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

771–780 of 877 posts

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#771

Post by redsummer »

PuffinBlue wrote: post #615
bartread wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 to this. I bought a Miele vacuum cleaner in 2012 to replace a bagless Electrolux unit I'd had since I moved into my house. Yes, it was four times the price but it's more than four times the vacuum cleaner. E.g., the Electrolux couldn't handle sucking up plaster dust (I kid you not), and was an absolute nightmare to empty - you had to do it outside or you'd get dust everywhere. The Miele will suck up anything dry,…

Numatic[1] has always been my vacuum of choice. The best part is you can get spares. Hose cracks? £12 for a new one. Wheel breaks? £8 delivered. I bought expensive high end Miele's (washer and dryer) but they broke within 6 years and getting spares was crazy expensive and limited to just a couple places. The discussion here has revolved around paying more for better quality but something the repair tech opened my eye…

Yeah, I forgot about the Henry and George. A good choice if you're in the UK (made in UK). Hotels and office cleaners use them a lot - which is a sure mark of reliability.

I've actually got a Neato robot vac now. I'm not sure if moving chairs and rugs etc to prepare the way for the robot takes more time than actually non-robot vacuuming. It's calming to see it go around on its own though.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#772

Post by cc439 »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #719
nneonneo wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just bought all new appliances for my house a few years back. If anything, I was bowled over by all the players in this space and had to do a lot of legwork in regards to reviews. I really don't think lack of competition is an issue. The post specifically addresses this: most of the brands you see have actually been consolidated into a small number of manufacturers. Brands under the same parent corporation may on…

It still doesn't matter. GE is run by its own management and engineers. It doesn't matter that its all owned by one Chinese conglomerate or NBC or whoever. They're not re-badging Shenzhen #1 Super Fast Machine with the GE tag. Corporate ownership is, generally, an abstract that shouldn't matter in most cases. Unless they're purposely cutting lines or just rebadging stuff, then reading reviews is still the solution he…

>Unless they're purposely cutting lines or just rebadging stuff

This is exactly what they're doing. Your example, GE, actually sold off it's appliance division to Haier. They had also been relabeling LG appliances for years prior to the sale of the entire division. The article for this thread also made note of the fact that "Kenmore" is nothing but an umbrella label under which includes products from almost every manufacturer. The only difference between my Kenmore refrigerator and the LG equivalent is the label on the door and the far lower number of reviews on the Kenmore due to its limited distribution. Unfortunately, the LG was widely known to be junk but since the Kenmore was exclusive to Sears, there was no information available to make this connection until I had it disassembled in my home and I began to look up part numbers to fix it.

Source 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/business/dealbook/haier-g...

Source 2: http://www.appliance411.com/purchase/make.shtml

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#773

Post by sqeaky »

crazygringo wrote: post #760

But they're cheaper, by something like 75% (and even more when you take energy efficiency into account). [1] For people who move every few years, whose requirements change (from solo to 4-person family), and so on, the current situation is pretty ideal. Spend less money, change models more frequently to fit your changing needs, and often it's even cheaper to buy a new one than to get it fixed -- which for consumers i…

This is so I don't see why people ignore. I bet you can go buy high end appliances that will last 50 years. But would anyone want to be using it in 50 years?

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#774

Post by hx87 »

sixdimensional wrote: post #643
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…

Ironically, I work for a manufacturer who tries to support their product for at least 20-30 years, but obsolescence is an incredible challenge due to use of a lot of commercial of the shelf electronics which themselves go obsolete at a ridiculous pace. What I'm saying is, even if you try to engineer a product to last, if the supply chain supporting you isn't to doing the same, the problem often compounds. In my case,…

What if your company decided to sacrifice features for maintainability and kept the electronics in the product to a minimum? There might be a strong market for something that does only 1-2 things but can be maintained indefinitely with simple materials and tools.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#775

Post by hx87 »

ljf wrote: post #693
chinathrow wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 2002 Volvo V70, which I bought second hand a couple of years ago, is so reliable that I consider buying a Volvo again.

Plus 1 - my 2002 v70 had quarter a million on the clock and was very happy. 2.4 diesel was built to last. Not sure how the newer greener engines would be, all diesels now need a DPF that needs changing regularly, or a similar device to keep emissions down. I bought another (newers and sadly non Volvo) diesel, and I'm regretting it on a longevity POV - it's a great car now, but without pouring money into I'm not sure…

Any diesel engine that has SCR and isn't miserly on the urea should be good to go. It's the ones that cheap out and rely excessively on EGR that you should watch out for.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#776

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

lb1lf wrote: post #384
curun1r wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would gladly pay $3000 for a washer if I could somehow tell that it will be better built Perhaps you should check out commercial washers. The kind that you find in laundromats are designed to take a lot more punishment than the residential ones.

I purchased my appliances with much the same idea in mind; I wanted something that would last, period. Turns out around here (Scandinavia), the brand to beat is Miele, which also seems to enjoy a near monopoly in pro gear, from what I can tell (Just about every vessel I've ever sailed on carries Miele gear in their laundries. I cannot recall ever seeing anything else.) Also, after asking around at a place repairing a…

If you want a higher-end appliance, European is often the way to go. Miele is a great example, but there are others.

Especially when it comes to laundry, the 'European' style is to use longer cycles that are gentler on clothes, quieter, and usually more efficient (whether on water or power use).

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#777

Post by sangnoir »

sqeaky wrote: post #773
crazygringo wrote: post #760

But they're cheaper, by something like 75% (and even more when you take energy efficiency into account). [1] For people who move every few years, whose requirements change (from solo to 4-person family), and so on, the current situation is pretty ideal. Spend less money, change models more frequently to fit your changing needs, and often it's even cheaper to buy a new one than to get it fixed -- which for consumers i…

This is so I don't see why people ignore. I bet you can go buy high end appliances that will last 50 years. But would anyone want to be using it in 50 years?

> But would anyone want to be using it in 50 years?

I would happily use a washing machine, dishwasher or fridge that is 50 years old. The only tech advances related to those gadgets that would concern me are CFCs in the refrigerant.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#778

Post by sqeaky »

platz wrote: post #759
marcosdumay wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be the default state of every appliance, just because it should outcompete every other player. (Who would buy something that breaks?) It isn't. So, there's something very flawed on my reasoning above. Do people want stuff that breaks, is the problem a market for lemons? Or what else?

Capitalism maximizes benefits to Capital, not consumers or labor.

I think the implication is that if consumers are well informed they will lookout for their own needs and try to buy goods of sufficient quality.

If enough consumers do this the market for junk should fail. In some markets it has and in others it hasn't, apparently in appliances junk prevails.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#779

Post by sqeaky »

deegles wrote: post #753
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 don't think it's a conscious, malicious strategy. Just a reality of manufacturing. Let's imagine a market where 1,000 people need a widget, with 10 new people per year. You design and develop a 100% reliable widget and quickly sell 1,000 of them (recouping your development costs). You need to sell 10 per year to stay in business. Other companies see your success and rush to market with a less reliable but cheaper w…

So this is why Dyson no longer sells vacuums and Apple No longer sells phones. Sorry for the sarcasm

Premium products can command premium prices. They just don't move the same volume.

Re: They Used To Last 50 Years

#780

Post by _ea1k »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #639
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, based upon the 1000 cycle count, Teslas will start to depreciate pretty badly at somewhere between 215,000 and 350,000 miles.

Is that bad?

Post reply on HN