Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Review broken products instead of new ones

buyforlife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#111

Post by TacticalTable »

wruza wrote: post #85

>Let me know what you think Sometimes a thing is not broken, but it makes you uncomfortable and you only notice that later. Like one of my washing machines that beeped a couple of minutes before it unlocked its door. If this will fly, please allow to add such details into reviews, e.g. “not broken, but I hate it” status.

Appliances have terrible design so often that I wonder if its intentional somehow. My parents bought brand new Jenn-Air appliances a few years ago, and the awful LCD menu takes like ≥5 taps (on a bad resistive touchscreen) to do anything, including start the microwave. Their 1994 midrange GE microwave/oven was more usable than luxury appliances from 2015

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#112

Post by stjohnswarts »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #101
hubraumhugo wrote: post #2

For most people, the majority of positive reviews are noise on any product and they evaluate them by reading negative reviews. For once, let's turn it all upside down: We should build a collection about how things break - review broken and worn-out products to teach how to identify cheap products (where are the stress points, what manufacturing techniques exist to alleviate those). Then compare those with used produc…

This is exactly the kind of initiative I've been looking for and thought about lately! Thanks so much! I especially like the idea of rating products by their monthly/daily cost. I imagine this growing in a direction where the manufacturers and producers have added initiative to produce durable products again. Of course for real change to occur governments, regulation, large scale action would have to happen. One vect…

I can't speak for the rest but factory "machines" are built to last in most cases and have long warranties and easily swappable components. Most of what's there can be machined in a pinch. I went to a glass factory one that had some machines that were 70+ years old. When something broke, which was pretty rare, they simply machined a new one. On a tangential note I expect my Lodge cast iron cooking set to last at least one lifetime :D

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#113

Post by stjohnswarts »

buster wrote: post #74
Answerawake wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting idea but is your site curated for some items or just 100% autogenerated/crowd sourced? For example, you have listed the Thinkpad X220 which is a 10 year old laptop. Furthermore I also noticed the Magic mouse and is that really considered buy it for life(in terms of repairable)? Speaking as someone who has purchased and accidentally destroyed multiple Magic Keyboards by liquid spills, I love their products…

My current private laptop ist 7 years old and still running fine. It's some dell laptop and I suppose it will fall apart at some point but so far I don't see why I would replace it. I wouldn't mind it lasting another 10 years. Same for mice. I'd certainly use a mouse for 10+ years if it's good enough. I've invested in a quite expensive ergonomic, mechanical keyboard and I have a very old mechanical cherry keyboard at…

I use a mechanical keyboard at home, but I won't use it at work as it would drive my fellow cube farm dwellers nuts. Is your keyboard a silent click one?

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#114

Post by stjohnswarts »

throwawayboise wrote: post #44
1-6 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, the Made in USA Craftsman has long been gone since it's been sold to China. MAC and Snap-on still maintain their quality but I don't run an auto repair shop to justify my purchase. I try to look for the Made in Taiwan Craftsman tools as a compromise or pay extra to buy German steel. I like the concept of Buy it for Life but sometimes you just need something once (like a Harbor Freight tool).

The Harbor Freight hand tools I've bought are really pretty decent. Wrenches, sockets, screwdrivers. I'm not a pro mechanic but I do a lot of my own auto maintenance. HF hand tools are least as good as current Craftsman, probably better IMO.

They're fine for home stuff, but take it from someone who used to be a small engine mechanic; they wouldn't last a week in a pro shop. that doesn't mean they aren't useful obviously for someone who uses them a couple times a year. I have some HF stuff as well but all my wood working stuff comes from name brand companies. Also China makes some good stuff, but you have to pay for it. I don't think they're building dams and airplanes with HF tools :) . I helped a friend on his motorcycle a couple of weeks ago and I was kind of shocked at how loose some of the HF wrenches were on bolts bordering on ready to strip them. I stopped and went home and got my set of old craftsman I got handed down and they fit much tighter. I would suggest getting some of the more "expensive" tool lines at HF if you're going to go down that alley for hand wrenches/screwdrivers.

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#115

Post by gkop »

adrianN wrote: post #47
notatoad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AvE is fun to watch, and full of cool insights into the underappreciated details of tools. but you've got to take his reviews with a few grains of salt. He's coming at it from the perspective of somebody who buys tools to use in heavy industry. If you're buying a cordless drill to hang pictures or maybe build a desk or a fence once a decade, the things he derides as being "not very skookum" will likely last you a lif…

My heuristic is to first buy the cheap version of a tool. If I use it enough to break it, I then buy a more skookum version.

And Harbor Freight makes buying the cheap version as easy can be.

