If you remember growing up, when you bought something like a TV, a vacuum cleaner or even a radio, the assumption was simple; you bought it, you owned it. If it broke, you could repair it or find someone who could repair it. If a part wore out, you replaced the part and if you took care of it, you could keep that same product for years. That relationship between people and products has changed.
Modern electronics have not only changed how long we keep products; they have changed how much control we actually have over them. Consumers still buy physical devices, but companies are increasingly controlling the parts, software, repairs, updates, accessories and supplies that make those products usable. You pay the full price up front, but the product itself is locked inside someone else’s system and this is where ownership starts turning into controlled access.
How Removable Phone Batteries Disappeared Over Time
Mobile Phones are one of the clearest examples because they trained people to accept this change slowly. The shift did not happen all at once; it happened one design choice at a time until limited control started to feel normal.
There was a time when if your phone battery stopped holding a charge, you could take the back off and replace it. If your charger broke, you bought another one. If you wanted to use your own headphones, you plugged them in and kept moving. The device felt more like something you controlled.
The iPhone became one of the major turning points. When it launched in 2007, it helped normalize the sealed phone design and Fast Company described the original iPhone as beginning a trend toward sealed batteries. You were no longer expected to pop the back off and change the battery yourself. That mattered because once one of the most influential phones on the market moved in that direction, the rest of the industry had room to follow.
Samsung eventually moved away from the removable battery in its Galaxy line in 2015; the Galaxy S6 made battery replacement harder through a glued-on design and iFixit noted that the Galaxy S6 used adhesive that made repair more difficult than necessary. Even if you did not use Apple products, the same idea moved into the Android world.
Next change came in the form of headphone jack. In 2016, Apple removed the 3.5 mm headphone jack from the iPhone 7 and IEEE Spectrum reported that users would have to switch to wireless headphones or digital ones that used the Lightning port. What used to be a basic consumer choice became another place where the device maker shaped what accessories you could use.
That is how this kind of control gets normalized, first it is the battery; then it is the headphone jack and next it was the charger. Each change is framed as design, convenience, waterproofing, space-saving or innovation. These things might have been true but the end result was still the same, consumers lost a little more control over the product they bought.
Why Printers Are a Clear Example of Restricted Consumer Choice
The printer is another example of this trend I am referring to. Printers show how a product can be durable, but still become restrictive. The machine can last for years, but the real money often comes after the purchase. That is where ink, cartridges and supply control become the business model.
A printer can still scan, print and physically work but the company does not only make money from the printer sitting on your desk but ongoing profit is in the ink cartridges and the supplies you need after the purchase.
That is why printers are such a clear example of controlled ownership. You buy the machine, but the company can still control what ink works inside it. HP’s dynamic security policies are a good example. HP says some of its printers use firmware with dynamic security measures and HP’s own support page says dynamic security can block cartridges using non-HP chips or modified circuitry. That means a consumer can buy a printer, go to Office Depot looking for a more affordable cartridge and still end up locked out because the printer may reject it. Think about that for a second, you paid for the printer; it is sitting in your house or office. The cartridge fits and the printer may be capable of doing the job but a software rule can decide whether the product you purchased is allowed to function with the supplies you chose. That is not a printer problem but an ownership problem.
The company needs to maintain profit somewhere, so the pressure moves from the one-time purchase to the recurring supply. This is known as a razor and blade model and it is applied to modern electronics. Sell the main product, then make the real money on the thing the customer has to keep buying. The issue is not that companies want to make money but when profit depends on reducing consumer choice after the product has already been purchased.
Why Are Tractors A Warning
In the area of Farming, Tractors have a trend with higher financial stakes. A printer is frustrating but a tractor can affect someone’s livelihood, independence and ability to keep working.
Small tractors can cost tens of thousands of dollars, while large agricultural tractors can cost hundreds of thousands. Fastline reports that compact tractors can start around $22,000 and large agricultural tractors can reach hundreds of thousands. For farmers, this is not a luxury item but a tool for their livelihood. That is why the John Deere right-to-repair issue matters.
In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission sued Deere and Company, alleging that Deere restricted the ability of farmers and independent repair providers to fix Deere equipment. The FTC said Deere’s practices unfairly drove up farming equipment repair costs and restricted farmers’ ability to quickly seek repairs needed for planting and harvesting. A farmer can spend $80,000, $150,000, $300,000 or more on equipment and still need permission, software access or an authorized repair path to fully fix it. That is not what people traditionally understood ownership to mean.
The financial burden is obvious, if a machine breaks during a critical season, waiting on an authorized dealer can cost time, money and productivity. The bigger issue is the loss of independence. Farmers who used to be able to repair equipment themselves or go to a local independent mechanic are being pushed into a system where the company that sold the equipment also controls the repair ecosystem. That is where ownership starts to feel less like ownership and more like a controlled relationship.
You bought the machine; you need it to work but the company controls the software and diagnostic tools needed to make certain repairs. Again, where does your ownership actually exist?
Are Smart TVs Next?
