Technology in modern times has undoubtedly improved humanity—from breakthroughs in medicine and 3D printing to the instant access to information that could solve any problem. But the same companies behind these innovations also create the same barriers that prevent us from fully benefiting from them. This process starts at every level—from manufacturing and hardware to software and pricing—these corporations intentionally build limitations into their products. Not to improve our experience, but to sell us back a temporary “fix.” It’s not progress. It’s a profit-driven illusion of choice. Devices were once designed to be maintained, upgraded, or personalized. Now, they are locked-down, soldered-up, and closed off. In this paper I will explain how planned obsolescence, restricted repairability, and proprietary software practices harm users, which overall restricts creativity and contributes to the growing waste on our planet.
Let's begin with the removal of the headphone jack. In Dain Evans' article, "Why Apple, Google and Now Samsung Killed the Headphone Jack," companies claim that ditching the jack is to "make room for more advanced tech."
Which, in a sense, yes, Apple at this time unveiled their most recognizable/advanced piece of technology/product of this generation—AirPods, or the idea of truly wireless headphone(s)—so in that sense that could be true, but the real reason is about making money.
Aux ports are cheap, universal, and reliable. Their removal on the iPhone (7), the most influential phone that inspired these one-sided practices and forced users to purchase proprietary adapters or wireless headphones—which, how convenient, now they exist—and selling them for a profit.
What’s worse, this isn't a limitation of physical space or engineering, because they have the resources of being a trillion-dollar company and plenty of time. Even Apple’s own MacBooks and Studio products still have headphone jacks. So why not iPhones? The answer is control. By eliminating universal features and replacing them with locked-in systems, these companies create a loop which milks you for profit.
Even the co-founder of Apple, Steve Wozniak, showed concern, stating, “If it’s missing the 3.5mm earphone jack, that’s going to tick off a lot of people” (Gajanan). Though Steve Wozniak doesn’t hold power hierarchical-wise within the company, he’s still a public figure and the co-founder. That speaks a lot, because it's showing that it’s for money and not for the average consumer.
This tactic goes beyond hardware. On different platforms, especially when developing apps, you’ll need specific tools. Apple’s ecosystem forces developers to use Xcode on macOS/Apple hardware—locking them into expensive hardware and closed software environments. Which is something limiting because Apple is already the biggest recognizable company in the world and having even the ability to have your app up in their servers/Appstore means a lot, of course after shilling out more money to get a license and for it to be approve which is not guaranteed so you’ll have to repeat the license again until it meets apples standards.
Now Microsoft's Windows, being the most-used software (OS) in schools, business, and personal usage—this move from Apple limits a huge chunk of developers. But that doesn’t mean Windows is this “savior of computing,” because they have their own issues as well—by spying on users, Bloating hardware with their junk, like a bad roommate, limiting security to new software only, and shifting it more to ads/advertisement. Which is not a new thing from them because it started back with Windows 8 (2012), which was the biggest outrage from everyone because it was this hyped up “upgrade” from Windows 7 (2009) and Vista (2007) because so many people believed it prioritized user needs and will fix Windows 7 clunky and annoying issues, That even Apple made a huge Campaign called “Get a Mac”, Which was very effective, One month after the campaign began, Apple saw an increase of 200,000 Macs sold, and by the end of July 2006, it had sold approximately 1.3 million Macs. (“Get a Mac”). According to Apple’s official Q3 2006 earnings report, the company “shipped 1,327,000 Macintosh computers,” which contributed to a 12% year-over-year increase in Mac sales (Apple Inc.) . But these built-in Ads from Microsoft have been shown to affect usability, increase frustration, and even shorten how long people stay (Brajnik and Gabrielli).
Meanwhile, open-source communities show that we can have functional, flexible, and free alternatives. Tools like GIMP show that powerful software doesn’t have to trap you. Yes, these platforms have their own limitations, but they’re built around the idea of user freedom.
