I agree with you. I think people mean something else entirely, colloquially. Which is why I distinguished for clarity.

I think the people who came up with the concept of "planned obsolescence" meant something entirely different to the zeitgeist meaning. That is, building something cheap with the intention of consistent replacements versus building something expensive with support/operational costs ongoing. One guarantees you return to them, the other you're just as likely to seek services elsewhere.

The zeitgeist took that and morphed it into "they actively engineer/design parts that will fail after two years".

Yes, a change like this would mean that, in the short term, there'd suddenly be no "consumer" version of many products. But that'd only be the short term. In the medium term, I'd expect heavy pressure for innovation in materials science, with all these companies that were fine with plastics before, suddenly investing money and labor into operationalization of e.g. scaling carbon-fiber production.

I generally call these products "<thing> shaped objects", e.g. a helmet shaped object that has all the outward appearance of an actual helmet, but does little to protect the wearer in the event of a crash. "DOT standards!" you might object, but DOT is generally known to be the worst standard in the world, often holding the industry back instead of moving it forward. If the department of transportation is unable to properly regulate safety equipment like helmets, I'm not sure I expect better results from a government committee intended to regulate the quality of nearly everything.

This, of course, assumes that one can not only define "quality", but determine a threshold on a spectrum that delineates legality. Or maybe we'll just accept Tsars that "know it when they see it."

Or let me put it this way: the commercial/industrial versions of these products do some things differently. Why do they do those things? To increase "quality." If the industry didn't know what its "quality" metric was, then it would be impossible for them to make the commercial/industrial product "better" for long-term commercial/industrial use than the consumer one.

In any industry where the commercial/industrial version of a product — one that lasts decades in heavy use — is already an existence proof for the possibility of "quality" in the product category, you can simply regulate that the consumer version must also be made to last at least N years of regular consumer-duty use. Doesn't matter how they accomplish that. Maybe they can't accomplish that, with positive margins, at a price point anyone is willing to buy, at first. Oh well. Keep trying.

Compare/contrast: FDA stage-3 drug trials — the trial phase that tests drug efficacy. It's up to the drug's manufacturer to declare to the FDA what effect the drug is supposed to have — it's the very same effect the company is applying to the FDA to be able to market the drug as having. An efficacy trial, is simply the FDA demanding, from a drug's manufacturer, proof positive of its own planned marketing claims about the drug. That efficacy proof uses metrics specific to the pathology that the drug treats — and likely metrics invented by the drug manufacturer themselves, while researching the problem. But crucially, the manufacturer, before even starting the trial, has to convince the FDA that these metrics are sensible ones to measure efficacy by; and also has to work with the FDA to reach a consensus on what would constitute a satisfactory level of efficacy for their drug (i.e. what metrics thresholds are meant by a marketing claim like "relieves headaches.")

Would I enjoy high quality items? As someone shopping for a new toaster after ours simply stopped working (and after allowing my son to disassemble it both impressed and appalled at its design), in a word, yes! I suspect, however, that attempting to centrally plan quality would merely achieve a lower standard of living for most people. Telling the average person "you're not allowed to buy that because we deemed it to not be high enough quality (trust us)" and following up with "Oh well" seems well meaning but, respectfully, out of touch.

My feeling is different, and comes from an intuition about capitalism:

• Companies will make money the easiest way that they can, with regard for any kind of unenforced "code of ethics" being a path-dependent rarity, rather than something common.

• But companies do have the internal talent to solve problems in more challenging, constrained, and ultimately useful/ethical ways, if they're simply prevented (through regulation) from choosing the "easy way out."

If you allow a game studio to put slot machines in front of children, then that's what they're going to do to maximize ROI. If you don't permit them to do that, then the market demand for "games" is still going to drive them — or at least, one of their competitors — to ship some actual video games that are fun-qua-fun rather than being addictive and money-sucking.

If you allow a drug manufacturer to make an "anti-colic" baby formula that contains heroin, then that's what they're going to do. (And did! The early 1900s were wild!) If you prevent them from doing that, then the demand that still exists is going to force them [or one of their competitors] to put some research into how to actually address colic without just effectively putting the kids in a coma. And someone's going to figure it out.

If you let companies sell asbestos insulation, then that'd be what they'd do — it's the cheapest insulation to manufacture, and so it'd also be the cheapest insulation to buy if it were on the market. If you prevent them from doing that, then they'll have to get off their asses and innovate up a cheaper form of non-asbestosis-causing insulation.

I don't see why "you can't market this as a 'lawnmower' if it shakes itself apart after eight months; try again" is all that different from "you can't market this as 'building insulation' if it destroys your lungs; try again." In both cases, I'd expect the continued market demand + supply-side talent-base to come together to solve the problem a better way.