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

371–380 of 396 posts

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#371

Post by kimos »

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…

A subreddit or forum like this is a good resource:

https://old.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/

But it turns every decision into an exhausting research and optimization project.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#372

Post by dualvariable »

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.

> a low-res 28” color TV with 5 channels cost a fortune.

Uh, back in 2000 (okay not quite 30 years ago, but getting close) I had a 36" Sony Wega which cost around $1500 with DirectTV and hundreds of channels. A 25" to 27" TV was more of a 1988 kind of thing (which is almost 40 years ago now). Being limited to 5 OTA channels was more of a 1980 thing.

But again you can't really buy that Sony Wega anymore, even though the CPI probably prices it at $20 these days.

Back 50 years ago, average household spend on the Internet was also $0, so it was very cheap, we weirdly didn't spend anything on it when I was growing up. Now I spend $80/month on it, and have trouble finding anything cheaper around here.

If you want to consider "communications spend", back in 1988, you might have spent $50/month on your landline, cable tv and newspaper subscription. Today households tend to spend $280/month on internet, wireless and streaming/cable services. That is actually double the CPI. They get lots more for that, but the cost of being an average middle class household has grown at double the CPI. And these days you need the internet in order to keep up with Joneses, it isn't really a choice.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#374

Post by mancerayder »

genewitch wrote: post #315
rozab wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dead horse but I find it astonishing that people can still miss AI writing like this. Don't you find it incredibly grating that every paragraph grinds to a halt while 3 sentence fragments are repeated? Same rhetorical devices. Same tone. Same pointless constructions. That's not good writing. It's cheap parlour tricks. The rhythm continues almost as though the writing is in verse—with the effect of hypnotizing the rea…

this comment reeks of AI too, and the fact i can't tell if you're being tongue in cheek means i'm cooked

He or she is good at satirizing it!

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#375

Post by itbeho »

busterarm wrote: post #59
kstrauser wrote: post #29

I gritted my teeth and bought a GoRuck GR1 a year ago. If it fell into a volcano, which is what it might take to destroy it, I’d buy another one. It’s still possible to find “buy it for life” backpacks but be prepared for eye-watering price tags.

Seriously, I've had my GR1 since 2013 and it's still flawless. It replaced my bike messenger bags (Chrome, Mission Workshop). It's been through sand, mud, dust and just shakes the abuse off like nothing. I do wish half the time though that I'd bought a 40L GR2 though.

Another very satisfied GR1 owner here. It has outlasted all my previous packs. I'd lean towards the 26l GR2 if I were looking now.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#376

Post by eesmith »

eudamoniac wrote: post #362
eesmith wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that things weren't as dire in 1970 as you wrote. You can make your same argument without doubling their prices.

I think people are correct to be angry that RAM over the last year has gotten more expensive for the same quality.

I stopped buying jeans 20+ years ago when they started falling apart too quickly, even when I bought them from a Levis store. It may be possible to buy $212 jeans that have the equivalent durability of spending $25 on jeans back in 1970s, but wading through the dreck of expensive crappy jeans sold for brand recognition or where price is used as a false indicator of quality and durability is not worth my time.

That feeling of wasting my time is not captured by simply comparing prices.

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#377

Post by kalleboo »

phil21 wrote: post #279
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…

The best rule of thumb for tools, at least if you have a decent collection of them for diverse but hobby/homeowner level projects is buy the cheapest to do the immediate job and then replace it with an expensive one if it breaks or you use it often and the better version improves efficiency or quality of life. Once in a while you get “burned” and immediately end up buying two tools for the same job, but if that happe…

Buying the cheapest one initially also often teaches me what attributes I should value when I buy the more expensive version. Will I actually use this feature or that feature, or what ergonomic design choice works better for me?

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#379

Post by therealdrag0 »

eitally wrote: post #299
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…

You need to consider usage patterns as you evaluate the cost/quality value curve, though. $35 for a Jansport for a school kid who will brutalize their pack regardless is probably a much better value than a $130 Osprey that is objectively superior but which a teenager would still brutalize to death in 1-2 years of daily school use. Fwiw, my elementary kid is on year 3 with her Lands End pack (which is way crappier tha…

And my partner and I are on the other side of that, we have like 12 packs of every price point and size accumulated over the years, I have a couple 20 years old, and I can’t think of a single broken feature. Im gentle on all my stuff so I don’t need ultra rugged high quality and expensive gear, and I suspect most people don’t (granted kids can be diff).

Re: Backpacks got worse on purpose

#380

Post by BaguetteOps »

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…

Exactly, got one in 2015 in Melb and is still being used daily.
Post reply on HN