The Forced Checkmate
Manufacturers—no matter what company—limit how devices are made: soldered RAM, glued batteries, special screw heads, cheap plastic, or just bad design. “The product is designed to degenerate quickly… such as plastic material that deteriorates easily, screws undersized that break down after a limited time…” (Almeida and Arvidsson 10). These small nitpicks actually increase the cost of third-party or DIY repairs. It nudges us toward replacement over repair, even for something so simple such as a missing key or screen replacement. And once we give in, they win again.
These practices aren't just inconvenient—they're intentionally designed to mess us up. Many companies require special tools for even basic fixes, or they use their wealth to make special software that only works with their special hardware—even if you bought it directly from them. Then, there are exclusive steps they do to “finalize” the process ("Apple Support").
By getting rid of something that works and replacing it with “their solution,” companies are lowering the standard. Even the top-tier headphones Apple sells—the AirPods Max—lack a simple aux port, a universal standard that is still useful. This causes other companies to follow behind because they view it as a trend. When you buy something, shouldn’t you own the right to fix it?
DIY and the Culture
In some situations, repairing isn’t just cheaper—it’s fulfilling. As Krebs and Weber write in Rethinking the History of Repair, modern DIY is "less about reducing the cost of materials or labour" and more about "the satisfaction of creating something with one’s own hands." Which a lot of people could agree upon.
Repairing becomes a way to reconnect with our stuff—and builds a connection to care for the things around us, a contrast to the disposable design philosophy of modern tech. Radios and cars are great examples; some are maintained and are kept alive for decades—longer than intended. Today, it’s seen as an inconvenience or even a liability. This movement of repairability isn’t some niche that only technology experiences—it’s normal and widespread everywhere. Slim and sealed has replaced open and fixable.
In Resources, Conservation and Recycling, a survey based on repair experiences tells how consumers respond to the repairability of products. The study found that manufacturers often fail to meet consumer needs when it comes to making products easy to fix, which does negatively impact brand loyalty and future purchase decisions. The research shows that repairability does matter and is a significant role in a purchase—many participants are more likely to repurchase from and recommend brands that offer repairable products (to a degree and condition of repair) (Sabbaghi et al.).
It’s about more than headphone jacks or custom screws. It’s about ownership. It’s about not being forced to buy a new $1,000 phone just because the battery died or being forced to upgrade your grandparents’ computer just to use a new version of Windows. It’s about having the choice.
The Environmental and Economic Impact
The influence of technology has played a significant negative role in the environment—from excessive usage of fuel to the production/mining of plastic and lithium. Imagine a product that has both and can't be repaired. That's what Sy Taffel's paper "AirPods and the Earth" conveys.
Apple's popular wireless earbuds represent a "disposability-by-design approach that renders repair economically or technically unfeasible." Products like AirPods are symbolic of a shift from longevity to planned death.
iFixit, a company that specializes in tutorials and teardowns to help users, gave the AirPods a repairability score of 0 out of 10. Mind you, their entire mission is based on what the CEO said: “we can create a culture that repairs and maintains the things we own rather than discarding them and buying new ones” (Wiens). If it's a 0, then all hope is lost.
“As we begin to pull out the boards, cables, and other bits, we're reminded of a certain wearable repair nightmare (cough Apple Watch cough)” (Noronha). “Ripping out the glue plug reveals the end of a teensy-weensy battery, with teensy-weensy spot welds.” “Looks like we won't be replacing these any time soon (or recycling them, ever)” (Noronha). These are real thoughts and actions that are affected by these companies.
A Future Built on Limitations
Even if you’re not deep into the tech space, this affects you. Imagine buying a new vacuum every year because you can’t change the filter. Or paying extra to unlock the wheels of your suitcase. These are exaggerated examples. When companies control the entire product lifecycle, they decide what exists and for how long.
Imagine a world where every product is tied to one brand—where no alternatives exist. That’s a monopoly. That’s where we’re headed. That’s not innovation. That’s control.
The truth is, these practices are actively making all products worse. Not just in terms of repairability, but in reliability, cost, and environmental impact.
The Trade-Off Trap
Many companies have made the executive decision of soldered memory and storage directly onto the motherboard. Which—it improves speed and battery life, and to be fair, that’s true. Their ARM-based silicon chips are genuinely impressive. All that power and integrated GPU is amazing innovation, but that doesn’t mean soldering is the only path. It’s a trade-off—specially made for us.
