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

How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

blog.simonrumble.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 324 posts

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#301

Post by duckmysick »

hirsin wrote: post #233
duckmysick wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do the manufacturers of long-lasting one-off-purchase products survive? Stuff like doors, windows, roof tiles, floor tiles, faucets, staircase railings, fences, etc. Are they filling Chapter 13 or are they in the process in reducing the lifespan so their products are replaced every couple of years? What's their secret?

They go broke or rely on an ever growing market, ie housing is always being built (most of your examples). But Instant Pot is the classic example of going broke because everyone bought exactly one of their products and never needed another (ignoring the three we have...)

Is it? From what I've read, Instant Brands (the company behind Instant Pot) merged with Corelle Brands (of the private equity firm Cornell Capital) in 2019. Corelle Brands had a portfolio of house and kitchen products from Corelle, Pyrex, SnapWare and CorningWare. In 2021 they decided to change the name from Corelle Brands to Instant Brands. And in 2023 they filled for chapter 11 bankruptcy.

It is my understanding that when Instant Brands filled for bankruptcy, they weren't selling just the Instant Pot. It wasn't even the original Instant Pot company. They were selling a wide range of kitchen products. I don't think they went broke because people bought exactly one Instant Pot.

The story doesn't end here. Apparently, Instant Brands emerged from chapter 11 as Corelle Brands.

> They go broke or rely on an ever growing market, ie housing is always being built (most of your examples).

Wouldn't that mean those new houses have new families which want a new Instant Pot? In fact I can think of other situations: people moving, going to college, splitting some of their items in divorce, etc. Sure, it's not much but it's not like the demand grinds to a halt.

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#302

Post by [deleted] »

IX-103 wrote: post #225
bell-cot wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Took a look at my stove] Nope, all the easily-accessed wiring (under the stove top - which lifts like a car hood, for quick clean-up after a pot boils over) is in excellent shape. Insulation colors look a bit faded, but that's it. (Yes, all those wires bend a bit when you either remove a burner, or lift the top. But the design is such that the radius of those bends is extremely large, compared to the diameter of the…

Sounds like they really don't make them like they used to. Most things have moved to stranded wires due to their lower resistance per weight properties, despite their higher likelihood of breaking during bends.

[deleted]

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#303

Post by SoftTalker »

brianshaler wrote: post #270
SoftTalker wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived most of my life with incandescent bulbs which you could buy at four for a dollar if you watched for sales, the idea of paying $8-10 for a light bulb is insane to me. I have probably close to 50 bulbs in my house. But yes, the reasonably-priced LED bulbs don't last any longer than incandescents. I am replacing a few every year around the house. The saving grace is that they generate a lot less heat. I was…

In a bathroom, a hot lamp is likely intentional. It's typically on its own circuit for use while taking a hot shower.

No, these were just ordinary (clear) bulbs over the sink/vanity

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#304

Post by ghaff »

djbusby wrote: post #290
ghaff wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have replaced or added many of those things. People remodel, build new houses, etc. There are certainly business models around goods that people aren't renewing on an annual basis. Collectively it's probably fair to say that people in a country like the US buy a lot of doors even if it's a rare purchase for an individual.

This place https://www.franklumber.com/ has been selling only doors for 50+ years. One can model their business around market rules. It just might not be as huge as you want.

I just ordered a butcher block counter from a local company. I've also ordered butcher block from a different company. At a rather larger scale there's Andersen Windows and Doors. None of these are or ever going to be--or presumably have ambitions to be--Home Depot.

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#305

Post by elzbardico »

tomcam wrote: post #219
elzbardico wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call this the "Prager-U law": For every issue created by cartels or monopolies, there will be at least one "Akschually..." competitive explanation from libertarians that will either give a completely benign explanation of why this is actually good for your or blame the government/regulations for the issue. Those explanations will become memes and every single time the subject is discussed they will be brandished by…

PragerU isn’t libertarian. This indicates you don’t understand their biases. The “Akschually” snark indicates both that you don’t observe HN guidelines and that you are not arguing in good faith. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

You assume too much stuff, man.

This is just an internet forum for us technology well paid proletarians, you shouldn't take it that seriously.

