Case Study: Planned Obsolescence-Coincidences, Conveniences, Contrivances, Collusion, and Conspiracies

Today I am going to share a case study that uses many of the thinking methodologies I have recently shared. It is a long one so buckle up. Here is an outline to set it all up:

Outline:

1. Introduction: Patterns, Spoiler Alerts, and Mental Models
   – Your personal approach to pattern recognition
   – “Spoiler alert” view of conspiracy theories
   – Purpose of this piece: to synthesize key thinking frameworks
2. Defining the 5 C’s
   – Coincidences
   – Conveniences
   – Contrivances
   – Collusion
   – Conspiracies

III. Thinking Methodologies Applied
– Root Cause Analysis
– Systems Thinking
– Inversion
– First Principles Thinking
– Strategic Thinking
– Creative Thinking

1. Case Study 1: Planned Obsolescence and the Death of Durable Goods
   – Appliances and electronics: shorter life cycles
   – Historical contrast
   – Right to repair movement
2. Case Study 2: Cars, Control, and the EV Pivot
   – Lifecycle compression of gasoline vehicles
   – Limited repairability
   – Digital dependence of EVs
   – Urban mobility and data-driven behavioral nudging
3. Qui Bono: Who Benefits?
   – Stakeholder analysis: Automakers, Governments, Activists, Consumers
   – Strategic alignment or unintended convergence?

VII. Pattern Recognition as a Strategic Skill
– How to train your brain to spot these dynamics
– The difference between paranoia and perception
– Why conspiracy theories often start as premature pattern recognition

VIII. Final Thought: Choose to See. Choose to Think. Choose to Question.
– Encouragement to use frameworks, not fear
– The power of asking “Why?” and “What if?”
– How this mindset builds resilience and personal agency

1. Introduction: Patterns, Spoiler Alerts, and Mental Models

I’ve always had a habit—maybe even a reflex—of noticing things other people miss.

I don’t say that as a brag. It’s not a special talent. It’s just that I don’t accept things at face value. I ask questions. I trace patterns. I connect dots that seem, at first, completely unrelated. Over time, those patterns reveal something deeper—something worth paying attention to.

This article is the result of one of those long periods of watching, listening, connecting, and—most importantly—thinking.

Recently, I had a revelation. It didn’t come all at once. It built slowly, piece by piece, over months of conversations with colleagues and quiet reflection. I started to notice what seemed like unrelated inconveniences, odd market shifts, and new consumer frustrations. But then I asked the questions I always ask:

• Why is this happening?
• Who benefits from this change?
• What if it’s not random?
• What would I do if I wanted this outcome?
• Is this just a coincidence… or something more?

Let me be clear up front:
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.
But I do believe many of them are spoiler alerts—early, clumsy attempts to describe real shifts in systems, power, and incentives that haven’t yet been cleanly articulated.

Most people wave off these patterns with a laugh. “Just a coincidence.” Or worse: “That’s just the way things are now.”

But I don’t accept that. And I don’t think you should either.

Because once you apply real frameworks—root cause analysis, inversion, systems thinking, and more—what you start to see is this:

Coincidences aren’t always random.
Conveniences usually benefit someone.
Contrivances are designed.
Collusion can be informal.
And what we call “conspiracy” often looks a lot like aligned incentives behind closed doors.

This article is long, by design.
We’re going to walk through the world using the thinking tools we’ve explored together in past Myford University articles and podcasts. I’ll take you into the patterns I’ve seen—in cars, appliances, energy, and consumer freedoms—and how I use thinking models to evaluate them.

So let’s begin by defining the five C’s: Coincidences, Conveniences, Contrivances, Collusion, and Conspiracies.

Then we’ll dig deep.

Ready? Let’s think.

1. Defining the Five C’s: A Thinking Framework for Unpacking the World

Before we dive into the specific examples, let’s define what we mean by each of these terms. You’ve probably heard them before. But here, we’re going to treat them as thinking categories—tools to frame your analysis of the world around you.

1. Coincidences

These are events or occurrences that happen together without any clear connection—or so it seems.

Most people write these off as random. But when enough of them stack up, you have to pause and ask:

“Are these really coincidences… or is there an underlying cause I haven’t noticed yet?”

Coincidences can be the starting point of discovery. They often trigger deeper thinking when something feels “off.”

2. Conveniences

Conveniences are the things that make life easier—but always for someone.

