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

Durable Design (2017)

exple.tive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Durable Design (2017)

#11

Post by supergauntlet »

kingbirdy wrote: post #2

Are there any established companies that design products like this? Every story I see about consumer friendly design is either the first product from a company that stopped being consumer friendly down the line, or the only product from a company that's now dead.

I really think planned obsolescence is the future for everyone. Why build things to last when you can 1. save money by cheaping out and 2. ensure a future customer by cheaping out?

There's no reason for them to build high quality, long lasting things. So why would they? They don't care about the waste.

Re: Durable Design (2017)

#13

Post by saagarjha »

wawhal wrote: post #9
keyle wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully disagree. For a design to be timeless, it means that it feels right through the ages. Feeling right implies "good aesthetics".

I respectfully disagree. I think most people would be okay with "average aesthetics" as long as the functionality of the product is designed well (flexible batteries in this case) What looks good to 5/10 people, might not look good to the other 5/10. For an instance, consider an iPhone 4S. It is a pretty average design "aesthetically" IMO. But the phone did extraordinarily well because it was a well engineered phone.…

> For an instance, consider an iPhone 4S. It is a pretty average design "aesthetically" IMO.

I have heard multiple people unironically call it the sexiest phone they’ve ever seen.

Re: Durable Design (2017)

#15

Post by iamkroot »

supergauntlet wrote: post #11
kingbirdy wrote: post #2

Are there any established companies that design products like this? Every story I see about consumer friendly design is either the first product from a company that stopped being consumer friendly down the line, or the only product from a company that's now dead.

I really think planned obsolescence is the future for everyone. Why build things to last when you can 1. save money by cheaping out and 2. ensure a future customer by cheaping out? There's no reason for them to build high quality, long lasting things. So why would they? They don't care about the waste.

You can buy stuff that lasts, it just tends to cost a lot more than the mass market products.

Consumers have voted with their wallets and the markets have responded. If consumer behavior changes, the markets will to.

Re: Durable Design (2017)

#16

Post by wawhal »

saagarjha wrote: post #13
wawhal wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully disagree. I think most people would be okay with "average aesthetics" as long as the functionality of the product is designed well (flexible batteries in this case) What looks good to 5/10 people, might not look good to the other 5/10. For an instance, consider an iPhone 4S. It is a pretty average design "aesthetically" IMO. But the phone did extraordinarily well because it was a well engineered phone.…

> For an instance, consider an iPhone 4S. It is a pretty average design "aesthetically" IMO. I have heard multiple people unironically call it the sexiest phone they’ve ever seen.

Exactly, "sexiness" is subjective.

Re: Durable Design (2017)

#17

Post by blotter_paper »

fouc wrote: post #8
keyle wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully disagree. For a design to be timeless, it means that it feels right through the ages. Feeling right implies "good aesthetics".

For a design to be timeless, it means that you can send it back in time, and it will feel right for any era that it appears in. (I'm joking because even so-called timeless designs might look pretty out of place if you send them back far enough)

I think you'd have to go pretty far back for this cutting board to look out of place: https://www.sevencolonial.com/shop/kitchen-dining/platters/m...

Re: Durable Design (2017)

#18

Post by julbaxter »

iamkroot wrote: post #15
supergauntlet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think planned obsolescence is the future for everyone. Why build things to last when you can 1. save money by cheaping out and 2. ensure a future customer by cheaping out? There's no reason for them to build high quality, long lasting things. So why would they? They don't care about the waste.

You can buy stuff that lasts, it just tends to cost a lot more than the mass market products. Consumers have voted with their wallets and the markets have responded. If consumer behavior changes, the markets will to.

It is more complicated than this. Many do not have enough in their wallet to 'vote' based on their values.

Re: Durable Design (2017)

#20

Post by Ecco »

Honestly, there’s another explanation that I think makes a lot more sense even though it’s less beautiful : the product team wasn’t sure they wanted to ship a battery with the device in the first place. Or at least they wanted to keep the option of shipping the device without a battery.

Removing the battery makes the device cheaper (you can also remove the power brick if any) and removes a supplier from the chain. Keeping this options makes a lot of sense from a purely economical standpoint.

Post reply on HN