Another example of control of a product is with Smart Tv’s. Smart TVs show how software updates can become product control. The physical device may still work but the software can change whether the product functions the way it should which creates a newer kind of forced obsolescence.
For years, a TV was simple, you bought it, plugged it in and used it until the picture went bad or the hardware failed. If the screen worked, the TV worked. That was the relationship.
Smart TVs changed that because the device is no longer just hardware. It is software, operating systems, apps, updates, accounts and platform control. That means the physical TV can be perfectly fine, but the software can still create problems that affect whether the device works the way it should.
Roku and TCL are now facing a class action lawsuit alleging that defective software updates rendered some smart TVs unusable or severely degraded their performance. Tom’s Guide reported that the lawsuit claims certain Roku and TCL TVs froze, entered restart loops, failed to turn on or experienced other serious performance issues after updates. Roku denies the lawsuit has ground and the case is still in its early stages. That should concern people because it introduces a new kind of obsolescence.
The TV may not be physically broken but the screen may still work. The speakers may still work and the device may still be sitting in your living room looking perfectly fine. If the software fails, removes features, slows the device down or makes it unusable, the product can become obsolete without the hardware actually dying. It means the life of your product is not only tied to how well you care for it but it is tied to updates, support decisions and software systems that you do not control.
How Forced Obsolescence Has Changed in the Digital Age
Forced obsolescence used to be easier to recognize because a product wore out, a part broke or newer model came along. Now it can happen through software, repair restrictions, accessory limits and supply lock-ins.
It can look like a sealed battery or a missing headphone jack. It can look like a printer rejecting cheaper ink. It can look like a tractor needing authorized software access for repair. It can look like a smart TV that still physically works, but becomes unusable after an update.
Phones taught us to accept less access to our own devices. Printers taught us to accept being locked into approved supplies. Tractors showed us what happens when repair itself becomes permission-based. Smart TVs are now showing us how software updates can become product control.
Each example looks different on the surface, but the underlying issue is the same. You pay for the product, but the company still controls the conditions of use.
Why Should Consumers Be Concerned
The concern is not just inconvenience but a bigger shift in power between consumers and companies. The more products become software-controlled ecosystems, the less ownership looks like ownership.
When you cannot replace the battery yourself, you are dependent. When your printer rejects third-party ink, you are dependent. When your tractor requires authorized tools or software access, you are dependent. When your TV can be changed or damaged by an update you did not design and cannot control, you are dependent.
The more products become software-controlled ecosystems, the less ownership looks like ownership. It starts looking more like leasing with a high upfront cost. You pay for the device, then keep paying in other ways through approved accessories, subscriptions, repairs, supplies, updates or replacement cycles.
That is why this issue matters beyond phones, printers, tractors and TVs. This is about how much control people have over the things they buy. Consumers still think the transaction is simple: I bought it, so it is mine but modern electronics are complicating that. The real question now is not just whether you own the physical product. The question is whether you control the parts, software, repairs and access that allow the product to keep working and the answer is no.
In addition to this being a consumer issue, this is a communication and marketing issue as well. How do you tell a consumer that what they paid for is not theirs and make them aware so they do not feel they have been misled? Once trust has been violated, it is hard to win back.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is controlled access ownership?
Controlled access ownership is when you pay for a product, but the company still controls the parts, software, repairs, updates or supplies needed to use it. You may own the device physically, but you do not fully control how it works. That is the shift people are missing. The product is in your house, but the power still sits somewhere else.
How did phones change ownership?
Phones helped normalize the idea that consumers should accept less access to products they bought. First it was sealed batteries. Then it was harder repairs. Then it was the headphone jack and accessory control. Each change may have had a design explanation, but together they trained people to accept less control as normal.
Why are printers part of this problem?
Printers are a clear example because the printer itself may last for years, but the company still controls the supplies. If firmware or cartridge rules limit what ink you can use, then your ownership is not as simple as it looks. You bought the printer, but the company can still influence what you are allowed to put inside it. That is where profit and control start to overlap.
Why does right-to-repair matter for tractors?
Right-to-repair matters for tractors because farmers are dealing with equipment tied to their livelihood. If a tractor breaks during a critical season, waiting on an authorized dealer is not just annoying. It can cost real money and time. The bigger issue is independence. If you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment and still need permission to repair it, what exactly do you own?
Can software updates make products obsolete?
Yes, and that is one of the newer concerns. A product can be physically fine, but if the software update breaks features, slows it down or makes it unusable, the device can become obsolete without the hardware actually failing. That is what makes smart TVs such an important warning sign. The screen can still work, but the software can decide whether the product is still usable.
Why should consumers pay attention now?
Consumers should pay attention because this is bigger than one phone, one printer, one tractor or one TV. It is about the slow shift from ownership to dependence. You pay up front, then keep relying on the company for access, repairs, updates, supplies and permission. Once that becomes normal, ownership becomes more of an idea than a reality.
I am an executive communications strategist with experience in government, media and corporate organizations. I write about AI, the workforce and what responsible communication looks like when technology moves faster than people are ready for.