A convenience may seem neutral, but if you look closer, it often benefits a party other than the consumer.

For example:

• Your smart thermostat “conveniently” learns your preferences—but it also sends your behavior data to the manufacturer.
• Your streaming app auto-plays the next episode—for your convenience—but also boosts their watch time and advertising value.

Convenience often masks strategic intent. So it’s worth asking: “Who does this make things easier for, really?”

3. Contrivances

Contrivances are designed outcomes. These are engineered, artificial mechanisms put in place to create a specific result—often while appearing organic or natural.

In storytelling, a contrivance is a lazy plot device. In business and government, it’s a carefully staged solution for a pre-planned problem.

The red flag with a contrivance?
It’s when you start to think:

“That’s too neat. That solves a problem that didn’t exist… until recently.”

Contrivances often hint at upstream engineering—intentional design to create downstream dependency or behavior.

4. Collusion

This word gets thrown around a lot. It doesn’t always mean a secret smoke-filled-room conspiracy. Sometimes, collusion is more unspoken—but no less real.

It’s when multiple parties, intentionally or not, act in ways that reinforce each other’s interests, creating outcomes that serve them at the expense of someone else—usually, the public or the consumer.

Collusion can be informal alignment of:

• Corporate incentives
• Regulatory policy
• Activist goals
• Supply chain or technology decisions

It’s not always illegal. But it’s usually not in your best interest.

5. Conspiracies

This is the big one—the radioactive word that shuts down thinking.

To be fair, actual conspiracies do exist. History is full of them. But what’s often dismissed as “conspiracy theory” is really just misapplied pattern recognition without enough evidence to satisfy traditional skeptics.

What we care about here isn’t whether something is a conspiracy in the legal sense. What we care about is:

“Do the outcomes, incentives, and behaviors point toward a shared agenda that isn’t being talked about publicly?”

That’s not tinfoil hat territory. That’s strategic thinking.

Which brings us to how we evaluate these dynamics—using structured thinking tools.

III. Thinking Methodologies Applied

In your previous learning through Myford University, we’ve covered multiple frameworks that help sharpen thinking. Here’s how they’ll come into play in this analysis:

Root Cause Analysis (“Why?”)

This is the foundation. When you see a frustrating trend or failing product, don’t stop at the symptom. Ask “Why?” again and again—at least five times.

This technique helps peel back layers of surface issues to expose what’s actually driving outcomes.

Systems Thinking

Everything is connected. Systems thinking forces you to look beyond isolated events to how parts interact. If an automaker, a government agency, and a climate activist group all make moves that align—systems thinking helps reveal the reinforcing feedback loops.

Key tools:

• Feedback loops
• Stocks and flows
• System boundaries
• Delays and unintended consequences

Inversion (“What don’t I want?”)

If you want to understand a problem, flip it.

Instead of asking, “How do we get people to adopt EVs?” ask:

“What would need to happen for people to stop buying gas cars?”

This method reveals negative leverage points—strategic pressure points that influence outcomes in reverse.

First Principles Thinking

Strip assumptions away. Ask: “What is this really made of? What are the true constraints?”

Example:
If you say, “Appliances don’t last anymore,” challenge that. What must happen for durability to decline? What materials, policies, or business models drive it?

Strategic Thinking

This combines all the above with foresight and intent. It asks:

• Who stands to gain?
• What constraints are they working within?
• What future do they want to build?

Strategic thinking isn’t reactionary. It’s proactive. It’s also dispassionate—it seeks understanding, not outrage.

Creative Thinking

To see what others miss, you often have to think in new ways. Creative thinking helps you see alternatives, ask better questions, and make unconventional connections.

It’s how you go from:

“This seems off…”
to
“What if this is actually part of a larger pattern?”

1. Case Study 1: Planned Obsolescence and the Death of Durable Goods

Let’s begin with something close to home—your home.

If you’re over 35, chances are your parents or grandparents had appliances that lasted forever.
I’m talking about refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, ovens—many of them made of heavy-duty steel, minimal electronics, and simple mechanical parts.

These machines weren’t flashy. They weren’t connected to Wi-Fi.
But they worked. And they worked for decades.

Now? You're lucky if your new fridge lasts 10 years.
Your washer’s control board dies in year 6.
Your dishwasher starts throwing error codes by year 7.

