▲ 78 points
back
69 comments
Another reason why things are worse and they will keep getting worse.
About a toaster company:
"If you are passionate about toast, you will not work at a company that does not build toasters, that only does marketing. So my central thesis here is that if as an organization, you outsource too much with the idea that we will still retain the designers and our own power to innovate, it will not actually work.
The smart people will not work for your company, because you have turned into a marketing and financing exercise. And the smart engineers, they want to build better toasters, they want to touch actual stuff. So the thing is, there is a point of no return.
If as a company you have outsourced too much. No good engineer will still want to work for your company."
And honestly this doesn't even have to be an allegory to something else, this is literally true about the toaster market right now. There are so few companies that actually design and manufacture toasters themselves.
I ended up buying vintage because it turns out technological advancement has been directed to finding and building an ever more minimal viable toaster to keep prices sorrrrta constant under inflation. So that 80's-90's toaster is delivering value right now.
Hehe. Once went about repairing a rice cooker. Iirc, there were something like 2 different models of the thermal regulator, available from maaaany sellers. Wouldn't surprise me if virtually every rice cooker out there includes one of these few models thermal regulator.
Probably true for many parts. 1 or 2 highly specialized manufacturers that are absolute king in their market niche.
Vendor picks a bunch of such parts, slaps custom housing around it (made by yet another specialist), and moves the boxes. Branding, logistics & perhaps assembly (if not outsourced to 3rd party too), rather than manufacturing most of an appliance themselves.
Man, trying to find a toaster that will evenly toast a slice of tall loaf (which is the default bread where I'm at) is like pulling teeth. I've settled for one that toasts one side much more quickly than the other and resorted to flipping the bread around halfway through. It's much larger than I'd like though since it's built for 4 regular slices. That way I can fit two and two half slices of tall loaf.
Can I just pay someone $50 for a toaster that actually works please?
> So that 80's-90's toaster is delivering value right now.
This is such a nice (and accurate) way to look at it.
Imputed value.
I'm interested to hear about the rest of your setup: espresso machine, clothes washer, car?
Interesting - didn‘t notice that.
I‘m only buying quality stuff and stick to it as long a possible. Most of my cloth are years old. I’m buying a new iPhone if the one i have doesn’t get any updates anymore, and furniture has to outlive me.
I always thought this is reasonable and that everyone would do it that way: Always having high quality stuff, saving money instead of wasting it by continuously buying cheap things!
Seem‘s like i’m really out of touch with the world.
I tend to follow what I call the "toolbox rule," mostly because I've used it the most with tools. If I find I need something, I'll buy a cheap version of it, even if the cheap version is noticeably lower quality (which it almost always is). Then, if I use said cheap version enough that it either breaks or is no longer useful to me anymore, I'll buy a nicer one. It helps me justify the greater expense and demonstrates the need for it.
I've done this with umbrellas, camelbaks, tents, ski equipment, but mostly, as stated before, tools.
For me, this only makes sense for some products. I will do it with reasonably inexpensive, short-lived products where I'm not sure how much use or wear they will get (e.g., drill bits).
But I will do my research and get the better product (which is not necessarily the more expensive product) in these cases:
- I already know that I will use it a lot and wear it out if it is not good. (An example of a tool that falls into this category, for me, would be a drill or a garden hose.)
- The poor quality variant won't (or won't just) wear out, but it will give me worse results and is barely fit for purpose. (An example would be a mitre saw or a sewing machine, where cheaper ones are inaccurate/finicky and ruin projects.)
The counter approach to this is buying the branded version, and then if you're not using it as often as you thought you would, to sell it. It depends on a lot of factors such as age, condition, the product type etc but you can often sell branded products for 2/3 of what you paid for them on eBay, whereas unbranded or cheap products are very difficult to resell.
This is my approach and I generally enjoy nice products until I don’t: buy secondhand on eBay/CraigsList and sell it when/if I don’t need it anymore. The only problem is I notice I don’t feel a sense of “ownership” for most items I buy, it’s not really mine I’m just renting it until I sell it. I think this is largely fine, there are some items I intend to own forever (some film cameras and pens, couple tools) but I wonder if I’m using some of these products differently because I’d this mentality.
I think that's smart, on paper at least.
What so you do about the cheap tools that turn out so bad that they cause damage?
For example, you get a cheap screwdriver, it breaks while you use it, and you end up making a hole in the cabinet you were trying to fix.