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#116

Post by Animats »

fakedang wrote: post #58
Animats wrote: post #54

This would be a better idea if the site it promotes didn't have overreaching terms of service. If they get sued for defamation, you, who posted a review, have to pay their costs.[1] Despite the site being run from Zurich, the terms have the line "In any circumstances where the foregoing Arbitration Agreement permits the parties to litigate in court, the parties hereby agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of t…

Nice snooping around! Tbh, those are really big red flags, that I wonder if it's even possible to trust the rest of the article. Edit:- Seems that Netherlands County, California was on some template T&C that a lot of small firms just copied.

Errors like that can backfire. The American Arbitration Association now requires that a company putting an AAA consumer arbitration clause in a contract must first get approval from the AAA, and pay a $500 fee. See rule R-12 in [1]. The AAA made this rule specifically to stop companies from using bad arbitration clauses in boilerplate contracts.

There's a database of companies which have registered.[2] BuyForLife isn't listed. The AAA's reviewers would probably have caught the bogus terms and rejected the clause. A company that didn't register can usually use AAA services after registering late, but there are extra fees they have to pay before they can proceed.

So the arbitration clause is probably invalid. That throws any dispute into court. Which court? Specifying "Netherland, California" as a venue would invalidate the choice of venue clause. So the default rules on venue apply. Consumers can generally sue where the consumer is.

So, any site using that boilerplate probably can be sued in small claims court. Actually, the AAA lets you do that even if consumer arbitration is specified. See rule R-9 in [1]. Consumers usually do better in small claims court than in arbitration. Especially since the company has to send someone, or they lose.

Bad contract drafting of one-sided contracts is a great way to create a legal mess for yourself.

[1] https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Rules_Web_0...

[2] https://apps.adr.org/ClauseRegistryUI/faces/org/adr/extapps/...

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#117

Post by hispanic »

hubraumhugo wrote: post #51
pavel_lishin wrote: post #7

This is a good idea, but a lot of products are only sold for a few years before being discontinued; reading a review for a printer that's no longer sold (except secondhand) is unfortunately not very useful.

Product revisions are indeed a challenge. I plan to add a way to say "this was an older version, but here is the current model, which has still the same level of quality".

There are precedents for this. One that comes to mind are updated editions/versions of board/tabletop games, which https://boardgamegeek.com/ tries to handle.

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#118

Post by pavel_lishin »

astura wrote: post #41
MichaelApproved wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve also seen companies with quality brands milk it for all it’s worth. Newer products get made with 1/4 the quality while trading on the reputation they built with their previous higher quality products. Craftsman was a good example of this. They use to have high quality tools with lifetime warranties. Now, that warranty is gone and they don’t seem much different than any other low end manufacturer. Anyone have oth…

Pyrex. The new stuff you buy now is a different product made out of a different material than the original glass cookwear they sold. The new stuff has much poorer thermal shock resistance. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/pyrex-glass-is...

Sadly, this is because the old stuff was _really great_ for making illegal drugs. Pyrex is just one bit of collateral damage in the war on drugs: https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-03/gray-matter-c...

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#119

Post by fakedang »

Animats wrote: post #116
fakedang wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice snooping around! Tbh, those are really big red flags, that I wonder if it's even possible to trust the rest of the article. Edit:- Seems that Netherlands County, California was on some template T&C that a lot of small firms just copied.

Errors like that can backfire. The American Arbitration Association now requires that a company putting an AAA consumer arbitration clause in a contract must first get approval from the AAA, and pay a $500 fee. See rule R-12 in [1]. The AAA made this rule specifically to stop companies from using bad arbitration clauses in boilerplate contracts. There's a database of companies which have registered.[2] BuyForLife isn…

Thanks for the really thorough explanation!

Re: Review broken products instead of new ones

#120

Post by s0rce »

eecc wrote: post #70
s0rce wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wear merino wool t-shirts to bike to work because they don't get smelly, however, they actually wear out much faster than cheap synthetic shirts. I usually buy them on clearance/sale for $30-40. $70-120 is nuts for a t-shit. I also don't understand how that can be buy it for life anyways. Its a cloth shirt, maybe its decently made but any synthetic fabric will last longer (still not forever).

I have a couple sets of cotton t-shirts, about 5-8. Have had them for 5 years already, wear them daily and normally for 1, 2 Max before going back to the wash basket. Cost me perhaps 3€ a piece. I don’t see the need for these wonderfully expensive extravaganza...

As I said in my post, they don't get smelly so for me the $40 is worth it, they still last easily dozens of wears so the cost is minimal and I don't have deal with a sweaty smelly shirt in my bag at work. Also, I don't find a cotton shirt the most comfortable for active use.
Post reply on HN