You didn’t do anything wrong.
It’s not bad luck.
It’s not just “modern complexity.”
It’s something deeper.

Let’s walk through the frameworks and explore what's really going on.

1. First, Ask “Why?” (Root Cause Analysis)

Why do these appliances fail faster today?

• Why are repair costs often nearly the same as replacement?
• Why do parts seem custom, proprietary, or unavailable?
• Why are we told to “just get a new one”?

Follow the “Five Whys” technique:

1. Why do appliances fail sooner? → More electronics and cheaper materials.
2. Why more electronics? → Added features and “smart” functionality.
3. Why use cheaper parts? → To reduce production cost and increase margin.
4. Why not prioritize longevity? → Because repeat purchases drive revenue.
5. Why not let consumers repair it? → Because it’s not profitable to do so.

You see the picture: it’s not a bug—it’s a business model.

1. The System at Work (Systems Thinking)

Now widen the lens.

You’re not just buying an appliance. You’re inside a system that includes:

• Manufacturers
• Supply chains
• Retailers
• Regulatory bodies
• Energy efficiency standards
• Warranty policies
• Planned upgrade cycles

Let’s highlight a feedback loop:

• Shorter lifespan → More frequent replacements
• More replacements → More manufacturer revenue
• More models released → More inventory turnover
• More software → More update cycles → More obsolescence

It’s a self-reinforcing loop. Every part of the system benefits from your inconvenience—except you.

1. What If We Invert the Problem?

Let’s flip the question.

“What would I do if I wanted to make sure consumers couldn’t keep their appliances for 20+ years?”

Here’s what that inverted thinking reveals:

• Add complex electronics that are costly to repair
• Use proprietary parts or software to lock out third-party fixes
• Design components that are modular—but sealed
• Price repairs near replacement value
• Restrict parts availability and service documentation
• Market “smart” features that become outdated in 5 years
• Make aesthetics so trendy they go out of style quickly

That’s not a theory. That’s what’s actually happening.
And the result? A consumer trapped in a compressed upgrade cycle.

1. Suspicions Confirmed: The “Right to Repair” Movement

Consumers are noticing—and fighting back.

The growing Right to Repair movement is a response to the artificial constraints manufacturers have placed on repairability. Across the U.S. and Europe, legislation is being pushed to require:

• Public access to service manuals
• Standard parts availability
• Modular component design
• Software access for independent repair shops

Why would this even be necessary—unless contrivance was at play?

Ask yourself:

“Who benefits from a world where appliances fail fast and repairs are difficult?”

(We’ll dig into that in the next section.)

1. Strategic Alignment or Coincidence?

It’s easy to assume this is just “how technology works.” But that’s a lazy assumption. Let’s apply strategic thinking.

The core strategic questions are:

• What is each stakeholder optimizing for?
• What outcome makes everyone but the consumer happy?

Answer:

• Manufacturers want repeat sales, warranty voids, and upsells.
• Retailers want higher turnover, faster inventory flow.
• Governments and activists want energy-efficient models constantly replacing older “inefficient” ones.
• Software and cloud services want you in a paid ecosystem.

They’re not in a conspiracy.

But their goals converge.
And that creates unspoken collusion.

So is this a coincidence? Or is it a contrivance?

Let’s move to the next big case study: cars.

1. Case Study 2: Cars, Control, and the EV Pivot

Few purchases are as central to the American dream—and to individual freedom—as the automobile.

A car is more than a tool. It’s mobility. Independence. Identity.

But over the past decade, a subtle transformation has been underway—one that, when you apply the thinking frameworks we've explored, reveals a clear and concerning trajectory.

Let’s dive in.

1. Historical Context: The Durable Vehicle

In the 1950s through the 1970s, most cars weren’t expected to last much beyond 100,000 miles. They rusted, failed mechanically, and were relatively unsafe by today’s standards. But they were also simple. Anyone with a basic toolset could fix them.

By the 1990s and early 2000s, car manufacturing had matured. It was common to see vehicles lasting 200,000–300,000 miles with proper care. Brands like Toyota, Honda, and Volvo became legendary for longevity.

Then, something shifted.

1. The Quiet Decline of the Gas Vehicle Lifecycle

Fast forward to today.

New cars are:

• More expensive
• More software-driven
• More difficult to service
• Less accessible for DIY maintenance
• Subject to more electronic failure points

More complexity doesn’t always mean more durability. In fact, it often means planned obsolescence disguised as innovation.

