>>So do you deny that the entire concept of planned obsolescence exists at all

Moving the goalposts. I said that planned obsolescence is not, as you originally alleged, a general property of a market-driven economy.

>If so, why wouldn't more profits as an incentive not be pursued using planned obsolescence?

Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success. The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation for product quality played a massive role in the growth of its sales and it becoming the most valuable company in the world.

>>Why would I stop at a more narrow definition when criticizing the incentives of the free market, when all types all grounded in that same incentives?

Again with the bad faith disingenuity. The so-called narrow definition is the only one economically harmful or involving deceit and consumers being worse off. It's the one almost universally referred to when activists use the term.

If you're now going to try to claim you were talking about the looser definition all along, then I'll respond that the type of activity under this looser definition, like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones because they judge the up-front cost-savings to be worth the more frequent replacement costs, is not economically harmful. It's what people want for themselves, and their judgment on what is in their own interests is more credible than yours.

>>You have posted a single link that show, allegedly, that specifically cars are more durable nowadays.

It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity. If that were the case, every major product class would see a trend toward shorter lifespans. There certainly wouldn't be a major product class not only maintaining product lifespans, but increasing them.

Any way, the burden of proof was always on you. I just provided that link to show that these angsty lift-wing comments about the world are often not corroborated by what you actually see in the world when you take a closer look.

>>hide behind telling me what I actually meant with planned obsolescence

Again with the blatant lies. When people are complaining about how capitalism allegedly produces planned obsolescence, they are not talking about a general consumer preference for disposable products.

Read any of your own links and you'll see what kind of behavior they are referring to when they use the term.

They are talking about the phenomenon where, unbeknownst to consumers, companies are reducing product lifespans to get more reorders.

You can pretend otherwise to try to avoid admitting you were wrong, but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.

Of course we're dealing with natural language with a lot of the meaning of statements extrapolated from the wider context of where they appear, so there's no formal proof you are lying now. Only reasonable conjecture that you're free to dismiss as part of your culture war against the people you imagine to be your enemies.

>>But instead you go on the defensive, dismiss the links as left-wing

A lot of your links were from left-wing sources and were not scientific sources or even primary evidence showing declining product lifespans.

Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.