Designing things that last is hard. Designing digital things that last is even harder. Yet, the ability to update the software, core UX of the product, can set user expectations and provide a strong motivation to buy.

Up until last week my primary phone was a 3,5 years old iPhone 3G. It had battle scars and couldn’t run the cool apps. But it still worked fine for an everyday phone. Running on trusty old iOS 3.1.2 it’s by no means a quickie. Mind you, it runs on the same hardware as the original iPhone debuted in 2007. But my point is, it still works.

When I handle my new iPhone 4S I immediately get the feeling it was designed and engineered to last – way longer than my old 3G model. Glass, aluminum, neutral black/white design and a minimal face and no model number confirms this. Apple’s design philosophy seems to resonate the proud ethos of the 60s; objects should be designed and made to last. It should be a classic in its own right.

(Photo courtesy Design Mind & Apple)

Yet, modern electronics were born in a world of cheap and abundant plastics. Most of the digital products we surround us with have nowhere the level of polish a modern iPhone does. Electronics were first regarded as an industrial privilege, then future-day luxury items, and finally a mass-market good everyone could enjoy. Today, DVD-players cost less than the DVDs they play. The obvious downfall of this arms race on price is the grotesque amount of junk we discard each year because it needs to brake or become outdated to keep consumers coming back for a new fix.

The cellphone industry is an obvious market to highlight this point. Cellphones are literally everywhere. Up until a few years ago the economy of the cellphone industry had been largely undisturbed. Carriers would buy the phones in bulk and sell them comically cheap (or for free) to get people to signup to contracts. The perceived value of the cellphone was practically zero. Get it, use it, throw it away, rinse and repeat.

Makers of cellphones knew they had to accommodate their engineering and business model around this system. They made each iteration cheaper, cutting costs, using cheap plastics, and reusing old tech. More importantly with the vast majority of phones, you bought your phone and you were stuck with its software. No chance to upgrade, no chance to fix bugs, and no way to enhance the experience down the road. Phone carriers, who ran the show, didn’t care about the user experience. They wanted you to trash your phone, so you’d buy a new model and extend your existing contract. Gillette himself would be proud.

Fast forward to 2007 and the introduction of the original iPhone. The phone was impressive, but one of its best features only surfaced about a year later with the ability to update the software freely and easily. Suddenly, it wasn’t necessary to buy a new phone to get (most of) the new features. Better still, Apple had launched their SDK to allow 3rd-party developers to make apps for the platform. Now people could update the software and enjoy a completely different experience. Apple had used a chapter of the software economy playbook. Yet, unlike the desktop software tradition Apple didn’t charge for the new update but instead they gave it away – re-invigorating the life of their old models and extending their time on the market.

Apple believes in their core products. So much that they bet they can sell new products, despite offering 90% of the features of yesteryear’s model. A risky bet. Apple’s vanity pushes them to make products that last. Not just in a matter of hardware designs, but also software, with new features, fixes, and apps. If the hardware could support the new software, why not let it? A new line of thinking in the world of consumer electronics. One small step for mobile phones, one giant step for the mobile industry.

Minimally Minimal did a comparison chart of the available iPhone models and available Samsung models. The image below speaks its clear language.

This is no joke – these are the phone models Samsung sells in the US today. Scroll up, and take one more look. The skizophrenic spray of cellphones produced by Samsung delutes the value of the individual phone and ultimately confuses the consumer. Which phone has the best camera? Which phone is best for internet browsing? Which one is best for me? No one wants to browse endless feature pages to compare specs and prizes. The abundance of choice suffocates the selection process and leaves the buying decision in the hands of commission-motivated sales personnel.

The sheer number of variants demonstrates a lack of faith in the core technology – or worse, a complete failure to focus attention on a single product line. Samsung’s line-up includes 134 different phones on sale alone in 2011 alone. Add to that phones on sale by RIM, Nokia, HTC and the rest. Samsung has simply bet on conventional cellphone economics populated by Nokia; in order to make a profit you must continuously spray the market with as many phones as possible, and hope to make a profit on the thin margins. This cycle of new products, inherently delutes the value of the previous models. Worse still, Google can’t guarantee the next version of Android will work on your cool new Samsung phone. There’s very little motivation from Samsung’s point-of-view that it should, since they earn their money by selling a lot of thin margin hardware, not keeping last year’s models attractive.

Apple, cleverly, changed this tactic with the inclusion of backwards compatibility and upgradability of their phones. A practice widespread in desktop software, but practically unheard of on mobile phones before the introduction of the iPhone. Updating the 1,5 year old iPhone 4 to iOS 5 brings all but a few (albeit powerful) features to the old phone. The vast majority of the software engineering and nifty features are available to former customers, providing a reason for customers who already own a iPhone 4 or 3GS not to upgrade to the new iPhone 4S. This subtle but important difference in business logic is part of what makes the iPhone seem to last. It induces confidence in buyers that they know they have at least a couple of software refreshes in sight when they buy a new phone.

The always insightful and eloquent Steve Blank articulates Apple’s success with the iPhone this way:

Over the last five years Apple has adopted the GM playbook from the 1920′s – take a product, which originally solved a problem – cheap communication – and turn it into a need. In doing so Apple did to Nokia and RIM what General Motors did to Ford. In both cases, innovation in marketing completely negated these firms’ strengths in reducing costs.

But it’s not only creating a need through statements of style and fashion like GM’s choice of tail fins. Apple is hitting something deeper. The iPhone feels more like a Leica camera than a regular cellphone. It feels sturdy. It looks expensive. It looks and feels like it could last a lifetime – even if it doesn’t. This emotion is a very strong driver when deciding on which phone to carry around in your pocket the next 2 years.

Apple’s choice to update the software of the phone is a core asset to users’ expectations of the longevity of the product. And why should it only be phones? What other electronic products could be invigorated and attain new life if they received a major software overhaul every year? How about your TV? New compression formats and new interactive possibilities made possible on a 3 year old TV. What about your car dashboard getting new features and fixing bugs after you bought it? Or how about your thermostat and in-house heating system? Why wait for the long cycles between hardware refreshes to optimize its performance, when a lot of it can be configured via a wireless update.

I believe every UX designer today should think about how their products will fare 3 years down the road, especially when dealing with digital products. Will it look like the iPhone above, beaten but still in use, or will it be collecting dust in a drawer somewhere? More and more companies are carving a path where consumers expect their premium products to last. Don’t disapoint them.