7 ms·

Unobtainium

97 points by Thevet 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
iamthepieman 11y ago
The "Buy from our store" link opens an email and the title of the book is mentioned nowhere in the article (although the subtitle is) So here's the authors page http://www.davidsabraham.com/ http://www.davidsabraham.com/ where he has a link to purchase the book.
csours 11y ago
See also: http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/29/gm-import-cadillac-ct6-china/ http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/29/gm-import-cadillac-ct6-ch... China has done a terrifyingly good job of capturing the production stream from raw materials to components. This makes it very attractive to move product assembly to China as well. Developed countries backed themselves into this situation, largely by established companies failing to continuously improve their production methods and quality[1]. Disclaimer: I work for GM, any opinions are solely my own. 1. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/nummi-2015 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/n...
- tgb 11y ago
  Why was this downvoted? If there's a factual error it's better to explain it as readers like myself won't know about it otherwise. Everything started here seems to be supported by the article.
  - csours 11y ago
    Maybe downvoted because both links were about the company I work for - so it's kinda spammy. I originally wanted to link steel and textiles, but I don't have actual sources for that. Both steel and textiles went overseas for price considerations, but I think that if US management and labor would have focused on improving quality and cost for each of those they would still be in business in the US (and Britain, etc). In the 1970's GM and Ford started the steps of getting out of the vertical integration business. This meant that their components could come from anywhere - competition was based on cost and quality; but mainly cost. Some perverse metrics here meant that internal suppliers drove themselves out of business because they did not improve quality. For example: for a very long time, automotive components were produced on an Inspect and Reject scheme, where a large lot of material was built up at one site (internal or external) and then inspected at point of use. The manager at the component production site was compensated based on number of units produced, effectively driving down quality. The manager at the point of use was also compensated based on number of units produced, again driving defects into production units as bad material was used in production. People who work mainly with code would do well to remember that physical production is hard. Also, incentives will always have perverse outcomes over a long enough timeframe. There's no way to list all of your assumptions when you set up incentives. Anyway, I'd love to hear stories like this from other physical products (like textiles and steel for instance).
    - rhodin 11y ago
      It had a disclaimer, so should be fine. Regarding the competitiveness of the US car industry: Vaclav Smil makes a slightly different case in "Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing", where he points out that "For too long the machines stayed too large, too inefficient, and, on average, too unreliable." Add two oil crisis to that, quality problems and high prices and you get a perfect storm. The NUMI story from This American Life was a great listen.
mattnewton 11y ago
Did it seem weird to anyone else that this was slipped in? "...Abraham’s main message is that we need products that can be improved or repaired (rather than having an in-built ‘death clock’, like most Apple devices) and that we should recycle more assiduously what are actually valuable materials within that old computer or phone." I thought, (anecdotally as the owner of a iPhone 5 running fine) that apple is actually ahead of the curve here. Maybe on MacBooks where battery replacement is hard? Even then my MacBook has outlasted any other laptop I've bought. Seems weird to call the battery degrading a "death clock." Is this a common sentiment or known fact I've missed?
- fratlas 11y ago
  Older iPhone's (4 and below) home button have known to fail like clockwork after 1-2 years - I've repaired a few friend's phones in this time range.
  - mattnewton 11y ago
    I wonder if that is the cause of this sentiment? If the repair can be done by a friend, it still doesn't seem like a "death clock" causing material waste.
- mwexler 11y ago
  It's very common among app writers, who struggle to keep up with iOS changes every year which break their app. It's also common that Apple will not support older devices with iOS upgrades, and if the app you need no longer supports your iOS version, you must upgrade the device or keep working with the older app for as long as you can (bugs and all, until the app maker forces an update to continue working). I have some iPhone4 devices still around, as they power 30 pin connected speakers and other devices. But their iOS is locked to an old version, and as the apps I use continue to upgrade (and some force upgrade), the devices are forced to the ground. Hardware itself is not terrible or low quality, but the combination of Apple's control on hw and sw makes things it hard to consider these as "investments" in any way, given the high price. Perhaps it's a handheld thing; Macs and PCs appear to have better backward compatibility and longevity.
13of40 11y ago
> When Gustave Eiffel built the tower that bears his name, he needed seven thousand tons of steel. It's famously made of wrought iron, not steel. I wonder if that mistake comes from the book or the author of the review didn't want to have to explain the difference between the two.

