There are at least a few additional options to those three to consider here:
- The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly.
- smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed.
- throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading)
- some combination of all of the above.
Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.
I think it's possible too. But also think it's a little implausible nobody realized what was going on: longevity is too important (if only for guarantee purposes) for producers to have completely forgotten about it - well, most of em anyhow. And given how commercially self-serving the outcome, and how actively firms strategize for all kinds of income flows, I can't really buy the idea that it's all a benign unfortunate accident. It's possible; sure - but it wouldn't be my first guess for most non-tiny firms anyhow.
It doesn't take "nobody" to realize what was going on; it only takes the decision makers to either not realize it or to actively decide for profit against longevity.
Imagine a situation:
Investors say: give me investment returns!
People in charge say: give me profits!
People making decisions say: profits or quality!
People conducting day-to-day operations say: worry about regulations first, then profits, then quality!
People doing the work say: this quality is poor, but I need my job and don't want to rock the boat!
Maybe it's just anecdotal evidence, but that's generally been my experience over the past 10 to 15 years of doing things
- The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly.
- smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed.
- throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading)
- some combination of all of the above.
Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.