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

201–210 of 396 posts

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#201

Post by convolvatron »

SoftTalker wrote: post #171
bluGill wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 product in these cases. I'd rather pay a fraction of that price to have something that'll survive the light duty that I put it to because I won't demand anything greater. I've been burned too often with this thinking. All too often the cheap tool isn't just light duty so it breaks, it is not go…

Anecdotally my experience is the opposite. I bought an angle grinder from Harbor Freight for something like $10 on sale. It's not something a pro could use every day but it has absolutely been fine for what I do with it: cutting the occasional piece of metal stock, sharpening the lawn mower blade once a year, etc.

be careful in promoting that strategy. HF is pretty bad, I had a friend go through 3 them in a day because he didn't have one on the job site and HF wasn't too far away.

the next step up is about 2x the price and will last a good year with professional use and maybe more if you can be bothered to replace the brushes.

so I'm glad that's working out for you, but there is more bottom to be found. I bought an attachment that came with a grinder that was so dinky and toy-like that it didn't last 20 minutes of light use.

this thread is covered with discussion about the problem of information asymmetry and rapidly decaying brands. to me the real issue is economic efficiency. the low end tool gets a double economic win, lower material and production costs, and increased frequency of purchase. every one of those purchases involves shipping, potential retail space, people's time spent shopping and returning crap. leading to a lot of outright waste. to me this really undermines the promise of capitalistic efficiency, since it prioritizes local optimization to an extreme over global optimization.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#202

Post by pixl97 »

bluGill wrote: post #125
CWuestefeld wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'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 product in these cases. I'd rather pay a fraction of that price to have something that'll survive the light duty that I put it to because I won't demand anything greater. I've been burned too often with this thinking. All too often the cheap tool isn't just light duty so it breaks, it is not go…

>and the cheap tools generally fail.

Honestly I've not found that to be the case unless you're buying the bottom of the barrel most pot metal tools possible. I've bought numerous wrenches for 5x-10x less than the professional sets that don't slip and I could hang a 5 foot cheater bar off of and nothing broke.

I have a $35 dollar battery powered angle grinder that I've used and abused viciously and it's keeping up with the ones that cost $200+.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#203

Post by stavros »

xnyan wrote: post #102
emtel wrote: post #7

I bought a north face backpack for college in 1998. It cost $60. It was an extravagant expense for me at the time and I felt horrible about it for weeks. That backpack is currently at college with my son, who used it all through high school as well. It is by far the oldest and most durable daily-use object I’ve ever owned.

A cheap backpack ended up being the most expensive backpack I have ever owned. In 2004 I was very young and all my income came from summer jobs, so I got a backpack from Walmart. It was one of their nicer models, had a lot of features and looked pretty good. IIRC it cost $20. I had worked all summer to save for an MP3 player, and 2 months after getting that backpack I getting off a bus, when I realized there was alre…

Same, I was gifted a Sandqvist backpack ten years ago. I travel with it as my sole piece of luggage (you can imagine the overstuffing). It has outlived three laptop backpacks that don't go through half as much as it has.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#204

Post by xnorswap »

ghighi7878 wrote: post #189

> 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 $13 per year. This ignores the money you would earn by not giving money upfront. A 23$ expense every year…

Or put another way, we need to compare the net present value.

The more expensive choice now is an investment into not buying future bags, and the future returns on that investment should be discounted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounting

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#205

Post by BobbyJo »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #166
drBonkers wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hal…

Median purchasing power has increased by 12% since 1979 (data doesn't go back to 1975) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Real wages were down ~15-20% from 1970 to 1979... so, not a good year to anchor on.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#206

Post by lepton »

kqr wrote: post #117
psadauskas wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its also gotten harder to trust them to maintain that quality, too. A product gets good reviews in Consumer Reports or the Wire Cutter or reddit, and the company making it knows they're gonna sell a ton of them, so they start cutting corners, or even start selling a slightly different product with the same model number. Or you find a decent brand that makes good products, they get popular and grow and in come the MBA…

> A product gets good reviews in Consumer Reports or the Wire Cutter or reddit, and the company making it knows they're gonna sell a ton of them, so they start cutting corners I think this is true, but for far less malicious reasons. Favourable reviews lead to popularity, which increases production pressures, which makes it harder to source quality materials and maintain a quality process while satisfying demand. I h…

Maintain quality but raise prices to throttle demand to a sustainable rate? Hard to do instantaneously of course; easier said than done etc

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#207

Post by Aunche »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #173
drBonkers wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hal…

I'm really frustrated by inflation numbers because there doesn't seem to be a metric that makes sense. CPI ignores the reality people feel (and swaps in cheaper items that aren't necessarily on par with the original to keep the number lower), gold isn't really a 1:1 with purchasing power...there must be some sort of useful composite metric that merges multiple data points over time like rental/house prices, CPI marke…

You're only going to hear from people who think that the CPI underestimates inflation. If the CPI overestimates inflation for an given individual, they have no reason to comment on it.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#208

Post by dfee »

> People who do get warranty replacements report receiving bags that are worse than the one they sent in. Thinner fabric. Cheaper hardware. You mailed back a 2016 JanSport and got a 2025 JanSport, and those are fundamentally different products.

This rhymes. Recently, I took my iPhone 16 Pro in to swap out the screen (there was an ever growing dead spot, and they handled it free of charge). Unfortunately, the screen they replaced it with is much more fragile – hairline fractures within days. I know the replacement screen is of lesser structural quality, but I can't prove it. I've had iPhones since the day they debuted in 2007(?), and this moment connected the dots across years of screen replacements. The original is always much more durable.

But again, sadly I can't prove it.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#210

Post by initatus »

bluGill wrote: post #126
hombre_fatal wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is what I miss the most from the old stores. I knew when I went to Sears I'd get a good enough thing. I could often find the exact same thing under a different name for less elsewhere if I looked (Sears made no secret that their house brands were someone else's product with the Sears name on it). I knew I could often find better if I looked. However I could trust that it was a good enough product for my needs an…

This is me with Costco. They're selective with what they stock, their margins are capped so I know I'm not getting fleeced buying abject junk. I have bought stuff from them based on trust of the store and not knowledge of the product.

It's the opposite of amazon, where not only do I have no trust in anything, everything feels adverserial. If I'm not vigilant, I will get hosed. I find it extremely unpleasant.

Post reply on HN