system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I believe planned obsolescence is wrong

Planned obsolescence is a manufacturing decision by a company to make consumer products in such a way that they become out-of-date or useless within a known time period so that consumers are forced to buy a product multiple times rather than just once. I believe it is betraying the structure of free market economy. It is just using its rules to stay for as long as a company would. Looking at from a customer's perspective this can be really hurtful. For example, fast fashion is always being promoted as very useful and stylish. Chanel sells a bag at a very high price, but Bershka can produce a very similar knockoff, isn't it amazing? But surprise, even you wear it a few times in a week, it's going look very bad in a year and you will no longer want to use it.

When you look at the producer's perspective, it is reasonable that you want to keep the business going all the time so you need a factor to keep your products selling. But customer won't always accept this and they might turn into new alternatives. I'm open to every perspective of this issue. I really wanted to talk about it in automotive and mobile sector but I don't know strong arguments about them.

EDIT: I think I made a mistake by giving an example from fashion. Let's say you just read the sole definition of PO. Would you think it is right? I believe Apple making iPhones go slower with every update is wrong.
EDIT2: I don't know if it's against the CMV's format, but I'd rather discuss this issue in the definition of it, not examples. When we talk about examples I feel like this is a game where both sides are trying to come up with something different.
gpt
I think there's a fine line between intentionally creating a product to be useless after a period of time, and not prioritizing longevity.

For instance, that bag wears out more quickly because it's made of cheaper materials with less quality control. That allows them to sell it for less money, which many consumers value.

When companies don't prioritize longevity, it's generally for some reason that supplies something else consumers value, like a lower price. While fast fashion sellers may be happy that consumers buy new stuff when the old things wear out, that isn't the sole motivation behind their manufacturing decisions. They're also providing value with those decisions as in the example of a lower price point.