4 ms·

You've built a false dichotomy between over-engineering and planned obsolescence. Outside of a few cases you can still buy the watch that will last 60 years or

You've built a false dichotomy between over-engineering and planned obsolescence. Outside of a few cases you can still buy the watch that will last 60 years or the amp that will last 20. The problem is that most people don't want to pay $2k for an amp when it's only benefit over a $400 one is that it'll work 16 more years. Most folks don't care to buy a $400 watch when you can get a nice one for $40. And, a lot more folks can afford watches and amps these days as a result.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The price issue seems like a somewhat false dichotomy, because the more expensive brands don't operate on razor thin margins, so they could (and would have to) cut prices if there wasn't a back-pressure from the bottom-feeder brands. On top of that, I wonder at which point does planned obsolescence and lack of quality becomes the broken window fallacy? What's a difference between a glazier's son running around and breaking windows, and the glazier installing a delayed-action chemical that cracks windows months after installation? What's the difference between either of that and designing products to fall apart sooner and sooner? > Outside of a few cases you can still buy the watch that will last 60 years or the amp that will last 20. Perhaps from artisans. I don't trust you can buy such things at any premium brands. There is every incentive to cheat, charge premium prices while still cutting corners on quality, and pocketing the difference. People eventually wise up to that, but that takes a lot of time, so it's reliable only with niche products.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Planned obsolescence is wrong, and we are in agreement. Having cheap (and therefore widely available) products that are hard to repair and may have short lifespans is generally desirable in my opinion, even though there are some ecological and worker rights issues. We should be wary when we discuss what a premium brand is. Artificial brand tiers have led us to treat many mass market craptastic companies as "premium" despite them not knowing quality if it smacked them. Bose is an example of this - mass availability at a markup under the guise of a premium brand. But very few audio productions would depend on Bose products because they barely last in any kind of harsh environment.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Having cheap (and therefore widely available) products that are hard to repair and may have short lifespans is generally desirable in my opinion, even though there are some ecological and worker rights issues. I'm of mixed feelings about this. Having a 10x more expensive electric kettle that lasts 10x longer doesn't mean I won't buy a kettle. It means that I'll generate 10x less trash for the same utility received. When I look at it, making things more durable wouldn't hurt necessities that much - people would save up and buy appliances, and the longer lifetime would mean they actually save money over time. In general, I think that cheap availability of crap products perpetuates the cycle of poverty. I strongly agree with the Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness[0]. Perhaps with a twist - I blame sacrifices of quality made in order to make the products cheaper. I think the world would be better off if we suddenly removed the bottommost quality tier of all goods categories, and didn't replace with anything. There should be hard limits on how low the market can get with respect to quality, because price is flexible - it's predicated by demand - wheras quality is not, and low quality is what sets off the poverty trap. > Artificial brand tiers have led us to treat many mass market craptastic companies as "premium" despite them not knowing quality if it smacked them. Yes. But part of the reason behind brands and price tiers was so that we don't have to be experts in ascertaining quality. We're supposed to trust the brands, but it turns out we can't - trust on the market is something to be exploited. Nice that you brought up Bose, because I was under impression they were a premium quality brand, in a similar fashion to Apple - i.e. extra overpriced on top of above-average quality. So you're saying, I shouldn't really buy into the "above-average quality" part with them? -- [0] - https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfair...
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      > Nice that you brought up Bose, because I was under impression they were a premium quality brand, in a similar fashion to Apple - i.e. extra overpriced on top of above-average quality. So you're saying, I shouldn't really buy into the "above-average quality" part with them? Bose is above average in their technology but not their quality or durability. For your $400 you will get some very fancy tech, both nothing near $2000 IEMs.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The price issue seems like a somewhat false dichotomy, because the more expensive brands don't operate on razor thin margins, so they could (and would have to) cut prices if there wasn't a back-pressure from the bottom-feeder brands. On top of that, I wonder at which point does planned obsolescence and lack of quality becomes the broken window fallacy? What's a difference between a glazier's son running around and breaking windows, and the glazier installing a delayed-action chemical that cracks windows months after installation? What's the difference between either of that and designing products to fall apart sooner and sooner? > Outside of a few cases you can still buy the watch that will last 60 years or the amp that will last 20. Perhaps from artisans. I don't trust you can buy such things at any premium brands. There is every incentive to cheat, charge premium prices while still cutting corners on quality, and pocketing the difference. People eventually wise up to that, but that takes a lot of time, so it's reliable only with niche products.

vorpalhex 7y ago
Planned obsolescence is wrong, and we are in agreement. Having cheap (and therefore widely available) products that are hard to repair and may have short lifespans is generally desirable in my opinion, even though there are some ecological and worker rights issues. We should be wary when we discuss what a premium brand is. Artificial brand tiers have led us to treat many mass market craptastic companies as "premium" despite them not knowing quality if it smacked them. Bose is an example of this - mass availability at a markup under the guise of a premium brand. But very few audio productions would depend on Bose products because they barely last in any kind of harsh environment.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Having cheap (and therefore widely available) products that are hard to repair and may have short lifespans is generally desirable in my opinion, even though there are some ecological and worker rights issues. I'm of mixed feelings about this. Having a 10x more expensive electric kettle that lasts 10x longer doesn't mean I won't buy a kettle. It means that I'll generate 10x less trash for the same utility received. When I look at it, making things more durable wouldn't hurt necessities that much - people would save up and buy appliances, and the longer lifetime would mean they actually save money over time. In general, I think that cheap availability of crap products perpetuates the cycle of poverty. I strongly agree with the Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness[0]. Perhaps with a twist - I blame sacrifices of quality made in order to make the products cheaper. I think the world would be better off if we suddenly removed the bottommost quality tier of all goods categories, and didn't replace with anything. There should be hard limits on how low the market can get with respect to quality, because price is flexible - it's predicated by demand - wheras quality is not, and low quality is what sets off the poverty trap. > Artificial brand tiers have led us to treat many mass market craptastic companies as "premium" despite them not knowing quality if it smacked them. Yes. But part of the reason behind brands and price tiers was so that we don't have to be experts in ascertaining quality. We're supposed to trust the brands, but it turns out we can't - trust on the market is something to be exploited. Nice that you brought up Bose, because I was under impression they were a premium quality brand, in a similar fashion to Apple - i.e. extra overpriced on top of above-average quality. So you're saying, I shouldn't really buy into the "above-average quality" part with them? -- [0] - https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfair...
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    > Nice that you brought up Bose, because I was under impression they were a premium quality brand, in a similar fashion to Apple - i.e. extra overpriced on top of above-average quality. So you're saying, I shouldn't really buy into the "above-average quality" part with them? Bose is above average in their technology but not their quality or durability. For your $400 you will get some very fancy tech, both nothing near $2000 IEMs.