Consider:

• Touchscreen systems that crash
• Electronic steering and braking with limited user access
• “Features” locked behind paid software
• Powertrains optimized for fuel economy and emissions at the expense of long-term reliability
• Batteries, sensors, and ECUs that cost thousands to replace after warranty expires

Now combine that with rising prices, shrinking availability, and restricted repair options. Even used vehicles are becoming cost-prohibitive.

Let’s use systems thinking to explore why.

1. Systems Thinking: The Push Toward EVs

Think of the automotive landscape as a system with multiple players:

• Traditional automakers
• New EV companies
• Governments and regulators
• Climate policy advocates
• Urban planners
• Consumers

All these players have partially overlapping interests.

The goals of government and climate activists are to:

• Reduce fossil fuel use
• Promote urbanization
• Lower emissions
• Shift public behavior

The goals of automakers are to:

• Increase profit per vehicle
• Create recurring revenue (e.g., software subscriptions)
• Shorten the ownership cycle
• Comply with emissions and safety regulations while maintaining competitiveness

The result? An alignment of incentives that nudges the consumer away from internal combustion vehicles and toward electric ones.

And it’s not just about driving anymore—it’s about data.

1. What EVs Really Represent

An electric vehicle isn’t just a car—it’s a rolling software platform.

It tracks:

• Your driving habits
• Your location
• Your charging behavior
• Your entertainment preferences
• Your usage patterns

It requires:

• Software updates
• Proprietary service tools
• Closed ecosystems
• Manufacturer permission to unlock certain features

In other words: more control, less ownership.

Ask yourself: What would I design if I wanted to limit personal mobility, increase control, and accelerate recurring revenue?

You’d design exactly this system:

• Gas cars that become unreliable faster
• High repair costs
• More digital complexity
• Software-locked features
• EV incentives and fossil fuel penalties
• Decreased public parking and increased urban congestion taxes
• More surveillance-friendly vehicle infrastructure

This isn’t a conspiracy—it’s a contrivance.

1. Inversion and Strategic Thinking

Let’s apply inversion.

What would I do if I wanted people to stop buying, maintaining, or keeping gasoline-powered vehicles?

• I’d make parts harder to access
• I’d restrict independent repair
• I’d raise the cost of repairs and maintenance
• I’d shorten the warranty period
• I’d subtly reduce the durability of components
• I’d offer tax incentives for EVs but not for gas
• I’d create social pressure to “go green”
• I’d build EVs with convenience features gas cars can’t match

That’s exactly what’s happening.

Now apply strategic thinking.

If automakers, regulators, and activists all benefit from these changes—and the consumer is locked into a more expensive, less flexible, more controllable ecosystem—what conclusions can we draw?

This is not accidental.
It’s not coincidence.
It’s systemic alignment of self-interest.

And you—the consumer—are being nudged into perpetual leasing, tighter geographic mobility, and software-based compliance.

Sound familiar?

It’s the same pattern we saw in appliances.

And now, it's time to ask the most important question:

1. Qui Bono? Who Benefits?

In Latin, qui bono means “Who stands to gain?”

Let’s ask that about the trends we’ve seen in cars and appliances.

1. Automakers

Benefit from:

• Shorter product life cycles
• Software-based recurring revenue
• EV market dominance
• Locked ecosystems

2. Governments

Benefit from:

• Emissions reduction
• Urban densification
• Easier surveillance and data harvesting
• Economic stimulation through constant consumption

3. Climate Activists

Benefit from:

• Acceleration of policy goals
• Shrinking of fossil fuel infrastructure
• Shift in public norms around ownership and travel

4. Tech Companies

Benefit from:

• Embedded software systems
• Data monetization
• Connected service models (subscriptions, upgrades)

5. Consumers

...do not benefit.
They:

• Pay more
• Own less
• Have less control
• Must replace things sooner
• Get trapped in payment cycles
• Are forced into behavioral conformity

So ask yourself:

When every stakeholder but the end user benefits from a pattern, is it a conspiracy… or just a convenient system?

VII. Pattern Recognition as a Strategic Skill

We’ve now walked through two powerful case studies—appliances and automobiles—where overlapping incentives created outcomes that were bad for the consumer but great for everyone else in the system.

The key to understanding all of this?

Pattern recognition.

