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

681–690 of 877 posts

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#681

Post by woah »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #678
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…

It should be the place of Government to ensure that these externalities are re-addressed (e.g. by taxing companies on every item of theirs which goes into landfill), and for us the citizens to lobby them to do so. That won't eliminate the externality. All appliances will now cost $X more. In the meantime, the government will have collected $X*N more revenue, but it won't have gone toward recycling the decommissioned…

So is your argument that there should never be any taxes of any kind (anarcho-primitivism)?

If that's not your argument, then what is unique about landfill taxes that make them more likely to be "gifted to special interests"?

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#682

Post by topspin »

zer00eyz wrote: post #280
foobarian wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with the current market is that it's next to impossible to determine the quality of a machine. I would gladly pay $3000 for a washer if I could somehow tell that it will be better built, with higher quality metals, inner parts, and overall longer lasting. But it seems that the extra money these days just buys more flashy bells and whistles that just increase the chance of failure. Sadly my strategy has bee…

For tools (think saws and drills) this is changing somewhat. Check out AVE on youtube, his teardown are great! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChWv6Pn_zP0rI6lgGt3MyfA

The popularity of AvE is telling; clearly many people want to know what they are buying.

His detailed teardowns are very interesting; he shares a lot of knowledge about polymers and electronics and combines this with practical experience about failure modes and use cases. At the end of the day it's clear that you get what you pay for if you know what you're doing. Some of his assertions about how manufacturers use brands parallel this story.

I think a lot of the HN set would not be able to tolerate the guy, however. He is not 'reformed,' to say the least.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#683

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #632
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politica…

This exploitation of cheap foreign labor is a big reason why rural America is doing so poorly. Corporations used to go to rural America for cheap labor, but because of our environmental and labor laws as well as our higher standard of living, it's not viable. I honestly don't see how this trend can continue without destabilizing our country.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#684

Post by rhino369 »

emodendroket wrote: post #129
MichaelBurge wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around 40%[1] of the population rents, which means 40% doesn't make the purchasing decision for many appliances. We can sanity-check your argument with this: That reasoning should predict no change in the quality of commercial appliances used in apartment complexes and laundromats, since these customers are used to making spreadsheets with a capital expenditures budget that they pay into for 30 years. [1] http://www.…

Have you never rented or something? Landlords don't expect tenants to take care of the appliances and buy the cheapest crap out there.

This is the big difference between "luxury" apartments and "lower income" apartments. The Luxury buildings slap in high end appliances and some granite countertenors and BAM it costs 500 dollars more a month.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#685

Post by greenshackle2 »

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…

A lot of people want cheap stuff. Cheap PC laptops are still popular.

Anecdata: Most people I know outside of my circles of engineers, gamers and well-off college students who disproportionately own Thinkpads, Asus gaming laptops and Macs respectively, still own throwaway PC laptops.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#686

Post by rconti »

Washuu wrote: post #250
zymhan wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, no, a top-loader should certainly lock while it's running. When that thing spins to drain all of the water out, it moves dangerously fast. You should double check that there's not something wrong with it. Also, after growing up with a top-loader, and having a front-loader at my current apartment, I'm amazed at how much water is used and wasted by a top-loader. It's like filling a damn bathtub.

Top loaders have no need to lock when they are running for the prevention of putting limbs in them while they are moving. The moment the lid is opened the lid switch is tripped which shuts the washer off. Maybe you are thinking of a locking mechanism to keep someone from drowning in one?

My top-load Whirlpool locks the lid when in operation.

It's also an utter piece of crap. No wonder the former owners of the home elected to take their fridge but not their washer/dryer. Do NOT buy a top-load High Efficiency washer. IMO, without an agitator (it just has a nipple-shaped thing at the bottom that serves only to twist drawstrings into knots that absolutely ruin the garment) and without adequate water, a top-loader cannot clean clothes properly.

My front-loader at my old place was vastly superior in every way. Probably used less water, too.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#687

Post by rconti »

throwappliance wrote: post #337
nsxwolf wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate our front loader. All our towels are moldy. I can never get the smell out. The machine emits a vile rotten egg smell during the spin cycle. I hate all our appliances. Every last one of them. From the microwave that lasted a year to the freezer that leaks water and ruined my hardwood floors. They're all garbage. Horrible, horrible expensive garbage.

Front loaders are the worst. I got stuck with one in a rental . I've managed to make it acceptable by doing 3 things. First, I switched the hot and cold water inputs. My machine's idea of "warm" was actually more like "very very cold". Now, it gets enough heat. I also cranked up my water heater as high as it would go. These two changes effectively take care of all mildew issues. Don't listen to all of the horrible wa…

You know what's worse? A modern top-loader (a high-efficiency one). I'll trade you. My top loader is absolute shit, and the front-loader we used to have was perfect. It's not remotely difficult to leave the door open and never have a mildew issue.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#688

Post by [deleted] »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #563
slim wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mean Time Between Failures

That's an interesting contrast. I mean, you're correct, but why is the acronym "between" instead of "before"? As the article describes, when replacing a part costs a comparable amount to the price of a brand-new appliance, people buy new appliances. With this mindset, the correct term is no longer "between" failures - when you might replace a part and average the described time until the next failure - but "before" f…

[deleted]

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#689

Post by rconti »

geekifier wrote: post #594
therealmarv wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe you will find nowhere toploader. We know they are poor engineering: Bad water and electricity efficiency combined with more stress and wear out for the fabrics during washing. Only plus side I can see is that it is faster... but wasting so much resources does not justifies it IMHO.

This is not true. Modern top loaders, such as Samsung High Efficiency top loaders don't waste water like the old mechanical top loaders. They weigh the clothing, adjusting the water levels accordingly. They also don't have agitators, and wear fabrics less than the spinning action of a rotating drum. For a 2nd story laundry, they are a no-brainer, because the spin cycle (which is much faster than an old-school top loa…

No. They're fucking terrible. Don't buy one. Buy a front-loader. Trust me.

Why would a spin cycle wear clothes more when oriented one direction versus the other?

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#690

Post by jdbernard »

dang wrote: post #656
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…

> Of course this site is dedicated to the idea he expressed Whoa! Where on earth did you get that idea? This site is dedicated to being interesting. Making things last is interesting. The software that runs HN has lasted a decade so far and we would love it to achieve 1950s refrigerator longevity.

I can understand where he is coming from. As a community we do spend a lot of time talking about companies and products that are definitely not going to last. If building to last is a priority it's not very high on the list.

The growth curve of the venture-backed companies native to this community seems to be "get as big as you can as fast as you can." That's not necessarily in contradiction to building something that lasts, but it does seem like long-term considerations are often cast aside in favor of the funding round.

Similarly, the idea of pivoting your business is not necessarily contrary to the idea of building things to last. Obviously it does no good for anyone to build things no one wants, regardless of how long it lasts. Still, it does make it hard to plan for ten years from now knowing we may abandon the current direction in six months. Or that the team building the product may have entirely turned over within those ten years.

Enough of the companies and products we love and discuss here get acquired and shut down that it is a semi-regular topic in our community. That's not building to last.

Even the big players in our community are not really committed to products long-term. Change is the name of the game. Disruption does not lend itself to long-term stability. We don't actually value the company creating reliable, predictable products. We value the company disrupting that company with untested, immature products.

The attitude of our whole industry is tied to the ephemeral. We don't stay with employers long enough to see things through over ten year periods. And generally we all praise the more flexible job arrangements. I know I personally have benefited from it, but I know it was always left a hole in team I was leaving.

So I can understand why he would get that idea.

Post reply on HN