Planning for Obsolescence: Beginning with the End in Mind

Northwest Airlines' Boeing 747 nose being installed in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum

I spent America’s 249^th birthday at the capitol this year. One of the most memorable parts of my stay was my visit to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Fighting my way through a crowded exhibit hall that detailed the beginnings of aviation, I stopped to listen to a tour guide retell the story of the Wright brothers first flights on a North Carolina beach in late 1903. Recognizing his enthusiasm, I attached myself to his group in hope that I would hear him continue to bring history to life with his storytelling that included anecdotes not seen on any panel in the museum.

Towards the end of the tour, after the group had dwindled from over 20 people down to around five, he started to drop more technical facts that may not have been considered exciting to the typical visitor. Pointing at the Northwest Airlines’ Boeing 747 nose mounted on the wall of the museum, he explained the interesting rationale behind the design of the aircraft.

Boeing 747

After billions of dollars spent on development, the Boeing 747 had its commercial debut in January of 1970. It was expected to be one of the last major commercial jet planes with supersonic aircraft technology suspected to appear towards the latter half of the decade. This first of its kind “jumbo jet” weighed almost one million pounds, carried 400-500 passengers, and was soon to be inferior to anticipated disruptive technology in less than ten years.

Knowing what they did, Boeing began with the end in mind. The nose of the Boeing 747 was made to lift up for loading cargo. Now, along with being able to store more people than any other aircraft before, it was also an ideal freight carrier. The 747 had a planned second stage of life that focused on shipping cargo rather than people. When supersonic airliners arrived, these planes could be repurposed.

Boeing 747 nose lifted up for loading cargo

Supersonic transport came, but due to environmental, governmental, and financial reasons the technology never really took off. Ba dum tss. So, what was the fate of the Boeing 747. Even if you’re not a frequent flyer you’ve likely seen or at least heard of this airliner. It became one of the most popular planes to ever be designed for passenger and freight transportation for decades. It has made appearances in Hollywood blockbusters such as Air Force One, Snakes on a Plane, and Tenet. Its ubiquity earned it the moniker, “Queen of the Skies.” It still flies passengers commercially by some international airlines, and the very last new freighter was delivered in January of 2023. That’s over 40 years past what was expected to be the plane’s peak relevance!

While it will continue to travel the skies for decades to come, the rule of the 747 is over. In 2018, the Boeing 777, or Triple Seven, became the most successful widebody aircraft, finally dethroning the queen. For passenger transport, demands for more direct flights have made the need for such large capacity aircraft less of a priority. Smaller, more sustainable, fuel-efficient planes are better able to cater to the market’s demands. Airbus has also come in and taken market share from Boeing in this space.

What elements helped create this perfect reaction?

The first order for Boeing 747s was made by Pan Am in 1966. 25 planes for $525 million put the price per unit at $21 million. Taking inflation into account, that is over $209 million in today’s buying power. That number, on top of the billions put into development, gave both the manufacturer and buyer a strong incentive to maximize the aircraft's lifetime value.

This relationship is not unique to the airline industry. Every B2B relationship is built on a mutual desire for creating long term value. What was different here, and encouraged Boeing to focus on creating a second life for their product was the impending threat of supersonic technology. The aircraft was flexible in its use cases. Models sold to airlines did not have passenger seats welded to the fuselage that would break the hull if removed. The planes were also not made to collapse by the time supersonic aircrafts were estimated to arrive on the scene. The Boeing 747 was designed to be repurposed, not to fail. It could succeed in multiple areas.

Let’s think about the automotive industry that is in an environment similar to the one Boeing was. Self-driving cars, or at least AI-assisted-driving cars are on the horizon. It would not be ridiculous to estimate that within the next decade the vast majority of new automobiles being sold have some flavor of driving assistance. How are automotive manufacturers dealing with this now?

Planning for Disruptive Technology in the Automotive Industry

Automotive manufacturers don’t seem to be doing much to stop their vehicles from losing value when assisted driving soon becomes the standard. Because used cars are purchased for the same reason new cars are, there isn’t a significant market for secondhand cars that can be converted into freight vehicles. It also isn’t feasible to design cars that can be turned into dune buggies or motorcycles when assisted vehicles take over.

The auto industry has the benefit of having greater segmentation than airliner manufacturers. Used car buyers already aren’t expecting all the bells and whistles and aren’t thinking about AI roadmaps. New car buyers aren’t considering how resell value will be affected by incoming technology when buying their Ford F150. The incentive for buying or building a car planned for obsolescence isn’t at the forefront of the manufacturers and buyers’ minds like it was for the airline industry.

This doesn’t mean there isn’t room for flexibility in the automotive industry. There is potential short and long-term value for revisions in the vehicles that could benefit both manufacturers and buyers. Supersonic aircraft technology required the production of entirely new airliners with fundamental redesigns. Assisted driving is likely to require existing hardware present in some vehicles already on the road today. Cameras, LiDAR sensors, and acceleration/brake/steer control are all sufficiently available for manufacturers to implement in their vehicles even if they do not offer an AI-solution presently. Features like lane centering, lane change warnings, and vehicle security warrant their inclusion already and provide insurance that when AI-assisted driving becomes widely available existing vehicles can take advantage of new functionality. “AI Ready” branding can be displayed prominently right under mileage. The only hardware that might need to be physically upgraded down the line is a car’s computer. This can be a plus for manufacturers who can develop modular computers that can be upgraded in the future with different tiers of computing power that offer consumers better performance at a cost.

In the event AI driving models find themselves unable to make their way onto the roads due to technical inability, government intervention, or timelines having to be pushed back further there is still value in the extra equipment today. There is flexibility that doesn’t devalue the car either way things pan out.

Planning for Obsolescence

Planning for obsolescence isn’t the same as making something obsolete. With the fast progress of technology, the top of the line today can be unusable just some years down the line. The infamous solid gold apple watch, which cost between $10,000 to $17,000, stopped receiving software upgrades just three years after its release. Its only value today lies in its novelty.

Beginning with the end in mind means considering what will cause the end of a product/service/organization and building that thing up around that idea. If we are projecting that the average device today will be relatively obsolete compared to what will be on the market in five years because of a need for a minimum number of AI cores, then devices should be designed to be upgradable. Framework has continued to prove that upgradability is possible in the laptop space with their new upgrades to the Framework 16.

Right now, companies are all buying tickets to ride the AI-hype train and building plans that rely on AI to keep improving. Products are designed with a dependency on expectations. If and when those expectations aren’t met, they will see failure. For all we know, AI performance is about to find itself at a peak with further advancement being much further than anticipated. The safe approach, the one that maximizes chances for success, uses and plans with what is available while being prepared to integrate what is to come. This way, if obsolescence is delayed, there’s still a working system.

For plans, projects, and life- beginning with the end in mind forces preparation for what’s to come. How might we approach life differently if we spent more time thinking about retirement in primary school? If we were to redesign the brain to prioritize preparing for the end of our lives and what we leave behind rather than maximizing the present at high cost, what kind of world could we be living in right now?