I agree. Electronics products need to have the incentive to be built to last, rather than built to last only past the warranty time, to force you to buy a new one after that.
Currently, the incentive is to be build not to last. There is an interesting documentary on this subject called "The light bulb conspiracy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbbF3oxf-E
Sure, there is a cost. Which is offset by recycling.
If we all switched, tomorrow, to using long-lived appliances and goods, we'd pay higher costs for _new_ manufactured goods because their a whole lot of their inputs comes from recycled material.
Example: a metal foundry in my home town makes a whole lot of man-hole covers (and like goods). They exclusively use recycled metal. The car that I scrapped last week could be part of a manhole cover next month!
I suppose there is another aspect to buying a $60 item that may last three years compared to a $200 one that may last nine years. That means increased production, employment for manufacturing/sales/marketing, and when it stops working, similar benefits to the re-cycling industry and the employment therein. Keeps the "wheels turning".
Truthfully, I'm not sure if I'm happy or sad being the catalyst of that wheel.
Be happy. The printer you had to buy last month to replace the printer you bought last year because the toner costs _more_ than a new printer is a lot better than the one you had three years ago.
There is this: the toys we're making now are more efficient, easier on the environment, produce less waste in manufacturing and operation, and are even easier to part out for recycling.
By all means, keep driving that '57 Chevy around. But you're better off, and _we_ are better off, if you drive a late-model car.
