Of course. And it is a subject that irritates me. One thing is that an article has a useful life, and another is that this useful life is set according to mercantilist criteria, with which I manifest myself in frank disagreement.
The first documented case of programmed obsolescence occurred in the 1920s, when the so-called Phoebus Cartel was created among light bulb manufacturers, who agreed to limit their life to 1000 hours. Before that, the manufacturers announced durations of up to 2500 hours, and there is an emblematic case of a light bulb that has been on continuously since 1901 (¡117 years !!!) , in the fire station No. 6 of Livermore, California :
The strange case of Marcos López:
This smart computer technician from Barcelona suddenly began to fail his Epson printer, which sent a message to his PC that it was taken to technical support. Indeed he did, and the budget for the "repair" was 120 euros, while a new one cost ... 39 euros.
Any other less stubborn guy might have bought the new printer, but he was not happy. Until investigating, found the problem: On the control card is built-in an EEPROM memory chip, which accounted for the impressions made. When it reached a maximum limit, the printer stopped working.
The bandit chip
Filled with indignation, he continued to investigate. He found a Russian website, from where he downloaded software that reset the counter. As if by magic, the printer worked again.
Apple case
Fleeing forward, the company of the manzanita had no choice but to admit that, via software update, slowed down the processors of the iPhone in its models 6, 6s, SE and 7. Aside, often the computers suffered reboots sudden. For these reasons, more than one consumer innocently bought new equipment.
An emulator of Marcos López, John Poole, showed that the processor reduced its performance artificially and not by attrition.
Put into evidence, Apple argued that it was required to make those adjustments to compensate for the loss of battery performance over time (What a solution so elaborate, it is easier to send a warning that you need to change the battery, I say).
In his flight forward, and to control the scandal, Apple "graciously" offered a reduction in the replacement cost of the battery, from $ 79 to $ 29.
However, consumers in Israel filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple for $ 125 million. Consumers argue that Apple should have reported the consequences of the update, and recommend replacing the battery when it applied.
There are many other cases of programmed obsolescence, more or less disguised. But at last, answering the question, if it exists and is alive and kicking.
Regards!!