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

The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 824 posts

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#191

Post by moffkalast »

layer8 wrote: post #176

Many comments here are arguing that quality has actually gone up over the past decades. However, a common experience for me is that I own something of good quality from 5/10/15 years ago and now buy the successor model from the same brand, but the product has gotten worse, being cheaper made. And I have a hard time finding a replacement that matches the quality of the old version. It’s a regularly reoccurring frustra…

It's possible for that to be true while also there being competitors that are just making a name or themselves and aren't cutting corners. Incumbents in areas of low competition always get complacent and attempt to maximize profits without any further investment. Quality really only depends on the competition, since it removes those who lack it.

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#192

Post by nradov »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #169
simianparrot wrote: post #149

Airplane tickets used to cost a lot more for economy class, even adjusted for inflation and fees. To get the equivalent service and quality today you simply have to pay more, you just have the choice of paying very little for very low quality because there’s more flights and more planes. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/even-with-fees-the-miracle-of... Same can be said for most electronics and even clothes. I’m not say…

I don't disagree with your point, but I suppose my wish then is that there were not low-quality (low-cost) everything in the world right now. I'm not unsympathetic regarding the poor, I grew up poor myself. And my single working mother raising two kids got by on hand-me-down furniture from her mother (probably, as you and the article suggest, of decent quality though). Having the option for (new) inexpensive everythi…

It's great having the option for cheap, low-quality stuff. If I need some oddball tool for a home improvement project then I can just buy the crap at Harbor Freight. If it breaks after a few uses then so what, I won't need it again anyway.

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#193

Post by mihaic »

jmrm wrote: post #94
jstummbillig wrote: post #39

Quality has improved across many dimensions in nearly every domain I’m familiar with. In fact, I’d argue there are very few products or services that couldn’t be made today to a higher standard than at any point in the past, if we chose to prioritize that. But what’s often mistaken for a decline in quality is really a shift in priorities: toward affordability, efficiency, and accessibility. And that’s fantastic. Prod…

I would add that sometimes when people usually say that rancid phrase of "they don't make it as they used to", they are comparing expensive products in the past with cheap ones in the present. Most of those "good 'ol" goods exist, but probably are pretty/too expensive for what we are used to pay.

While that's sometimes the case, those expensive products were the norm, and now no longer exist as an accessible option.

For many products, the market went with cheap and crappy, and quality became a niche that is no longer available in the general economy, and can only be found with great cost and effort.

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#194

Post by Mordisquitos »

raspasov wrote: post #69
blueflow wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised. What is the objective aspect of quality? Can you have quality without a human-intended purpose?

How about empirical instead of objective? I think objective vs subjective can be a false dichotomy in terms of quality. For example, when my phone connects to WiFi as soon as I get home every time, correctly, for the last many years, that's very strong empirical evidence of quality.

I disagree that objective vs subjective is a false dichotomy with regards to quality. Not because I believe it is false, mind you, but because I don't believe they are a dichotomy; they are actually two essential axes when perceiving and discussing quality. And each of those two axes are measured empirically and valued ethically and aesthetically.

The subjective axis of quality concerns values. What do you value the most in a mobile phone? Is it battery life? Is it photo quality? Is it durability? Is it features? Is it security? Is it screen size? Is it repairability? Is it social approval? Is it free software support? Is it less effort due to habit?

The objective axis of each of those values (and their subvalues) can be empirically measured. Some of them trivially, such as screen size or battery life. Some are harder to measure but still quite easily, such as features, photo quality, or repairabilty. Others may end up in a quagmire of subvalues, some of them subconscious, but could ultimately be measured empirically with great effort (social approval, security, habit...)

What often happens is that, when debating quality, people make the mistake of using empirical arguments about objective characteristics without realising that they are disagreeing on their ultimate subjective preferences. Subjective values can of course be debated, sometimes successfully. However, I am never going to convince an average middle-class American teenager to prefer a Fairphone over an iPhone empirically proving its repairability and support for FOSS Android alternatives, and they are never going to convince me to prefer an iPhone because it's cooler and it takes awesome photos.

Going back to the main topic of the article, I believe that ultimately the problem is that the market has over-fitted and heavily optimised for specific axes of subjective preference, due to their alignment with profitability and ease of development, together with an inefficient feedback loop, to the detriment of large numbers of consumers such as myself who value less intrinsically profitable characteristics.

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#195

Post by weinzierl »

deadbabe wrote: post #168
weinzierl wrote: post #160

People fall largely in two categories: Those who condemn the past and those who glorify it. Of course the reality is between. Whenever something experiences mass adoption, of course quality will decline, e. g. airplane seats with mass adoption of flying. But so, so many things improved dramatically in quality. I could give you endless examples but just think about cars. Despite anecdata to the contrary the reliabilit…

Most 2020s cars are completely unaffordable or overpriced and over engineered but maybe by 2040s this will be largely solved. The 2010s was peak car.

