The idea that manufacturers intentionally design technology so that it breaks is one of the most common beliefs about modern electronics. It is so widespread that any slowdown of a phone is automatically attributed to a conspiracy. Reality turns out to be more complicated, since some of these accusations have been proven in courts and ended in fines, while some are explained by physics and economics without any malicious intent. Let us examine where the line lies.

The Most Famous Case

In 2017, users noticed that sixth-generation iPhones and similar models had become noticeably slower. One of them published test results showing that performance sharply recovered after replacing the battery, and the publication instantly spread across the internet. Apple later confirmed that it had released an update that reduced performance on devices with worn-out batteries. Here, an important detail that is often missed matters. The company's technical explanation was entirely justified, since a lithium-ion battery, when degraded, delivers peak currents less effectively, which can cause the phone to suddenly shut down in the middle of operation. Reducing performance really did prevent such shutdowns. The problem was not in the mechanism itself, but in the fact that users were not told about it. A person saw that the phone was slow and concluded that the device was outdated, while the real solution was replacing the battery for a moderate amount of money. The consequences turned out to be serious. France fined the company twenty-five million euros specifically for the lack of information. In the United States, the case ended with a payment of one hundred and thirteen million dollars under an agreement with more than thirty states, while a separate class-action lawsuit cost the company another half a billion dollars, or approximately twenty-five dollars for each affected device. European consumer organizations filed their own lawsuits in Italy, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal, demanding at least sixty euros in compensation per device. This case is the best illustration of what a proven case looks like, and at the same time shows that the essence of the violation was the concealment of information, rather than the technical solution itself.

What Is Actually Not a Conspiracy

A significant part of what people call planned obsolescence has other causes, and it is worth distinguishing between them. Battery degradation is a chemical process, not a design decision. Lithium-ion cells lose capacity with every charging cycle regardless of the manufacturer's wishes, and no technology has yet eliminated this. The increase in the weight of software happens by itself, since applications become more demanding with each update, while the hardware capabilities of your device remain the same. The phone has not become slower, the world around it has become slower. Design compromises also have explanations. Glue instead of screws makes it possible to make the body thinner and at the same time protected from moisture, while soldered memory saves space. These solutions really do make repairs more difficult, but they were adopted for the sake of other characteristics that the buyers themselves voted for with their wallets. The reduction in component costs in the budget segment leads to a shorter lifespan, and this is a consequence of competition over price, rather than an intention to make things worse.

And What Really Is a Problem

At the same time, several practices really do work against the service life of technology, and they are not explained by physics. Ending software support makes a completely functional device unusable, since applications stop being updated and vulnerabilities remain unpatched. Hardware-wise, the phone is capable of working for years more, but using it becomes unsafe. Repair restrictions due to linking parts to a specific device lead to the fact that even an original spare part does not work fully without authorization from the manufacturer.

The unavailability of spare parts and service documentation for independent workshops makes repair possible only at official services at their prices. Pricing at which a repair costs almost as much as a new device pushes people toward buying even when the breakdown is minor. Incompatibility of accessories between generations of devices forces people to buy new ones instead of using what they already have, and this practice has been separately studied in academic papers using headphones as an example, which worked with new models of players and did not work with older ones.

What Regulation Changes

In recent years, the situation has begun to change, and most likely precisely because the legislation has changed, rather than corporate values. France criminalized planned obsolescence back in 2015, making the intentional reduction of the service life of products a criminal offense. The European Union adopted a directive on the right to repair, for which Parliament voted almost unanimously in April 2024, and member states had to bring their legislation into line with it by the end of July 2026. The directive requires manufacturers to ensure access to spare parts and repair instructions, remove technical barriers that prevent independent repair, offer repair at a reasonable price, and extend the warranty after a repair has been carried out. An important detail is that the obligation to repair also applies to devices sold before the rules came into force, that is, to technology purchased earlier. Separately, labeling was introduced under which repairability ratings for specific models became public, and a buyer can compare devices by this parameter in the same way as by energy efficiency. A telling consequence was the appearance of an Apple laptop that, according to teardown results, turned out to be the most repairable in a decade and a half, since standard fasteners were used instead of glue and proprietary screws, while the battery simply comes out.

This is probably the best answer to the argument that thin devices cannot be made repairable, because it turned out that they can, there simply was no reason to do so before.

What Does Ukraine Get from This

Here the answer is unpleasant. European rules do not apply directly in Ukraine, and a Ukrainian consumer cannot demand repair from a manufacturer on their basis. A certain indirect effect still exists, since manufacturers usually find it easier to change the design globally than to make a separate version for one market. Therefore, devices that become more repairable for the sake of Europe are sold that way everywhere. The situation is worse with something else. Since a significant part of technology reaches us unofficially, access to official service and spare parts is often unavailable even when the manufacturer provides them. The practical conclusion is that for us, the issue of repairability is not political, but purely consumer-related, and it is resolved at the stage of choosing a device.

What to Do in Practice

Look at the repairability rating before buying, since it is now published for many models and is easy to find. Check whether spare parts and official service are available in Ukraine for the specific model, because this affects the real cost of ownership more strongly than the difference in the purchase price. Do not take a device slowdown as a verdict, since in many cases the cause is a worn-out battery or full storage, and both problems are solved cheaply. I wrote about this separately in materials on battery care and on speeding up a phone. Consider the duration of software support when choosing, because it is usually what determines the real service life of a device, rather than its hardware characteristics. Consider refurbished technology, since extending the life of an already manufactured device is the most effective response to this entire problem.


Sources: EU Directive 2024/1799 on the right to repair, Euroconsumers materials, TechCrunch, EUobserver, Fordham Undergraduate Law Review publications