Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
Perhaps it’s interesting to flip the problem. What if you made a product that lasted say 10x as long as the competition with a small margin and accepted the market would saturate? Then pivot to the next product, and the next?
I would expect, given the current state of ‘capitalism’, you would be sued, IP’d and regulated out of existence very quickly. Criminal contempt of business model.