97 points by Thevet 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

The "Buy from our store" link opens an email and the title of the book is mentioned nowhere in the article (although the subtitle is) So here's the authors page http://www.davidsabraham.com/ http://www.davidsabraham.com/ where he has a link to purchase the book.

csours 11y ago

See also: http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/29/gm-import-cadillac-ct6-china/ http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/29/gm-import-cadillac-ct6-ch... China has done a terrifyingly good job of capturing the production stream from raw materials to components. This makes it very attractive to move product assembly to China as well. Developed countries backed themselves into this situation, largely by established companies failing to continuously improve their production methods and quality[1]. Disclaimer: I work for GM, any opinions are solely my own. 1. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/nummi-2015 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/n...

tgb 11y ago
Why was this downvoted? If there's a factual error it's better to explain it as readers like myself won't know about it otherwise. Everything started here seems to be supported by the article.
- csours 11y ago
  Maybe downvoted because both links were about the company I work for - so it's kinda spammy. I originally wanted to link steel and textiles, but I don't have actual sources for that. Both steel and textiles went overseas for price considerations, but I think that if US management and labor would have focused on improving quality and cost for each of those they would still be in business in the US (and Britain, etc). In the 1970's GM and Ford started the steps of getting out of the vertical integration business. This meant that their components could come from anywhere - competition was based on cost and quality; but mainly cost. Some perverse metrics here meant that internal suppliers drove themselves out of business because they did not improve quality. For example: for a very long time, automotive components were produced on an Inspect and Reject scheme, where a large lot of material was built up at one site (internal or external) and then inspected at point of use. The manager at the component production site was compensated based on number of units produced, effectively driving down quality. The manager at the point of use was also compensated based on number of units produced, again driving defects into production units as bad material was used in production. People who work mainly with code would do well to remember that physical production is hard. Also, incentives will always have perverse outcomes over a long enough timeframe. There's no way to list all of your assumptions when you set up incentives. Anyway, I'd love to hear stories like this from other physical products (like textiles and steel for instance).
  - rhodin 11y ago
    It had a disclaimer, so should be fine. Regarding the competitiveness of the US car industry: Vaclav Smil makes a slightly different case in "Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing", where he points out that "For too long the machines stayed too large, too inefficient, and, on average, too unreliable." Add two oil crisis to that, quality problems and high prices and you get a perfect storm. The NUMI story from This American Life was a great listen.

mattnewton 11y ago

Did it seem weird to anyone else that this was slipped in? "...Abraham’s main message is that we need products that can be improved or repaired (rather than having an in-built ‘death clock’, like most Apple devices) and that we should recycle more assiduously what are actually valuable materials within that old computer or phone." I thought, (anecdotally as the owner of a iPhone 5 running fine) that apple is actually ahead of the curve here. Maybe on MacBooks where battery replacement is hard? Even then my MacBook has outlasted any other laptop I've bought. Seems weird to call the battery degrading a "death clock." Is this a common sentiment or known fact I've missed?

fratlas 11y ago
Older iPhone's (4 and below) home button have known to fail like clockwork after 1-2 years - I've repaired a few friend's phones in this time range.
- mattnewton 11y ago
  I wonder if that is the cause of this sentiment? If the repair can be done by a friend, it still doesn't seem like a "death clock" causing material waste.
mwexler 11y ago
It's very common among app writers, who struggle to keep up with iOS changes every year which break their app. It's also common that Apple will not support older devices with iOS upgrades, and if the app you need no longer supports your iOS version, you must upgrade the device or keep working with the older app for as long as you can (bugs and all, until the app maker forces an update to continue working). I have some iPhone4 devices still around, as they power 30 pin connected speakers and other devices. But their iOS is locked to an old version, and as the apps I use continue to upgrade (and some force upgrade), the devices are forced to the ground. Hardware itself is not terrible or low quality, but the combination of Apple's control on hw and sw makes things it hard to consider these as "investments" in any way, given the high price. Perhaps it's a handheld thing; Macs and PCs appear to have better backward compatibility and longevity.

13of40 11y ago

> When Gustave Eiffel built the tower that bears his name, he needed seven thousand tons of steel. It's famously made of wrought iron, not steel. I wonder if that mistake comes from the book or the author of the review didn't want to have to explain the difference between the two.