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 within a couple of generations, a string of innovations pushed the original ice trade into obsolescence.

但在几代人之后，一系列的创新将最初的冰贸易推向了没落。

However, this doesn't imply the obsolescence of print books.

然而，这并不意味着印刷书籍已经过时。

So you substitute styling, which is a commercial swindle intended to produce artificial obsolescence.

所以你用造型代替， 这是一种商业骗局， 旨在制造人为的过时产品。

You just work your way to obsolescence.

你只是通过努力让自己变得过时。

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。

" if you can tolerate single-day battery life, half-baked apps and inevitable obsolescence, you can now wear the future on your wrist."

“如果你能容忍只有一天的待机时间，不成熟的应用和不可避免的淘汰，那你现在就可以将未来戴在手腕上。”

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。

Years later, GM's head of design, Harley Earl, candidly discussed his role in creating what he called dynamic obsolescence.

多年后, 通用汽车的设计主管哈雷·厄尔 (Harley Earl)坦率地讨论了他在创造所谓的动态淘汰方面所扮演的角色。

So if right to repair does become law, does that mean artificial obsolescence will be gone for good?

那么，如果修复权确实成为法律，是否意味着人为报废将永远消失？