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

They Used To Last 50 Years

recraigslist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 877 posts

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#531

Post by hjnilsson »

tracker1 wrote: post #405
M_Grey wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that, and a home appliance doesn't cost 1/7th of your annual budget anymore. Some things were built to last because to justify the expense, they had to last. James May (unusually) made a very good point that the "good old days" is an illusion created by survivorship bias, nostalgia, and failure to understand economics. The survivorship bias especially should be obvious: Lots of cheap crap was made throughout the…

Well, there's buckling spring model-m style keyboards, or even other keyswitch keyboards vs typical gel membrane keyboards... but even then, the casing material and backplate on a newer unicomp doesn't match the older IBM keyboards... it's definitely cheaper plastic everywhere except the keys themselves. Unicomp are about the only kb mfg today whose keys don't show obvious wear within a year of purchase. Even Lego is…

The keyboards are significantly cheaper as well. The Model M keyboard retailed for 150$, which would be almost 400$ in today's money. For 400$ I guarantee you you will find a keyboard with a thick casing and quality plastic today.

These product comparisons all fail because today, we can make so much cheaper products than we could back then. And we are now comparing the cheapest crap (even a 100$ keyboard is cheap in comparison to the Model M) with MUCH more expensive products from the past. (Lego might be an exception here, as that product is the same)

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#532

Post by nommm-nommm »

prodmerc wrote: post #8

I've worked on hundreds of domestic appliances. Newer ones from any manufacturer are indeed failing more often, and are designed worse. The only explanation is that this is on purpose - just like cars or laptops or smartphones, they are designed to fail faster so you buy new ones. Planned obsolescence, plain and simple. The best appliances today, by the way, are made by Bosch/Siemens and Miele. None of the other manu…

Cars are designed to fail faster? Um...No. not even close.

My experience, as well as facts, don't support that. Cars are lasting longer than ever. The average age of a car on the road is highest it's ever been.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/29/new-car-sales...

I remember when I was a kid, as a rule of thumb, people would say to expect a car last for 100,000 miles. Now I'd expect closer to double that.

I'm actually pretty amazed at the quality of modern cars.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#533

Post by ainiriand »

skywhopper wrote: post #529

I seriously doubt a real study of appliance reliability over the past 70 years would show that the stuff sold in the 50s is actually more reliable or longer-lasting than the stuff sold today. Sure, you can find appliances that old that still work fine, but you don't see the ones that broke down after a year or two--they were junked decades ago and forgotten about. Since you can't grow the supply of working 50-year-ol…

In the URSS the appliances had a mandatory 25 year warranty. So, it makes sense to me...

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#535

Post by IshKebab »

photojosh wrote: post #180
valuearb wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maximizing profits also involves making products at the price points customers want. If customers don't want to pay for 50 year appliances, why should they make one?

I do want to pay more for a 50 year appliance. How can I tell it will last 50 years? I was going to suggest that a lengthy warranty would be a good guide, but gcb0 below says their LG came with a 10 year warranty which was worthless because it didn't cover one part.

Exactly. What incentive is there for manufacturers to make appliances that last 50 years when consumers won't even be able to tell? They'll just buy the cheapest one anyway.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#536

Post by selimthegrim »

pcurve wrote: post #113
theamk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a much simpler explanation: people want to buy cheap stuff. If given a choice between $1200 appliance which lasts 25 years, and $1000 appliance which last 15 years, and no infomation about the actual lifetimes, most people would choose the cheaper model. The people feel good, the sales rise, and who cares what happens in 15 years -- the company will have different execs by that time. And once people get used…

I think the problem is more complex. It's not that people 'want' to buy cheap stuff. That's the mistake PC laptop makers made for 20 years, collective racing to the bottom until they figured out ways to produce $300 laptop. But they eventually learned that a large consumer base had no problem paying $1200 for a MacBook. It turns out, people were willing to pay substantially more for a better product. Now, PC makers a…

See also: the story of Volkswagen AG and its parts for American vs European cars (esp Passats)

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#537

Post by perlgeek »

lordnacho wrote: post #45

He mentions it in the article: It's a failure of feedback that makes this happen. If people can't get reliable information about quality, quality will not determine what they buy. Price will, and price is readily available. To get price down, you need costs down. To do that, you replace the parts with crappy parts. If feedback worked, people would know they were paying less for a less good appliance that will have mo…

Companies could offer a 20 year warranty to signal that their products are intended to last a long time.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#538

Post by mozey »

2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote: post #520
expnsv_hdphns wrote: post #512

When I went to the first semester of engineering school at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, there was a class called Engineering Professional Development 160: Introduction to Engineering. One of the early class sessions was a lecture from a guy at a power tool company, making some kind of jigsaw or handheld cutting tool. He explicitly told us, paraphrasing, "You don't want to make your product too reliable, bec…

Whilst this is clearly how no company should aspire to be, it's easy to understand that they want to make a profit, and if you design a "once in a lifetime" product, you'll find yourself out of business within 10 years or so after everyone owns said product. The outcome is planned obsolescence as highlighted in this article. As the article also points out, not only does this damage us economically, it also damages us…

> by taxing companies on every item of theirs which goes into landfill

Second that idea. From my perspective, if recycling was perfect the only limitation on single use items would be how convenient it is to dispose and obtain another one. Also, I hate searching for new clothes that fit when the current options go out of fashion.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#539

Post by defined »

computator wrote: post #312
pnathan wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime I do anything around appliance shopping, the ability to get information about what is actually quality is near zero. It's SEO'd, spammed, paid-reviewed, and marketed into the ground. Mattresses are similar, but fortunately, there is https://www.themattressunderground.com/ , which is a high quality site. I bought a Tuft and Needle mattress based on my learning there and it has been spectacular. Similar needs t…

> appliance shopping, the ability to get information about what is actually quality is near zero Do you know about Consumer Reports?[1] It's a non-profit organization which puts out a magazine (and website) which does unbiased product testing, has zero advertising, pays for all the products they test, never takes sample products, buys all their products anonymously (so they can't be given better samples for testing p…

> The downsides of Consumer Reports are as follows:

Another downside, as the article pointed out, is the intentional smokescreen of multiple product names and slightly differing versions that make comparison shopping and meaningful reviews virtually impossible, and why I don't get as much value from my Consumer Reports subscription as I used to.

This is particularly prevalent in the mattress industry.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#540

Post by gommm »

expnsv_hdphns wrote: post #512

When I went to the first semester of engineering school at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, there was a class called Engineering Professional Development 160: Introduction to Engineering. One of the early class sessions was a lecture from a guy at a power tool company, making some kind of jigsaw or handheld cutting tool. He explicitly told us, paraphrasing, "You don't want to make your product too reliable, bec…

I had a similar experience in a mechanical engineering class, our professor was discussing MTBF (mean time between failure) and how calculating this more accurately allowed companies to better engineer their product for obsolescence. For a company, a product that is too reliable is unprofitable in the long term and so they adjust by making sure that the product works beyond the terms of the warranty but not much more.

My professor was himself horrified by that (but he was a teacher because he believed in not working for corporations so that was not very surprising)

I do know one company that has a reputation for not doing this. Miele in Europe but then their appliances are double to triple the price of typical companies.

EDIT: corrected Mean Time Between Failure instead of Mean Time Before Failure. Thanks slim

Post reply on HN