While the general approach sounds sane, it seems to me there are a lot of cases where going for the cheap version could cost a lot in collateral damage.
That's not a remotely reasonable example. Cheap screwdrivers will fail to engage properly, wearing out fasteners, and they will break when being used as a lever or punch. But even the cheapest 100% pure Chinesium screwdriver is not going to break in the course of assembling a cabinet.
This really resonates. I've thrown away a lot of money, speculating on what future me will need.
This is essentially the Boots Theory, coined my Terry Pratchett. The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. Men at Arms. p. 32.
Most people don’t have the option to buy quality goods in the first place, so they end up in the money sink trap. Constantly buying replacements for cheaply produced goods.
It only takes buying the same thing 2 or 3 times before it’s more expensive than the quality options anyway.
I think that's true. I also think that many people don't know the difference. I also think people have bought the expensive stuff and it end's up being just as cheap, but had fancy marketing. I also think executives chasing a bonus will take a quality brand and cheapen it for higher profits.
An example, I bought a DeWalt electric pole trimmer. It was expensive, but I bought it because I wanted something that lasted. It broke after a couple of weeks and sits collecting dust. DeWalt used to be known for top quality stuff that contractors use. The brand is now diluted and probably crap.
It really makes me hesitant to buy much anything I don't absolutely need.
No, you are doing the rich man thing; the rich man can afford to buy a $20 pair of boots which lasts 5 years. The poor man can only afford the low-quality $6 pair which lasts a year.
I like the way Terry Pratchett put this in Men At Arms:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots...
Oh so that’s where I remember that from. Thanks! Mr Pratchett was a gift to humanity.
I know this doesn’t change your point but adding a 0 would make it match reality a bit more.
And then multiplying it by 2.
Show me the boots that are 3.3x more expensive but last 5x as long. When buying new, it's very rare that buying expensive actually saves you money.
There’s definitely a point of diminishing returns, but boots from Ross can cost about $45, while a $300 pair of red wings would last a lifetime, if maintained properly. A pair of $1000 boots are definitely beyond that line and will also last a lifetime, while costing 3.3x more
No problem!
I purchased a pair of Chelsea Boots from Churches of London in the late 90s and they still look great today!
I’ve had new soles a few times, and recent had a partial reconstruction; liners, pull tags and so on.
But I’ve had them 25 years and the actual boot leather is still fantastic!
I have worn the same 3 pairs of wesco boots for 25 years, and expect them to last at least another 25. working alot of that time as a metal fabricator. 1 is one its last legs, 1 is ok, and 1 is nearly new.
I hope they're still in business.
Maybe, but are they rich because they do it, or the other way around?
Buying quality stuff is possible without being rich:
Most of my friends in school had their fourth walkman before i had my first one (worked for 30+ years btw).
Ironically enough, the last sarcastic clause about being out of touch is true.
Do you expect people who have the means to flagellate themselves with cheap stuff to satisfy you? Or simply waste money buying the best of everything first time?
> I‘m only buying quality stuff and stick to it as long a possible. Most of my cloth are years old.
> I’m buying a new iPhone if the one i have doesn’t get any updates anymore
There have been many cases of Apple deploying planned obsolescence - intentionally crippling devices to get people to buy new models. So I wouldn't call Apple products that 'quality stuff'.
I base decisions on quality products based on how good they function, how long they last, and how easy and straightforward they are to repair yourself. Apple checks absolutely none of those boxes.
I do this since I can afford doing that. In the past when I needed anything I had to calculate what I could afford, now I can look at everything with a long term aspect. I also have the time to invest in extensive product research.
I also spend like half on food since I buy in bulk and mostly directly from farmers. But realistically who can afford paying hundreds of dollars for a pack of meat today? Like in right now without missing the money elsewhere. I am sure the majority can't. (Maybe different on here)
> keeping a phone if the one I have doesn't get any updates anymore
This is actually a nice way of knowing when to change phone
And it’s fun too: The new phone is usually way better than the old one!
The only downside is, that for 2 out of 4-5 years, the quality of my fotos are not state-of-the-art.
I subscribe to the buy once cry once philosophy. Meaning bite the bullet and buy quality. My wife is finally coming around after we've had to replace items that she initially wanted to pinch pennies on.
Obviously doesn't apply to stuff you know you will seldom use.
