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

141–150 of 396 posts

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#141

Post by is_true »

__mharrison__ wrote: post #62

Make sure your bag has YKK zippers (if it has zippers). I used to sell outdoor equipment. If a brand cheaps out on zippers, I wouldn't trust it. I really like my Patagonia Black hole mini MLC. Awesome access. Fits under an airplane seat. Generous laptop padding. Excellent zippers. Water bottle pocket. Lovely warranty (Patagonia store nearby often gives new product when I try to get product repaired).

I have a columbia backpack i bought like 20 years ago that doesnt have a ykk zipper but it's still in perfect condition, i've abused it a lot and the only thing broken is a rubber thingy it has for the headphones cable to go through.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#143

Post by swiftcoder »

fwipsy wrote: post #71
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…

Perhaps it's gotten harder to determine by eye, but Google will still point you towards trustworthy brands in 2 minutes. The problem is people don't care or can't be bothered to Google.

> Google will still point you towards trustworthy brands in 2 minutes

On what criteria are you evaluating trustworthiness? Because if you are finding it on google, you are effectively judging on SEO and marketing spend.

Sure, there are some more-or-less trustworthy review outlets, but those too often go to shit when editorial priorities change from on high (i.e. newwire cutter is a pale shadow of its former self)

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#144

Post by lynndotpy »

mossTechnician wrote: post #65
furyofantares wrote: post #16

> I'll be writing about those next. I doubt it, you didn't write about this! You prompted it and signed your name to it.

The slow realization this whole article was AI prompted was such a disappointment to me. I'm fascinated by the subject matter, and it seems like the person who prompted it is aware of specifics at least... But I also don't want to feed myself LLM-induced pollution that might make it into my own writing or thinking patterns.

The article is clearly generated text, but it's also just low quality writing.

If the author _were_ aware of specifics, they could have just written the article. A list of bullet points would be better.

It's almost as if they made the article Worse, on Purpose.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#145

Post by oliwarner »

Thread counts and Denier are poor metrics for items that employ technical fabrics, seam glues and other modern improvements that legitimately lower these sorts of simple measurements. People don't want to buy the same heavyweight waxed backpacks their grandparents used.

There definitely are BOM- and manufacturing reduction movements in these mature products but backpacks honestly don't seem nearly as bad as (eg) walking boots.

The Worse On Purpose article on power tools follows a similar tack. Offshore manufacturing, corporate consolidation and cheaper processes don't actually make the overall picture worse when we have affordable tools packing modern lithium batteries and brushless neodymium motors.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#146

Post by pushcx »

sccxy wrote: post #74
__mharrison__ wrote: post #62

Make sure your bag has YKK zippers (if it has zippers). I used to sell outdoor equipment. If a brand cheaps out on zippers, I wouldn't trust it. I really like my Patagonia Black hole mini MLC. Awesome access. Fits under an airplane seat. Generous laptop padding. Excellent zippers. Water bottle pocket. Lovely warranty (Patagonia store nearby often gives new product when I try to get product repaired).

I've got quite expensive ski jacket with 4 YKK zippers. 3 of 4 zippers are broken after few years of usage.

This is a little late for your nice jacket, but a lot of zipper damage comes from dirt getting into the teeth and then the zip grinds everything up. Outdoors shops sell a zipper lubricant to keep the dirt from sticking.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#147

Post by maerF0x0 » 

    The math that makes this intentional

    Price of a bag divided by years it actually lasts. That's your cost per year.

    A $35 JanSport that dies in eighteen months: $23 per year. Add the shipping cost 
    when you try the warranty. Add the replacement cost when the claim gets denied.
    Add your time.

    A $200 bag that lasts ten years: $20 per year. Already cheaper. At fifteen years,
    which the well-built ones consistently do, you're at $13 per year.
As much as people gripe about subscriptions, people forget there's an equivalent internal subscription rate to every product with a lifespan. And beyond that there's the opportunity cost of a large outlay with a FUD component around the longevity. Humans are, as far as i understand, hard-wired for irrational choices around shortermism vs long term bets, you basically have to externalize your thinking to accomplish better. (This could be by writing down your thoughts and then analyzing them externally as a critic, or by passing it off to an AI, etc).

The $25 bag compared to the $200 bag, has $175 worth of free cash flow for other (potentially unexpected) purchases, can be replaced when trends/use case changes (or it gets dirty, or lost...), the capital could be invested in the market to generate ~$1 a month of passive income, and as far as the human can tell it's roughly the same. Basically all the thoughts of a JIT marketplace but on the personal scale...

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#148

Post by ToucanLoucan »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #79
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…

I watched some comparison videos like that, but the old product was always more expensive than what you'd tend to buy today. Same seems to be true in that video you linked. And when you buy an equivalently-priced product today, it's better than it was 50 years ago. I only skipped through the video though. The problem I have is that there's no easy way to go to an ecommerce marketplace and pick "I want to spend more f…

> The problem I have is that there's no easy way to go to an ecommerce marketplace and pick "I want to spend more for higher quality".

Not even isolated to ecommerce, really. This is everything now. The cars you shop for, half on the lot were made by a different OEM and are rebadged and sold by this one. Clothing is a fucking mess, both in terms of quality and sizing. Corporate consolidation is a ludicrously under-discussed issue and one of the bigger reasons everything just kind of sucks now.

It's one of the things that keeps me with Apple really, for all the warts, at least I know what I'm fucking buying.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#149

Post by drBonkers »

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.

I argue you must evaluate against median purchasing power; it accounts for inflation and (lack of) wage increases.

Comments from your linked video:

> The problem with the “adjusted for inflation” argument is that it does not factor in buying power. The increase in wages has risen at out half the rate of inflation, so sure; $20 in 1975 would be $124 today, but the minimum wage in 1975 was $2.10 an hour as opposed to $7.25 today, giving you half the buying power you had 50 years ago.

> healthcare, housing, and education ... have increased by an insane margin leaving people with less money once that has been paid for (if at all).

> It's even worse when you consider that people are paying 45-55% of their monthly income on a house that cost 20x more than it would have in 1975. Your buying power is fucked from all sides.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#150

Post by whartung »

triceratops wrote: post #75
Theodores wrote: post #2

I am okay with these big American corporations getting bought out, for their products to be reamed out, for the brand to be discarded, only to exist as a brand in a private-equity backed holding company. This is because other companies come along to fill the niche occupied by the established brands. Since they can't cheapen the products any more than the behemoths can, they need to innovate and evolve. As for the bac…

That's idiotic. As a consumer I'd prefer the same company to keep making the same good products forever. I don't have time to research which of the new brands is just as good.

I have a pair of Mountainsmith Lumbar packs, both either over or pushing 30 years old (I have two because I misplaced and replaced my first, but later found it).

It's an excellent pack, cinches up tight, mount it front or back, strap it to something else, you can pack the straps and use it as a simple satchel, or use the shoulder strap.

Very high quality materials and zippers.

It's for I'd consider "urban travel", great as a carry-on. Paperback books, tickets, meds, passports, journal, snacks. They've been in "the wild" but I don't drag them on rocks or things like that.

They're over $100 today, so not cheap, but at a glance on the website, they look pretty much identical to what I have (and I know my second has slight differences in design from my first).

Were I in the market, I wouldn't hesitate to drag and drop one into a cart and get another. I've not used their larger packs, and over time they've expanded their lumbar line. But I would completely expect their other products to be similar quality as the ones that I have.

Post reply on HN