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#306

Post by xboxnolifes »

0xEF wrote: post #84
gnicholas wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall reading a quasi-debunking of this. I didn't go down the rabbit hole far enough to understand all the details, but it seems the situation was more complicated than just corporate greed. [1] The topic has been discussed here in the past a few times, including [2] and [3] 1: https://readmedium.com/en/the-phoebus-cartel-was-never-reall... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596792 3: https://news.ycombinat…

I would not call any of that a debunking, even quasi. Just a different dance around the same hard-to-swallow pill. Company X makes a great product that everyone only needs one of and lasts a long time. Over time, the market starts to dwindle and. Company X is going broke. Now, Company X must either invest in innovation or reduce the lifespan of its current offering. There's nothing inherently evil about this concept,…

Sounds to me that Company X sold their product for too cheap if they really lasted that long. Which then it becomes: "Company X undervalued their product, leading to bankruptcy".

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#307

Post by hug »

callalex wrote: post #293
hug wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, as an Australian, what is unenviable?

The total lack of free speech is pretty messed up. Am I correct that you can’t even have blood come out when someone is hurt in a video game marketed to adults?

I am not a free speech absolutist, but I don't know that free speech in Australia is lacking very much compared to any other English speaking country, including America: I don't really believe that your constitutional right protects you the way that you might think it does, assuming you're American.

As to the latter point, no, that's incorrect. There were some issues in the past with getting a game approved at a 15+ age rating instead of 18+, but those have gone by the wayside as videogames in general have become more mainstream & accepted.

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#308

Post by AnthonyMouse »

marcosdumay wrote: post #250
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like classic corporate bamboozlery. Find some real trade off that actually exists and then exaggerate its importance or pretend that no other solutions can be found when in fact they don't want solutions because the problem is profitable. Undoubtedly there are some alternate materials you could make a light bulb out of that present a trade off between longevity and efficiency. But there will also be mater…

> Undoubtedly there are some alternate materials you could make a light bulb out of that present a trade off between longevity and efficiency. You seem to be out of your depth here, while accusing people of propaganda. Anyway, no there aren't. The efficiency x longevity trade-off is inherent to the incandescent bulbs, you can't just wave all of Quantum Mechanics away. Material changes will increase or decrease the en…

> The efficiency x longevity trade-off is inherent to the incandescent bulbs, you can't just wave all of Quantum Mechanics away. Material changes will increase or decrease the entire pair, and bulbs were already made with the best material that could possibly be used.

What you're ignoring is that although a different material would still have the trade off, the optimal point on the curve for that material could be in a different place. Material A lasts for 1000 hours at a given amount of light/watt, Material B only lasts for 500 hours at that amount of light/watt, but lasts for 3000 hours at only 15% less light/watt, which some people might want. As an example, there are some applications where the bulb is repeatedly being turned on for only short periods of time, which would tend to shorten lifespan from thermal stress but also implies that power efficiency is less important because the bulb isn't continuously on.

The optimal trade off would also be different for different people. If your light bulb is hard to reach, saving two bucks worth of electricity over its lifetime may not be worth having to drag out a ladder or disassemble a piece of equipment to change it more often. If you have electric heat in a cold climate, a bulb that generates a higher ratio of heat to light isn't costing you anything because you were only going to use a different kind of electric heater regardless. But the cartel took those peoples' options away, claiming that the trade off could only be made one way.

And even for a given material, the failure mode is that enough of the material evaporates for it to lose structural strength and snap. Implying that you could use more of the same material with the same efficiency but improve structural strength.

> And leds, of course are different.

They don't operate in a universe with different physical laws, proving that incumbent incandescent bulbs are nowhere near the limits physics imposes on efficiency.

You don't have to ban longer lifetimes unless you're afraid someone will find a way to do better.

Re: How to get stuff repaired when the manufacturer don't wanna: take 'em to court

#309

Post by AnthonyMouse »

elzbardico wrote: post #209
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like classic corporate bamboozlery. Find some real trade off that actually exists and then exaggerate its importance or pretend that no other solutions can be found when in fact they don't want solutions because the problem is profitable. Undoubtedly there are some alternate materials you could make a light bulb out of that present a trade off between longevity and efficiency. But there will also be mater…

I call this the "Prager-U law": For every issue created by cartels or monopolies, there will be at least one "Akschually..." competitive explanation from libertarians that will either give a completely benign explanation of why this is actually good for your or blame the government/regulations for the issue. Those explanations will become memes and every single time the subject is discussed they will be brandished by…

The better way to understand libertarianism is to characterize regulation as something like "a rule anybody makes up and then punishes people for violating it even if they never agreed to follow it." Now you don't need to resort to weird contortions to handle cartels and things because they're just a form of government and therefore something to be limited in order to restore the benefits of free market competition.
Post reply on HN