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

251–260 of 396 posts

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#251

Post by mancerayder »

This feels like the Arcteryx Hoodie situation. I've had a couple of them for going close to 5 or 8 years. I mistreat them - throwing them around, washing them normally in a machine, etc. Absolutely bullet proof with very mild pilling. When I went to buy the exact same thing, the newer models cost the same thing or more, but the reviews all complained that the product has changed, that it pills after a few months, etc.

The same thing happened to me with t shirt and other clothing brands.

Now if I buy something good, I'm rebuying multiple of it even if it's unneeded since apparently we live under the Law of Enshittification of Everything.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#252

Post by crazygringo »

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…

It also ignores the fact that your backpack needs change.

At various points in my life I've needed:

- A huge backpack, then a small one

- Water bottle holders weren't important, then they were

- Straps I could tighten to hold a yoga mat weren't important, then they were

- A laptop slot wasn't important, then it was critical

Plus my preference in color has changed, as well as my aesthetic preferences.

Paying $200 for a backpack would be insane when I'll have different needs in a few years anyways. I buy cheap-ish backpacks, I've never had a zipper or seam fail on me before I needed to buy a new one for a different reason anyways. Or it was just stolen/lost.

My general life philosophy is to buy the cheapest thing that meets my needs generally, replace as necessary (since I often need to replace/upgrade for functional reasons anyways), and buy a very few expensive high-quality items that I know are actually worth it. Like a mid-tier espresso machine, a good leather jacket, quality boots, a decent home speaker, and... I'm honestly struggling to think of anything else.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#253

Post by square_usual »

bluGill wrote: post #128
eudamoniac wrote: post #100

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 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…

I bought some $100 jeans a few months ago, hoping they would be better than the $25 I used to buy 30 years ago. They are not better than the $25 jean I can buy elsewhere today.

Not every $100 pair is made the same, and price is not a proxy for quality. You can definitely get a $100 pair that is meaningfully better than a $25 pair today.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#254

Post by alistairSH »

eesmith wrote: post #108
alistairSH wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article hints that they are dying - the holding company is looking to offload them because profits are down.

I did not explain myself well enough. The essay show the timescale for "getting bought out, for their products to be reamed out, for the brand to be discarded" is 20 years or more, dating from the Eagle Creek purchase to the current "potentially up for sale." That's a long time. That means Theodores is also okay with the same decades-long process happening to "your power tools, your boots, your sunglasses, and about…

The "simple" answer is "markets aren't like textbooks".

Consumers are lazy and greedy.

The side effect of which is not-strict-enough regulation of negative externalities. In a perfect world, people would care about the downstream environment impact at least as much as they do about their time/money. But, they don't.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#255

Post by njarboe »

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…

Agreed. My brother is a painter and has commented, "At least in the past cheap tools were one-time-use, now they are usually zero-time-use. Built so poorly they don't even work out of the box."

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#256

Post by deanc »

34679 wrote: post #170

If you're looking for a backpack, I can't recommend Osprey enough. They are still a independent US company with a lifetime warranty they actually stand by. I had to call their customer service just last week after I ordered the wrong size bag. I was connected to an actual human immediately, and he sent me a prepaid return label, even though it was my fault and I was fully expecting to pay for return shipping myself.…

There is a whole community of bag enthusiasts who intricately review backpacks. Packhacker etc. It's super easy to find reviews of most backpacks and plenty of video reviews detailing every feature on the bag - and even in some cases reviews after a few months of usage. Day one might feel great, but after a few trips you start noticing flaws.

I'd echo what one of the other commenters here said about AER and Cotopaxi. Although I have to say wearing my Cotopaxi Alppa 35l feels like a small child is trying to drag me to the floor compared to the comfort of having the AER straps on my back for the travel pack. I still love both though.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#257

Post by LinuxAmbulance »

evolve2k wrote: post #223

Talk to any Aussie tech workers you know and chances are they or their friend has a Crumpler backpack. (No affiliation just a big fan). Originally created by a bike courier who sick of bags breaking sewed a bag out of the toughest material he could get, marine canvas. To this day they make somewhat indestructible, well designed, trendy well loved bags. Also they have a lifetime warranty and repair policy that is very…

I picked up a Crumpler Brazillion Dollar Home bag about a decade back to carry all my photography gear, as there were no other bags on the market that would allow you to pack a large format monorail camera in them.

That bag is built like a tank. Still ticking along, a little scuffed up, but zero issues. If you're carting around a few thousand dollars worth of delicate gear, it definitely offers some serious peace of mind.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#258

Post by gaze »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #73
gaze wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I get your argument but it feels like one should adjust for wage growth instead. One labor unit of value converts to a shittier backpack.

The other side of that coin is that someone whose units of labor demand less value can still get into the market.

see terry pratchett's boots theory of economic fairness. They'll get into the market with something that costs more long term...

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#259

Post by tshaddox »

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 think there are also 2 senses in which it's difficult to determine quality. The first sense is just that many things require expert attention, special tools, and or a lot of time to evaluate the quality. And for niche items, there might just not be a reputable reviewer out there. This is frustrating, but somewhat unavoidable.

The second sense is more insidious. Sometimes companies deliberately obfuscate the source and identity of products, making it difficult to even know if a product you saw a review of is the same product you'll get if you buy it now. I believe companies also do this simply to make price comparison impossible.

This is an abominable practice, and in my view should be extremely illegal. I'm very much a free market guy, but clearly labeling and identifying the products you sell should be a bare minimum requirement to gain access to any market.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#260

Post by theideaofcoffee »

consumer451 wrote: post #9

I spent way too much money on a Peak Design backpack. 4 years in, the zipper broke. They honored the lifetime warranty, and swapped me for a brand new one. That was my first time ever dealing with such a high-end product and a lifetime warranty. Just sharing because it was a good experience.

+1 for Peak Design. I have yet to use the warranty, but the thing still looks new after lots and lots of travel, shoving under seats, tossed into train and bus overhead bins. The only real wear is the corners of the metal clip for the flap. Expensive, but in this case, you get what you pay for.
Post reply on HN