"Planned obsolescence is a business strategy in which the obsolescence (the process of becoming obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer usable) of a product is planned and built into it from its conception, by the manufacturer."
In other words, the camera manufacturers have a compulsion to convince you that the camera you have needs to be replaced by the new one they're making, even though your old camera takes perfectly fine photos. When the obsolescence is mostly rhetorical, this is often called esthetic obsolescence: obsolescence because something appears out of date, not necessarily because it is.
This has been coming up a lot in discussions I've been having in email and on the Internet. For instance, here's a question: "how much better is the Nikon Zf's 8-stop VR than the Z9's 6-stop VR?" Well, it's 2 better ;~). Of course, what that "2" represents is befuddled in technical jargon disguised in a standard that straps your camera to an anvil. It turns out you can shake the anvil more and get the same results. However, humans aren't anvils on which you mount a camera, they're something entirely different than a mechanical shake platform.
But 8 sounds a lot better than 6, right? Better get that new camera.
We've been through the same thing with megapixels. Just in full frame: 6, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 33, 36, 45, 50, 61. Yet even a 6mp camera should produce a perfectly fine 8x10" print. Do you really need more? Oh, right, you don't have the correct lens, aren't approaching your subject, and didn't frame properly in the first place, so you're cropping a lot. How much? 2x? Then 24mp should suffice, shouldn't it?
Recently, Nikon has been using features as differentiators. The Z9 has Auto capture, but the Z8 and Zf don't. The Zf has Pixel shift shooting, but the Z8 and Z9 don't. The Z8 and Zf have HEIF support, but the Z9 doesn't. No doubt this is intentional. It's part of the esthetic obsolescence methodology that gets you thinking that maybe the thing you have needs to be replaced with something else.
Users, of course, will say "just update the firmware." But adding new features, performance, and capabilities in firmware doesn't make a camera maker any extra money. At best case, it makes it look like they support their users a little better. In practice, new features in firmware is usually because corporate wanted to ship the product before software had finished their job.
Not only don't firmware updates make a camera company any money, but even if the camera company charged for them, it wouldn't make the same level of money on cost (ROI or ROE). It would also open up the camera companies to having to listen to users, as users won't pay for something they don't want, but will pay for something they do want. Fortunately, SaaS (subscription as a service) hasn’t yet been figured out by the camera companies, though they look at Adobe and say “yeah, we want some of that.”
I keep getting asked about what I would consider as a real improvement that I’d jump at as a customer. Well, I’ve outlined that for almost two decades now, so I’m pretty sure I won’t get that (communicating, programmable, modular). But on the short list would be global shutter and rollover electron wells (or some other significant dynamic range improvement, meaning >1 stop).
Big, real, significant changes that do obsolete previous gear are rare in the camera industry. Which has the eventuality of everyone dipping into esthetic obsolescence. And I’m back on topic, so I’d better stop… ;~)
