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

361–370 of 396 posts

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#361

Post by pseudalopex »

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.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#362

Post by eudamoniac »

eesmith wrote: post #357
eudamoniac wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could go back through my history to find the specific source I used, but it has absolutely no bearing on the point of the post, since even your McDonald's prices are higher than the current app+value menu prices, so I'm not going to and I struggle to understand why you wrote all that to not refute the central point.

Since the McDonald's burger is now cheaper (after adjusting for inflation) then is it also worse than it was in 1970? Because if it's the same or better than it sure sounds an example of why people may have acquired "some implicit feeling that everything ought to be getting better and cheaper than it used to be". My original comment was to mention that one of your numbers seemed rather high. To keep from it being a y…

> Since the McDonald's burger is now cheaper (after adjusting for inflation) then is it also worse than it was in 1970?

Probably? I'm not going to assert it but I would be unsurprised.

> Because if it's the same or better than it sure sounds an example of why people may have acquired "some implicit feeling that everything ought to be getting better and cheaper than it used to be".

Again, what is your point? I'm sure there exists more than a few examples of things getting cheaper and better, maybe even most things? That doesn't mean it is a universal phenomenon that should be expected and cause anger when it doesn't happen.

Your multi-paragraphs about the dress... also doesn't refute the point that things were more expensive back then. There are many Temu dresses for <$10 which was $1.50 in 1970. The 1970 Sears catalog has most dresses around $10. Okay, great, the dress you prefer to compare is "only" 6.7x more expensive. You got me! Great work choosing cheaper examples than I did, for sheer pedantry! Muting you now as I don't find your post history otherwise valuable.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#363

Post by swah »

enraged_camel wrote: post #77
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.

First day of my college freshman year, I purchased a Targus backpack for the heavy ass gaming laptop I had back then. I still use it decades later. It has carried stuff inside it for tens of thousands of miles, seen lots of abuse, weathered all sorts of conditions, and is still in really good shape. Not a single tear. Every compartment, every feature works the way it did on day of purchase. I'm honestly amazed every…

What if its just bad use? I have some nice Targus model that I actually bought a second one because the zippers were opening. To my surprise, in a few weeks I got my first instance of zippers opening. Of course, I was overstuffing a bit at the top. I remembered that I had removed some guards that transform this model from more like a regular backpack to a clamshell. Maybe that is a very important feature I have to use, or the zippers will fail, when you carry a basketball there...

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#364

Post by tpholland »

Lio wrote: post #291
delichon wrote: post #97

I've got a story of this but backwards. I know a guy, a hiking guru, moderately famous for his backpacks. He's an ultralight long distance enthusiast who designs much of his own equipment. I went to his house for a weekend session with a few people to learn to make our own, and I'm still using the one I made. For a few years he made and sold them out of his living room. Then he sold his brand to an outfit that scaled…

I agree. I don't really get worseonpurpose's argument here. I have two proper backpacks, an old UK made Karimor Jaguar from the late 80s and an OMM Classic 32 I bought recently. Although the Jag is pretty good shape considering its age it's the OMM that I reach for now. The OMM is actually modern take on an old Karimor design from 1973 but if you take all the removable bits off it comes in at around 380g. That's almo…

> Karrimor Jaguar

Nice. Karrimor backpacks (or rucksacks/daypacks as we called them back then) were the high water mark--I worked in the industry in the 80s and, in the tone of the article, it's very sad to see what's happened to Karrimor and Berghaus today, but back then they drove one another to new heights. I was always a fan or Lowe's stuff, who were the other UK giant.

All three brands were let down by the waterproof layers whcih after about ten years would degrade in horrible ways. Prior to the 90s this was less of a problem.

Aiguille are great. Probably the best bags around now. They will also make them to fit. When I was selling bags, fit was a big issue and if you made out that one size fitted all that would be seen as a sign of cheapness/cost cutting/lack of attention to detail. Karrimor and Berghaus both did their flagship bags in different back lengths, and companies competed hard on the diffent fitting systems.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#365

Post by ChoGGi »

phil21 wrote: post #288
convolvatron wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your friend was heavily using a cheap tool at a job site. After the first one broke, the course of action is to go to home depot and buy the prosumer Milwaukee or Dewalt and return the harbor freight as time allows. The point is you only need the expensive stuff rarely. You don’t triple down on cheap crap you actually use and abuse. I’ve yet to see anyone lose money (including accounting for time) with this strategy.…

This guy gets it, always start out with the cheap tool if you use it enough that it breaks than you spend more money.

I know guys with garages full of expensive tools they barely use because they don't want to be seen with a can tire tool.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#366

Post by m000 »

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…

> So it is often the case that today, you can get something for cheaper than you ever could in the past (albeit not at a great quality), and if you are willing to pay higher prices (but often about the same as you would have paid in the past), you can still get good or even better quality.

But with the advent and advances of several decades, aren't you supposed to be able to get better quality for cheaper today?

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#368

Post by BobbyJo »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #359
BobbyJo wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Census tracks income, its just harder to pull out since they don't provide nice charts like the fed.

Well there's this which goes back to 1967: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2025/demo/p60-... I'm having trouble finding the raw data though. In any case I'm not seeing any big drop in the 1970s.

That's household income. You need to adjust for the change in households with multiple earners. That's why I said the census data is dirty and conflates things. The number of households with both parents working increased from 46% to 52%, so median household income staying flat means median income for individuals went down pretty significantly.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#369

Post by drBonkers »

libartsreader wrote: post #360
dualvariable wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you used to be able to afford steak and now all you can afford is ground turkey, readjusting the basket of goods for that shift in "preference" is just hiding the fact that nobody can afford steak anymore. And similarly, the hedonic adjustments to smartphones sort of implicitly claim that the $100 cheap smartphone you can buy today is worth $8000 back in 2009 because of how much better processors and memory ha…

The assertion that the CPI simultaneously overlooks downward product substitution and prices in product improvements in order to paint an overly-rosy picture is belied by the fact that most stuff is cheaper than it’s ever been. Thirty years ago, internet service was $2.95/hour (in 1996 dollars!), long-distance phone calls were 10 cents/minute, and a low-res 28” color TV with 5 channels cost a fortune.

I don't care about internet service, long distance phone calls, or TVs. I care about shelter, groceries, healthcare, and education. I can forego the former, I must buy the latter.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#370

Post by Gormo »

bovermyer wrote: post #344
Gormo wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "allow" implies that some entity called "we" exists, and has the capacity to exercise control over over unrelated third-parties' ability to engage in organized activity. No such entity exists, nor has such capacity.

In theory, governments have the ability to curtail the activity of corporations. Are you challenging that idea?

Yes. Governments are themselves just organizations of people doing things, based on the same motivations and incentive structures as every other organization. The distinction between corporations, governments, and every other form of organized activity in society is an illusion.
Post reply on HN