Well I think this all makes sense but people don’t generally do it because 1 high quality furniture item is more expensive upfront than the first cheap item. People with no money go for the cheap one then are trapped in the cycle of replacing it every few years.
How do you go about finding quality furniture?
Solid wood is an easy answer. Buy used and it will be much cheaper. Restoring worn wood is easy and it's a nice weekend project.
The enshittification of everything! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enshittification
A few days back there was a discussion on HN, The Tyranny of the Marginal User[1]. This applies to products. Products are made worse, advertised as great deals using all kinds of psychological tricks (Eg: discounting tricks in Austria discussed today in HN.), influencers, wellness peddlers, bloggers, podcasters, etc. Everyone, everywhere, everything, all the time is about buying stuff! See Temu, how it gamified shopping, bringing in game app store pressure tactics to shopping.
People complain all the time about how things are costly or getting costlier or shrinkflation, but it doesn't stop anyone from buying, which leads me to think most people have too much money and have zero discretion on what to buy. A while back, people used to back away from buying stuff which they thought wasn't a great deal. But something has changed in the past few years, anybody can make any garbage and people will buy it! Think about cars: most everyone bought cars a few thousand below MSRP, but now undiscerning people have proven to manufacturers and dealers that they will buy whatever crap car is made at 50% markup. There is no selection pressure on manufacturers to make good stuff.
> most people have too much money and have zero discretion on what to buy
I've noticed that people seem to expect less from things nowadays. In video games, they're okay with spending a lot of money on cosmetic skins. Even big companies like Apple advertise features like sending animated cat emojis as a big deal.
I find it a bit strange, but some people really like and defend them. It's just how things are changing in the world.
For consumer electronics, i believe the quality and durability is only increasing for the same price. I think this is because the rate of feature increase has slowed down, giving more breath to quality and durability. For example gorilla glass is almost standard, and it improves as well.
On the other hand for clothing, it is clear that the quality decreases, like was shown in the video, because people buy more often. It gets out of fashion very fast anyway. Fashionability is bad for the environment.
For electro mechanical devices, like coffee machines or printers, they suffer from addition of electronic features (like better ui or more features in one device) that mainly tend to add comfort but at the cost of more possible points of failure.
The way I saw it work: A part for a car is prototyped. The prototype is tested and it comes out that it can last 30 years. But bussiness said it only needs to last 15 years (user use stats, the law). Prototype is redesigned so that it is weaker and also cheaper (often time not by much).
So we have this problem because companies have test equipment that can tell them exactlly how long a product will last. Initially it was used to prevent bad products, now it is also used to prevent products that are too good.
This is another reason why I love vintage clothes so much: if the item survived ten or twenty years, it can more likely survive years longer than the average item manufactured nowadays.
To save you some time the main point of the video is - market drives prices down, because people want cheaper things and buy them more frequently, because it's easier to target people and cheaper to outsource production. And most people really don't care about the quality part that much.
Regarding personal consumption I'd use Total Cost of Ownership equation. Need a screwdriver 3 times a year - no need to buy something very good. Need a keyboard for you computer and you're a programmer - buy the best you can, because your hands are irreplaceable. But you don't need a fancy laptop stand - a box and couple of books can do the thing (if you don't mind the ugly desk). With the money saved you can always just invest them and get them working or spend them on something more meaningful like health, socializing or whatever you like.
They left out the most important category, profits. Cut functional costs to improve margins. Do less with lower quality machines and labor.
Oddly enough all the companies are more 'carbon friendly' and advertise it. Yet the cycle from consumer hands to trash is faster than ever. I suppose its one of those things that you won't get paid to study, but have a high chance of receiving pain for any such stufy.
In hindsight seems like Capone, being commoner friendly.
my complimentary add on to this : "why my whole studio is discontinued and obsolete" :-)
I've found discontinued products in particular (by chance) almost a sign of a product which had tonnes of R&D poured into it, then, was deemed too expensive by the company.
Nothing new nor surprising, but very well presented.
I think the solution is more DIY, build your stuff. Somewhat similar to the boom/boon of Modular eurorack. There’s tons of people creating things, even open-source, and selling the circuits fully assembled or packaged for DIY at lower costs.
I fundamentally believe that the human being requires designing their environment. This is also why cities in their current configuration may be such an anti-pattern with the trajectory of dystopian qualities; it is absurdly difficult for any human in a city to modify their environment in such a way it is the product of their inspiration and function.
Tl:dr I think people value things less when they don’t directly build it.