its rivals. But what if the company also said that after three years, it would no longer be able to play the latest music formats? Or that it was just about to release a better version, or that it was about to charge a monthly fee for all of its fancy features?

In the hi-fi industry, this situation isn’t as unusual as you think – and it isn’t the salesman’s or retailer’s fault, but the manufacturer’s. It’s because a great many products have obsolescence built into them. Put more harshly, and you could describe it as “designing something to become useless or irrelevant.” In engineering, it’s a benevolent practice that allows engineers to predict when a part or assembly will fail, so they can replace it beforehand. However, in consumer electronics retailing, the goal is simply to keep customers coming back for more.

There’s nothing new about planned obsolescence – it has been around for more than a century, and presents itself far more often in industries other than hi-fi. For instance, in the nineteen twenties, the big lightbulb makers implored their engineers to cut the 2,500-hour average lifetime of their bulbs. They then formed a global cartel and imposed fines on factories whose bulbs lasted more than 1,500 hours. Meanwhile, the famed Centennial Lightbulb in California has been illuminated for more than 100 years, suggesting this technology could serve its customers for quite a while longer!

In our modern, globalised economy, planned obsolescence is a key driver of change – loading mobile phones with features that then require faster phones to run them properly is a classic example. There’s a lot of money to be made in industries such as these, which are style and/or fashion-conscious, with designers coming up with unique and exciting aesthetics, and more engineers pushing to innovate even for marginal benefit.

In my opinion, planned obsolescence has no place in hi-fi. It may support industries where nearly everyone owns the product – like smartphones – but it has no business in one where most of the market is untapped. It’s no mystery that just a fraction of the population is aware that high-fidelity audio makes their music more enjoyable. The average consumer thinks spending a few hundred dollars on a soundbar is akin to buying spirits from the top shelf. That is to say, they’re simply unaware of the true hi-fi experience.

Planned obsolescence comes in many forms, and not all of them are seen in hi-fi. It ranges from designing products to fail deliberately (which I’ve yet to see) to digging for minor updates and trivial design changes to ‘justify' releasing new versions of products (which I see fairly often). The latter is obviously less outrageous, but still comes at the consumer’s detriment.

For most, hi-fi is a journey. You start in one place and gradually move to another. This is often due to budget and experience. Budget-wise, you may buy a system you can afford today, and then upgrade later. Experience-wise, you may buy a system you love today, and then over time develop a desire for a more refined sound. In both cases, upgrading is part of the process.

Planned obsolescence is at odds with this. It encourages manufacturers to forego design choices that enhance longevity. This can be functional (like digging for trivial ‘innovations’) or perceptual (like upgrading the look and bumping the model number to drive new sales). Both result in new versions of products, driving down the resale value of existing ones and making it harder for users to upgrade.

This is more common in the low-to-mid price range. Think AV receivers that practically have ‘model years’, where they add an HDMI eARC, tick the model number up by one, and render the nine-month-old version undesirable. Or new electronics (DACs, amps) that are virtually identical to the previous version, except they look fancier and have more marketing hype around them.

In high-end hi-fi, this is much less common. But the reality is still that pushing for new releases for the wrong reason – to increase sales volume – betrays existing customers. It causes new versions of products to come out more often than they should, shortening each model’s time in the spotlight, dulling the joy of owning it, and driving its market value down sooner.

Of course, there are fair reasons to push for new releases. One is to offer more aesthetic options, such as new finishes. This must be done without offsetting the perceived value of the original lineup by calling it a new product. The other reason is to make a demonstrable improvement upon a product’s performance. And when done in that way, new releases are more spaced out, resolving the problems I mentioned above. There’s also merit in justifying the new product, such as engineering improvements that differentiate it from the previous model, so existing customers aren’t left feeling cheated.

Ultimately, I believe the difference comes down to this: Does the manufacturer prioritise its Research & Development department or its sales department? Of course both are crucial, but which is the priority? The answer to that question sets the foundation for everything else related to product quality, long-term customer satisfaction, and industry-wide impact.

You would think that if some brands are indulging in planned obsolescence – and prioritising their marketing departments – others have to follow suit in order to stay competitive. After all, marketing drives revenue, and more revenue means more resources to put towards both marketing and R&D. However, an audio company that prioritises R&D can be successful. Take Linn Products, for instance. One-third of the company consists of engineers, which is a lot, and it shows in the results. Product lifecycles are exceptionally long. For example, the current Ekos SE tonearm has been out for nearly twenty years. This gives Linn a ton of credibility when it says, “We’ve just released a new product, and it’s well worth your attention.”

Choosing a product from a manufacturer like this is how hi-fi enthusiasts can avoid the pitfalls of planned obsolescence. They hold their perceived value, even when competitors are churning and burning their own models. Often these long-life products become even more desirable when superseded, because then they’re only available through rare second-hand opportunities.

Another way to avoid planned obsolescence in hi-fi is to choose products that are modular and upgradable, which tend to be produced by merit-focused brands that prioritise R&D. This lets you start at a performance level you can afford today, and then jump up in sound quality later without having to buy a completely new product. You also avoid other risks this way, such as if a new distributor steps in and dumps the price of a product you own, thereby tanking your trade-in value.

The best part of all this is that hi-fi enthusiasts can steer the world towards a better place for their passion. Because at the end of the day, planned obsolescence will only continue as long as it’s beneficial to the companies doing it. As an analogy, if people keep clicking and buying products through pop-up advertisements, then pop-up advertisements will continue to exist. Just so long as there is a choice, consumers can vote with their dollars. They will ultimately decide to what degree the industry is built on merit, performance, and value – or on hype, speed, and manipulation.

For more information visit Audio Connection