4 ms·

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 lifes

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

> 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.