Comments for Planned obsolescence in the digital age Andy Rodgerson 15 July 2014 Improvement and innovation are good things, but unfortunately there is an assumption of "it's a later version therefore it must be better" I can think of no end of things that have become utterly rubbish in later versions - to the extent that if I'd just arrived from another planet and someone had presented me the tow versions I'd have assumed…Read moreImprovement and innovation are good things, but unfortunately there is an assumption of “it’s a later version therefore it must be better” I can think of no end of things that have become utterly rubbish in later versions – to the extent that if I’d just arrived from another planet and someone had presented me the tow versions I’d have assumed that the later one was the first. – Micosoft Office hasn’t really become any easier to use since version 2003. – Windows explorer was at its best in XP, the later versions look like a messy creation from an untidy programmer – XP picture viewer was hugely better than the tacky later versions which are woefulyl shorn of functionality. The sad thing about built in obselescence is that it encourages change for change’s sake – rather than having software companies solve the problems that need solving, they’re compelled to change somethign that works great purely so they can try and con us into thinking it’s a genuine improvement. I believe in what I call the “3,2,1” rule – which states out of every 6 changes to software, 3 make it worse, 2 make it no better or worse, and only 1 is a genuine improvement. What this says is that to make something better, you really need to give it some thought! Show less Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment You may use simple HTML tags to add links or lists to your comment:<a href="url">link</a> <ul><li>list item 1</li><li>list item2</li></ul> <em>italic</em> <strong>bold</strong>Name * Email * Notify me by email when the comment gets approved.