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

631–640 of 877 posts

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#631

Post by zackbloom »

I think people saying this is done to intentionally build low quality things which have to be replaced are wrong. I also think people who think appliances weren't better in the 50s are wrong. This is optimization, plain and simple. The appliance manufacturers have figured out EXACTLY how think metal needs to be, how well painted, etc to create a product which will sell. If you want them to change their equation, consumers will need to change how they decide what to buy.

Fortunately technology is making it easier for us to read reviews and get more information. Hopefully we will soon live in a world where manufacturers are obligated to get good reviews five and ten years after their appliance is sold. That said, the technique of folding a brand and spinning up a new one is a great way to bypass these consequences.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#632

Post by Cthulhu_ »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #625
gommm wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's obvious that companies do this sort of thing. The main thing that prevented it in the past was that parts and labour were actually a significant cost, so things would be more expensive (in real terms) than today. When a TV or washing machine could be as much as 100% of a month's salary for a family, people couldn't afford a new one every 4 years. Companies realised this, so they made stuff that lasted longer. Bu…

I'm afraid your corollary won't apply; the lowest wages will just move elsewhere. There already was a company in China that moved production to the US because of wages there (plus transport costs, etc). I could see countries in Africa become the next manufacturing powerhouse(s), direct access to major seaways to both the US, Europe and Asia, etc. I don't know if they have the natural resources though, or the political stability for that matter.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#634

Post by Fifer82 »

filterfish wrote: post #609
rbcgerard wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your point, I saw or heard an interview with a Ford engineer a while back where he basically said look we know how to make parts that last forever, but they are heavy and expensive. He went on to say people want more affordable cars (cheaper parts) and we need to make cars lighter for fuel efficiency standards (lighter parts), so they set an internal goal of 10 years of longevity for a part, and then try and make…

It's a fucking washing machine, 10kg extra isn't going to make any difference.

I seen an article on the ring pulls on top of coke cans. They are hollow because it has a huge impact on raw materials usage (over the course of 10 million cans). I think every gram counts to the bottom line of the share holders no matter how mundane. Similar to the UK Construction Industry. Hit the minimum possible legal requirement and charge the maximum amount of money.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#635

Post by Cthulhu_ »

mozey wrote: post #538
2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In NL, whenever you buy a new appliance, you (the consumer) have to pay a "removal fee", which is a few% or a fixed price depending on the product - think like €15 for a washing machine. This is used for the shop you buy a product from to take away your old one, and to cover some of the costs of recycling (I guess the materials in a dishwasher aren't valuable enough on their own to warrant recycling for the sake of making money off of it. Probably not many reusable parts either)

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#636

Post by Bartweiss »

lsaferite wrote: post #548
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…

I think that's what is called survivor bias, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Could be, but apparently isn't. Five-year failure rates due to defects are up 5% over just the last decade.

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/25...

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#637

Post by ctrl-j »

zackbloom wrote: post #631

I think people saying this is done to intentionally build low quality things which have to be replaced are wrong. I also think people who think appliances weren't better in the 50s are wrong. This is optimization, plain and simple. The appliance manufacturers have figured out EXACTLY how think metal needs to be, how well painted, etc to create a product which will sell. If you want them to change their equation, cons…

> Hopefully we will soon live in a world where manufacturers are obligated to get good reviews five and ten years after their appliance is sold.

I don't know of a product I have recently bought that is the same model that was sold 5-10 years ago. When I'm looking up a product to buy, I look for the model I'm intending to buy. Likewise, when I'm asked for a review, it's from a product the company is currently marketing.

I focus my dollars on companies with better customer service records, but beyond that, how should I "encourage" companies that build things to last? Especially when few companies build with that mentality?

Even typical "built-to-last" brands like craftsman and kitchen-aid can no longer be trusted to not fall apart. The only thing I can think to really kick-start better quality, is to enforce mandatory a 5-year (or 10-year?) warranty.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#638

Post by paulajohnson »

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…

I have a complaint letter written by my father-in-law back in the 50s about his car, which had seized up three times. The manufacturer wrote back to say it was his fault for driving at the same speed all the time, and he should vary his speed to prevent this happening.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#639

Post by Cthulhu_ »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #584
PietdeVries wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be that the lifespan of a appliance is shortened because it his to be more energy-efficient? The old fridges (and car-engines, or antything) were not very economic. A few decades ago getting 10 km per liter of petrol was more or less standard. Now the engine with the same cilinders (1.6 liter for instance) easily get as much as 20 km for the same liter of petrol. The engine is highly optimized by cutting awa…

I have to disagree with this premise as it pertains to automobile engines. Automobile engines have improved tremendously in "lifespan" or Time Before OverHaul. In the '70's and '80's it was a challenge to get an engine to last 100,000 miles. They needed frequent oil changes, spark plugs replaced, had other short-life wearable parts (ignition parts), water pumps to replace, fuel pumps to replace, alternators went bad,…

This is why I'm rather afraid of Tesla and their batteries - you know batteries, whether intentional or not, only last for about 1000 charge cycles, or in the case of Tesla for about 7-10 years, before they have to be replaced - which won't be cheap.

This will be an Issue that will be highlighted very soon. We'll see a huge devaluation in secondhand Tesla cars, since replacing the battery will be more expensive than replacing an engine in a car (I believe), plus it'll have to be done every ten years - while a car can keep the same engine for decades, especially when some of the wearables like timing belts and seals and such are replaced.

I hope Tesla will recognise this too and do something about it - battery replacement programs, preferably where they can replace batteries with higher-capacity ones as time goes by.

I don't see how owning a car in full can work for electric cars, not when the battery needs to be replaced every ten years. I don't know what the lifespan of the drive unit is either.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#640

Post by vidarh »

razzaj wrote: post #450
mixedbit wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Market for Lemons rule is that if consumers are unable to recognize quality and crap products while buying, after some time all the products on the market are crap.

I know that thesis. But i find that the middle class usually has a propensity to buying the more expensive items (even if it ends up being only marginally better than crap) because of a different dynamic. and it always puzzled me, i see it as an uninformed, irrationally positive, outlook generated by the mean fact of paying more for a "brand", because "surely it is better".

But if the consumer has no way of telling which is better there's no reason for the manufacturers to use quality as the determining factor for setting the price. Instead they'll focus on making it look more expensive or add features you'll never use in order to win market share.
Post reply on HN