Exoskeleton Retirement and Planned Obsolescence: Michael Straight’s Story Ignites Public Debate

Mass media has picked up on a walking assist power exoskeleton customer complaint in a fascinating and unforeseen turn of events. To summarize, Michael Straight’s ReWalk stopped working after ten years, and the initial request for repairs was denied because the device had been retired. This is noteworthy for three separate reasons:

• This marks the end of the exoskeleton honeymoon period with larger publishers. Until now, there have been no significant stories that paint wearable robotics producers in a negative light. It is impossible to say if this stems from editors believing the exoskeleton industry is now mature enough to take some criticism or if it is a natural shift towards presenting information negatively with the expectation of earning more views. Regardless, this marks a significant milestone in how exo technology has been treated and presented in more substantial publications.
• A piece of the conversation about planned obsolescence and corporate responsibility has now made it into the public domain. I understand where Michael’s complaint stems from, and I am happy that ReWalk (now Lifeward) worked with him and has his $100,000 mobility assist device working again. I also have 15 years of manufacturing experience. From personal experience, without representing the view of Lifeward or any other company, I can tell you that it becomes incredibly challenging to support products that are no longer being made. With each passing year, sourcing materials becomes more difficult. As the order volume goes down, the price goes up. In many cases, controllers, actuators, relays, and other mechanical or electrical components are made obsolete and no longer made by their manufacturers. The people who have worked and assembled the older exoskeletons may no longer be with the company, requiring time and money to train new personnel. The same is true for unique fixtures and aids that may have been needed to facilitate the assembly of the now-retired product (in this case, an exoskeleton). Imagine being an assembler at Ford, trained to assemble modern vehicles but also expected to repair a century-old Model-T if it came into the factory.

• Michail Straight self-reports having walked 371,091 steps in his ReWalk in 10 years. That is 37k steps per year or, on average, 3092 steps per month. That aligns with Dr. Spungen’s recently published paper on the home use of exoskeletons before the pandemic Exoskeletal-Assisted Walking in Veterans With Paralysis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. More importantly, it is a testament to this wearable robot’s quality that it is again in working order after ten years of use. In contrast, I purchased my dad a top-of-the-line robotic vacuum cleaner, which broke down twice within the first few years. In general, robotic devices require more than average maintenance, so reading about personal use exoskeletons still being used after a decade is excellent!

Fortunately, it is reported that Michael Straight’s exoskeleton is back in working order. His story, however, has leaped from Facebook and been retold on:

• The Verge: An out-of-warranty battery almost left this paralyzed man’s exoskeleton useless. Ditching a $100K medical device for a small wiring issue doesn’t make sense to us, but its manufacturer would prefer to replace the whole thing. link
• Futurism: Paralyzed Man Unable To Walk After Maker Of His Powered Exoskeleton Tells Him It’s Now Obsolete “This is the Dystopian Nightmare That We’ve Kind of Entered In” link
• Breitbart: Tech Dystopia: Paralyzed Man’s Exoskeleton Stops Working Due to Cheap Part Company Won’t Fix, link

Further analysis:

The headlines above are negative, and the comments left by readers to accompany these articles are even more so. This one-sided view doesn’t consider that exoskeleton producers like Lifeward, Ekso Bionics, or B-Temia, which have had powered home-use exoskeletons on the market for some time, are privately owned businesses. It becomes prohibitively expensive to support repairs and maintenance on products the longer they have been out of production. We can’t expect these producers to innovate and create newer and better wearable devices constantly while generating a profit and then declare that they have a social responsibility to maintain their exoskeletons indefinitely:

• There either has to be a retirement or planned obsolescence.
• Subsidies will cover the cost of maintaining aged robotic equipment in working order.
• Financial incentives to encourage users to upgrade to a newer model.
• The sprouting of 3rd party repair centers with expertise to repair, replace, or substitute with similar components exoskeletons at cost.

Some European groups have already touched on the idea of the social impact of exoskeleton technology. In 2021 we talked about efforts by Eurobench: A Taxonomy and Implementation of Ethical, Legal, and Social Considerations in Wearable Robotics. (see their video promoting their research papers):

As a former manufacturer engineer, I have personally lobbied and argued for the retirement and obsoletion of multiple product lines. With time, repairing and finding parts for products no longer being made becomes exponentially more costly and complex. Simultaneously, wearable robotics are becoming more than a novelty. They are an idea. The idea is that a worker can retire with fewer injuries, or a wheelchair user can stand up and walk again. If exo technology can indeed deliver on these ideas, is there then a social responsibility to make this technology accessible? If so, who should pay the bill?

Original Facebook Post:

Note: A Google search conducted on Sep 30, 2024, defines “planned obsolescence” as “the practice of designing products to break quickly or become obsolete in the short to mid-term.” That is NOT what I mean by it in this article. In my manufacturing engineering experience, planned obsolescence is about knowing how long a product can be maintained and serviced before it has reached its natural end-of-life cycle.

The opinions in this article represent those of the author and his experience with manufacturing engineering. They do not represent ReWalk (Lifeward), Ekso Bionics, B-Temia, Bioservo, or any other producer of home-use exoskeletons.