I grew up in Germany and as a kid I always thought when I grow up I will drive a Mercedes. Why? Because taxis were 100% Mercedes back then and if a car is good enough to be a taxi it will be good enough for me.

Of course I never got a Mercedes because it always was way to expensive.

Nowadays every Uber driver seems to drive a BYD Dolphin. They are nice cars and obviously good enough as "taxis". The BYD Dolphin Surf costs 8000 EUR in China (called Seagull there) and between 13000 EUR and 20000 EUR in most other places where it is available.

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#196

Post by bluedino »

raspasov wrote: post #43

"Following his reasoning, it cannot be stated in absolute terms that an iPhone 15 is of “better quality” than a 2003 Nokia." This statement suffers from either viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses or from total cultural relativism in the most pejorative sense. I'm not sure about 2003, but around 2009, I owned a Nokia N900, which was arguably the flagship Nokia phone at the time. I can confidently state that c…

My Palm Treo 700W was straight garbage. Battery lasted hours, terrible OS, Windows Mobile...

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#197

Post by koolba »

> “Perhaps the best-known example of buying for convenience is paying around €75 per kilo for coffee just because it comes in capsules,” says Vinyals.

Maybe not the best example. If there’s ever a product where timeliness is a feature, it’s the morning coffee. A $.70 Nespresso pod may not match a freshly ground light roast pour over, but to the dreary eyed wage slave just rising to seize the day, the taste consistency and convenience are distinct features.

> Today, it’s easier to converse with a machine than with a real person. The problem is that no one likes these systems: according to a study by the Cetelem Observatory published last October, five out of 10 consumers openly reject virtual assistants.

People fail to realize the cost of interactions too. With minimum wage at nearly $20/hour, a six (6) minute phone call costs $2 more than the $0 marginal cost of an automated phone system. Would you pay a $2 human-interaction-surcharge to order a pizza?

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#198

Post by bamboozled »

nradov wrote: post #192
JKCalhoun wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your point, but I suppose my wish then is that there were not low-quality (low-cost) everything in the world right now. I'm not unsympathetic regarding the poor, I grew up poor myself. And my single working mother raising two kids got by on hand-me-down furniture from her mother (probably, as you and the article suggest, of decent quality though). Having the option for (new) inexpensive everythi…

It's great having the option for cheap, low-quality stuff. If I need some oddball tool for a home improvement project then I can just buy the crap at Harbor Freight. If it breaks after a few uses then so what, I won't need it again anyway.

Yeah, fuck the externalities

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#199

Post by moffkalast »

nfriedly wrote: post #188
simianparrot wrote: post #149

Airplane tickets used to cost a lot more for economy class, even adjusted for inflation and fees. To get the equivalent service and quality today you simply have to pay more, you just have the choice of paying very little for very low quality because there’s more flights and more planes. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/even-with-fees-the-miracle-of... Same can be said for most electronics and even clothes. I’m not say…

> I'm not saying that a high price label guarantees high quality, just that the spectrum of cost vs quality has broadened, even within big name brands. I think this needs to be repeated. People tend to think more expensive equals higher quality (I want this to be true!), and I think brands frequently take advantage of that to increase margins without significantly increasing quality. For example: I've been through th…

Along that line of thought I've noticed this recently:

I can buy an expensive tool for say $200 that will last me 10 years. Or I can buy a cheap tool that costs $20 but will only last me two years. But if I want to use that tool for the duration of 10 years it then makes more sense to buy five of the cheap tool and save half in costs. Which one is really providing more quality over time?

For some things this doesn't hold at all, the cheap entry level offerings just don't get the job done or break relatively immediately, but for others the premium offer doesn't really improve a whole lot over the cheapest.

Re: The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality

#200

Post by whoisyc »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #169
simianparrot wrote: post #149

Airplane tickets used to cost a lot more for economy class, even adjusted for inflation and fees. To get the equivalent service and quality today you simply have to pay more, you just have the choice of paying very little for very low quality because there’s more flights and more planes. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/even-with-fees-the-miracle-of... Same can be said for most electronics and even clothes. I’m not say…

I don't disagree with your point, but I suppose my wish then is that there were not low-quality (low-cost) everything in the world right now. I'm not unsympathetic regarding the poor, I grew up poor myself. And my single working mother raising two kids got by on hand-me-down furniture from her mother (probably, as you and the article suggest, of decent quality though). Having the option for (new) inexpensive everythi…

> I admit that I am surprised that I am finding myself wishing that we, the Western world, were poorer again.

Luxury belief.

Doesn’t it feel a little suspicious that the only people to ever say “we should become poorer” are people from rich countries where even the poor can afford cars and gadgets? Go to the countries actually manufacturing your goods and ask the average factory worker if he wants to be poor and prepare to get flipped off.

Post reply on HN