But not just any pattern recognition. You need strategic pattern recognition—the kind fueled by frameworks, not fear; by questions, not conclusions; by method, not madness.

Let’s walk through how to develop it.

1. Start by Noticing What Feels “Off”

This is where it usually begins. A quiet moment of realization.

You think:

• “Didn’t things used to last longer?”
• “Why does everything seem harder to fix?”
• “Why is this thing breaking just outside of warranty?”
• “Why can’t I turn this off or fix this myself?”

That’s your brain trying to surface a discrepancy—a mismatch between expectation and experience.

Don’t dismiss it. That’s your cue to start asking questions.

1. Ask “Why?” — and Then Ask It Again

Apply root cause analysis. Ask “Why?” at least five times.

You’ll be amazed how many surface-level answers hide deeper structural truths.

Instead of:

“This new appliance broke.”

Ask:

“Why did it break?”
“Why is it hard to fix?”
“Why is the replacement cost so high?”
“Why is that acceptable now?”
“Why hasn’t anyone changed this?”

When you ask five Whys, you often arrive at:

• A business model
• A regulatory framework
• A technical limitation created on purpose

1. Apply Systems Thinking

Look at how the parts interact:

• Who gains when you lose?
• What policies, technologies, or social trends reinforce the cycle?
• Is the “problem” part of a larger design?

Systems thinking helps you connect dots between industries, stakeholders, and timelines.

For example:

• Energy efficiency mandates → more electronics → shorter lifespan
• Urban planning + climate policy → limits on personal vehicle use
• Repair restrictions + proprietary software → reduced independence

You realize it’s not a broken system.

It’s a highly functional system designed for different goals than yours.

1. Flip the Problem (Inversion)

Ask:

“If I wanted this outcome—what would I do?”

This is powerful. It helps you see intent and strategy even if it’s never explicitly stated.

For example:

• If I wanted to force a transition from gas vehicles to EVs, I wouldn’t just ban gas cars—I’d make them harder to own and fix.
• If I wanted people to keep buying new appliances, I wouldn’t tell them I designed them to fail—I’d make repairs economically irrational.

Inversion helps you sniff out contrivance.

1. Go to First Principles

Challenge every assumption.

• “Do we really need this many features?”
• “What does durability require at the material level?”
• “What does real ownership mean?”
• “Why is software embedded in everything?”
• “What must be true for this outcome to keep happening?”

First principles thinking strips away fog and gets to the core of the matter.

1. Use Creative Thinking to Connect the Dots

Most people never ask:

“What do dishwashers, cars, and smartphones have in common?”

You do.

You start to realize: the same patterns are showing up everywhere.

You begin seeing:

• A preference for rental over ownership
• A push toward urban density
• A shift from durable goods to digital ecosystems
• An increasing focus on surveillance, control, and conformity

And that gives you leverage.

1. The Difference Between Paranoia and Perception

Let’s be clear:

• Pattern recognition is not the same as conspiracy theorizing
• Strategic thinking is not cynicism
• Skepticism is not fear

The difference is how you think, not just what you notice.

If your conclusions are built on:

• Evidence
• Structured thinking
• Logical connections
• A willingness to revise when presented with better data

Then you’re not paranoid.

You’re perceptive. And increasingly rare.

VIII. Final Thoughts: Choose to See. Choose to Think. Choose to Question.

We live in a world increasingly built for convenience, conformity, and compliance.

That’s not an accident. That’s not a coincidence. That’s the result of thousands of decisions, policies, technologies, and incentives that have quietly reshaped how we live, move, work, and consume.

But here’s the thing:

You don’t have to accept that.

You can choose to:

• Ask “Why?” until you reach the root
• Flip problems on their heads and think in reverse
• Examine systems and stakeholders
• Question incentives and alignments
• Draw your own conclusions instead of swallowing someone else’s

You don’t need to be paranoid. You need to be precise.

The world needs more people willing to think like this—not react, not conform, not follow—but think.

So the next time you notice:

• A strangely timed product failure
• A sudden new “convenience”
• A closed system that locks you in
• An ecosystem that nudges you toward less freedom…

Stop. Think. Trace the pattern.

Ask:

“Who benefits?”
“What’s the system doing?”
“What are the Five C’s at play?”

And most importantly…

Ask:

“What am I going to do about it?”

Because awareness is just the beginning.
Agency is the destination.

Welcome to the world behind the curtain.

Let’s keep thinking.