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

Backpacks got worse on purpose

worseonpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 396 posts

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#131

Post by furyofantares »

josephg wrote: post #81
rubyfan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you tell?

Its got this ... cadence: > Same earnings call. Same margin targets. Same quarterly pressure. The sense that you were choosing between competitors was a fiction that VF Corp had no incentive to correct. > That threat disciplined every material choice, every stitch count, every zipper spec. Once they all report to the same parent, the discipline evaporates. Nobody needs to outbuild anybody. The only pressure left is t…

More generally it's pure info dump. Everything is lists of things, all given the same weight, even if not literal bullet point lists or numbered lists.

Some other common things (not present in this article) that are dressed up lists are short titled paragraphs, and sequences of sentences that go "blah blah blah: blah blah blah."

Very little opinion added anywhere, but the punchy writing style where everything is given an overdone monotone overimportance masks it a little.

Pure infodump is not terrible for some things but I'd much rather it be less heavily processed by the LLM, and be upfront about the fact that it's a dressed up infodump with an LLM involved.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#132

Post by cortesoft »

infecto wrote: post #39
cortesoft wrote: post #19

As much as the result for consumers sucks, is this just a result of the quality backpack business not being a very profitable business to be in anymore? The reason they were able to buy all those backpack brands is because each of those brands were not making much money running a backpack company selling quality at a reasonable price. The purchaser makes some money leeching value out of the brand reputation, but then…

Absolutely this. I am sure there are recorded cases where companies have gone out of their way to make things break early but I think it’s more times than not simply that cost matters and consumers are the voters and for the majority cheap wins. The average consumer is not very thoughtful and will opt to buy the cheaper good. For sure there are many economic constraints and not everyone has the luxury of buying quali…

As easy as it is to blame customers, I don’t think it is irrational to just buy the cheapest. So many times the more expensive one isn’t any better and you are paying for branding and marketing, and just wasting your money.

At least if you buy the cheapest one you know you are at least saving money up front.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#134

Post by justinhj »

Anecdotally this rings true with me. I have a 15 year old (at least) Samsonite backpack. It has zero signs of wear and has been on many trips, jammed under my feet in economy or on a dirty train floor. It was relatively expensive at the time at about $120.

It was looking a bit sad and dusty so I upgraded to a fancier looking Bellroy that cost twice as much. When it arrived I instantly knew it was going back. It felt cheap, it looked cheap, and the compartment layout did not feel at all utilitarian.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#135

Post by eesmith »

eudamoniac wrote: post #100
MostlyStable wrote: post #55

While I personally find this kind of thing extremely annoying, to me, the main problem is the _difficulty_ of determining quality. The Donut media guys did a (relatively unscientific) video comparing a whole bunch of products from the 50s to modern day across several price points. What they found was that the things that "looked" the same now were simultaneously worse and also much cheaper. They also found that, if i…

> They also found that, if inflation adjusted, you get could, in most categories, the same or better quality for the same price This is what so many don't understand, especially among the youth / reddit crowd. They expect their $25 jeans to be equivalent quality to the $25 or even $100 jeans from 60 years ago, for some reason. There seems to be some implicit feeling that everything ought to be getting better and chea…

"a burger and fries was $17"? That doesn't seem right.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/mcdonalds-old-photos/ shows a menu at McDonalds from the early 1970s. A hamburger and fries was $0.63 or (assuming 1970 and adjusting for inflation) $5.36 now. A quarter pounder and fries was $1.27, or $10.81 now. Add $0.15 or $0.20 for a soda ($1.28 or $1.70).

That's a lot less than $17. Add $1.28

To double check, in 1983 a hamburger and fries was $1.82 - https://archive.org/details/ucladailybruin92losa/page/n542/m... .

That corresponds to $6.03 now.

What sort of hamburger places were you thinking of that charged 3x the price of McDonald's, and do they only charge $17 now?

Read More: https://www.tastingtable.com/1817109/big-mac-price-compariso...

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#136

Post by tsimionescu »

infecto wrote: post #120
tsimionescu wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the conventional thinking, but it ignores a huge factor - marketing. The major function of the gigantic advertising industry is to deceive consumers about the real qualities of a product, leaving price as the only only signal that they can detect through the noise, in most cases. And advertising works in multiple ways to promote slop. Sometimes, it is directly by marketing bad products as cheap but high quali…

Feel free to blame whoever you want. It’s a dance between consumers and business. Sure some markets are heavily influenced by ads or simply what’s in fashion but ultimately it takes two to tango.

[dead]

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#138

Post by u_fucking_dork »

ryandrake wrote: post #106
josephg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's still plenty of human authored content out there. No need to post slop on HN. My rule is: If you can't be bothered writing an article, don't expect me to read it.

I'm just saying it's probably better to just flag the article than it is to post "This was written by an LLM" for the 210th time.

[flagged]

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#140

Post by II2II »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #67
MostlyStable wrote: post #55

While I personally find this kind of thing extremely annoying, to me, the main problem is the _difficulty_ of determining quality. The Donut media guys did a (relatively unscientific) video comparing a whole bunch of products from the 50s to modern day across several price points. What they found was that the things that "looked" the same now were simultaneously worse and also much cheaper. They also found that, if i…

That's a worthwhile observation. It's good that there are lower-quality alternatives available. It means that people who couldn't in the past afford something at all, are now more likely to have some path to getting it. And even if you could afford the higher quality, you may not need it anyway. I've got a number of tools in my workshop that I'll probably use less than 10 times ever. I have no need of a high-quality…

I agree that it is nice to have the option when you don't need the quality. It is also nice to have the option when you are trying something new and don't know if you want to invest in quality. Yet the article goes further than that. They are suggesting that companies are capturing a significant fraction of the market, so there is less pressure to produce quality goods. Whether this is resulting in lower quality goods overall, people are debating over. On the other hand, it does seem to be making it difficult to determine what goods are higher quality.
Post reply on HN