Except he didn't call it planned obsolescence. He called it " consumer engineering."

只不过他不叫它“计划性淘汰”。他称之为“消费者工程”。

But some would argue that planned obsolescence isn't just about greed, but that it's also good for everyone.

但有些人认为计划报废并不仅仅是贪婪，但这对每个人来说也都是好事。

Now, it seems like consumers are finally fighting back against planned obsolescence.

现在，消费者似乎终于开始反击计划中的过时了。

In the 1930s, during the Great Depression he wrote this paper that was like " Okay, the government should really support this idea of planned obsolescence."

在 20 世纪 30 年代，大萧条时期，他写了一篇论文说，好吧，政府应该真的支持计划性淘汰的观点。

There are lots of companies out there that intentionally shortened the lifespan of their products it's a tactic known now as planned obsolescence.

许多公司故意缩短其产品的使用寿命，这种策略现在被称为计划报废。

And it spawned a class action lawsuit, which Apple settled out of court, but it didn't stop the company from practicing planned obsolescence.

这引发了一场集体诉讼, 尽管苹果公司最终庭外和解，但这并没有阻止该公司实行计划报废。

Throughout his tour of disfigured landscapes and industrial incinerators, Mr Franklin-Wallis decries the tactic of " planned obsolescence" : ie, the marketing of products that quickly need to be replaced.

在参观被破坏的景观和工业焚烧炉的整个过程中，富兰克林-沃利斯谴责了“计划性淘汰”的策略：即营销那些需要迅速被更换的产品。