Recently I tried to download a trial version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9.
When I went to install the software a pop-up window stopped me cold and I was informed that IE 9 will not work with versions of Windows earlier than Vista.
While ruminating about this information I did a little research and found out that Windows XP will definitely not be supported by the new browser.
This activity made me wonder.
Should I be excluded from the use of this product only because I have an XP machine? The idea of planned obsolescence came to mind immediately.
"Planned obsolescence" is a term coined by industrial engineer Brooks Stevens during the 1950's.
His definition for it was "Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary.
" Steven's definition also implies that there may be a kind of ethical dilemma associated with planned obsolescence.
Planned obsolescence exists in the modern world of technology in general since, inevitably, the electronic device of today will be replaced by something better tomorrow.
Of course the same can be said of software and, in particular, operating systems and web browsers.
My question, however, is why has Microsoft decided to exclude XP users from IE 9 since they probably number in the millions? Is Microsoft using IE 9 as a marketing tool that will try to force people to buy Windows 7? I believe that it can be said with some certainty that Microsoft can build compatibility into any system it creates, but is refusing to do so trying to make Windows XP an obsolete system.
Given the popularity of XP and the willingness of it's users to stay with XP is Microsoft doing the right thing with IE 9? Therein lies the ethical dilemma referred to in the title of my article.