By removing replaceable components, companies lock users into devices with limited lifespans and no upgrade path (until you spend more money, at that moment only). You can’t fix it. You can’t “upgrade it.” You can only buy a new one. But these trade-offs shouldn’t mean we need to revert fully back into bulky, modular systems—though helpful and preferred. We need to find the balance.
Companies could offer both: high-performance design and user-friendly repair—like a hybrid between using soldered mobile CPUs but having replaceable RAM slots and storage sections. With the given resources and money, these companies can make these “hybrids” really efficient and accessible for everyone. But they don’t. Nothing is stopping them: no limitations on design, no lack of funding, huge teams of engineers that back these companies. But it all goes back into limiting your options, which means more control.
Whether you’re a tech hobbyist, a casual user, or just someone who values your money, these limitations affect what you can do with the things you own. They make life harder, costlier, and more frustrating.
We deserve better. We deserve technology that works for us—not against us. Devices that we can trust, fix, and keep. Not just because it’s more sustainable or affordable, but because it’s right.
Companies have the money, knowledge, and power to design products that last. They just choose not to. And that’s the real problem.
Almeida, R., R. Arvidsson, et al. “Planned Obsolescence or Planned Resource Depletion? A Sustainable Approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 29 May 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618315695.
Evans, Dain. “Why Apple, Google and Now Samsung Killed the Headphone Jack.” CNBC, 31 Aug. 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/31/samsung-is-the-latest-in-a-long-line-of-headphone-jack-ditchers.html.
Hern, Alex. “Apple Co-Founder: Ditching iPhone 7 Headphone Jack Would Tick People Off.” The Guardian, 25 Aug. 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-ditching-iphone-7-headphone-jack-would-tick-people-off.
Krebs, Stefan, and Heike Weber. “Rethinking the History of Repair: Repair Cultures and the ‘Lifespan’ of Things.” De Gruyter Brill, 3 Sept. 2021, https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783839447413-003/html?lang=en.
Laptop Retrospective. “Repairability, Realism and the Rise of Repairable.” Laptop Retrospective, 29 Dec. 2021, https://laptopretrospective.com/laptops/repairability-and-realism.
Maycroft, Neil. “Consumption, Planned Obsolescence and Waste.” CiteSeerX, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary.
MOESLINGER, Margot, Kristof ALMASY, Marion JAMARD, and Hugues DE MAUPEOU. “Towards an Effective Right to Repair for Electronics.” JRC Publications Repository, 1 Jan. 1970, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC129957.
Park, Miles Barwick. Product Life: Designing for Longer Lifespans. PhD thesis, Kingston University, 2009. https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/20226/.
Ruddick, Graham. “Apple Faces Tough Sell after Scrapping iPhone 7 Headphones Jack.” The Guardian, 8 Sept. 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/08/apple-faces-tough-sell-after-scrapping-iphone-7-headphones-jack.
Sabbaghi, Mostafa, et al. “A Survey-Based Study of Consumer Repair Experiences.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 15 Mar. 2016, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344916300349.
Schmookler, Andrew Bard. The Illusion of Choice: How the Market Economy Shapes Our Destiny. Exlibrisgroup.com, 18 June 2014, https://i-share-dpu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma993130315105831&vid=01CARLI_DPU:CARLI_DPU.
Taffel, Sy. “Airpods and the Earth: Digital Technologies, Planned Obsolescence and the Capitalocene.” Big Data & Society, 2023, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25148486221076136.
Apple. “Self Service Repair.” Apple Support, https://support.apple.com/self-service-repair. Accessed 7 June 2025.
iFixit. “About Us.” iFixit, https://www.ifixit.com/about-us. Accessed 7 June 2025.
Apple Inc. “Apple Reports Third Quarter Results.” Apple Newsroom, 19 July 2006, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/07/19Apple-Reports-Third-Quarter-Results/.
“Get a Mac.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 June 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_a_Mac.