7 ms·

When an area of engineering is new we make products better than the market will eventually pay for. Over time, we learn how to make them just good enough to rea

When an area of engineering is new we make products better than the market will eventually pay for. Over time, we learn how to make them just good enough to reach an equilibrium in a market. This is an idea that is explored in _The World Without Us_ by Alan Wiesman. The Roman Colosseum still stands, but buildings today don't need to be that durable. It would cost significantly more to make them that way, so we don't. The same could be said about supersonic travel. We could do it again, but enough of us are happy to not pay the premium, so that product has disappeared.

agumonkey 7y ago
Thanks so much. I was curious about these things for a very long time now.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
The problem is, the market equilibrium is usually the worst possible garbage that's still fit enough for purpose that it won't break (on average) before the warranty period ends. Some of the money you save on this isn't really saved, you just pay for it in having to replace the product sooner, or being constantly stressed and irritated with the quality and fragility of your tooling (it's essentially death by a thousand cuts for your psyche). So there is a reason to add some extra pressures to the market to raise the floor.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  Is that true or does it just seem that way? Cars today are pretty reliable. Random other stuff seems pretty decent as long as you don't buy the absolute cheapest stuff around. I'm working on a solid wood desk with no nails or screws (it's called a "puzzle" desk because it fits together in a stable configuration without any connectors). I'm looking at a backpack, which I assume is nylon, and it seems pretty tough and has lasted through a few adventures. I'm looking at my metal-framed bookcase, which has fake-wood shelves but it still seems pretty sturdy. There are certainly some things that seem worse. Furniture is probably worse overall, but that's because good wood is so much more scarce now. If you buy metal/glass furniture than it's fine. There are also some worrisome practices that are pretty widespread, like using plastic-threaded screw holes rather than metal; or just using really cheap metal that can be stripped or cross-threaded easily. On balance, where are we? I have a feeling that we're basically better off. We remember the old stuff that lasts, and forget about the stuff that breaks (unless it's still celebrated/historical, like the Liberty Bell).
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Is that true or does it just seem that way? Definitely seems that way, but I don't think it's just an illusion. Cheapest stuff is absolute garbage, arguably to the point you could consider it a waste of natural resources (for a few cents here and there, you could make things not break halfway their first use). What worries me though is that price isn't a reliable quality signal anymore - there's profit being made in selling cheap garbage at high prices, because many people are fooled into believing a more expensive good must be quality. Brands are no longer a quality signal either. Even ignoring that the market is currently DDoSed by throwaway "brands", even the proper ones don't mean much anymore. For instance, witness any discussion about white goods. Next to the people telling you which brands are historically quality ones, you'll find people reporting that recently, those quality brands started to cheap out on hardware and their products are no longer reliable or repairable. Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that the market equilibrium for price-sensitive customers is complete garbage; some companies can survive on less price-sensitive customers, but I see a trend towards converting quality into better margins even there. It's true that we have more of everything now, but it also seems most of those things are short-lived, and increasingly shorter-lived. It would be fine if matter and energy were too cheap to meter, but they aren't - especially not if you factor in the environmental costs.
dorgo 7y ago
The ideal racecar will expire 100 yards past the finish line.
choward 7y ago
> The same could be said about supersonic travel. We could do it again, but enough of us are happy to not pay the premium, so that product has disappeared. That and sonic booms.

agumonkey 7y ago

Thanks so much. I was curious about these things for a very long time now.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The problem is, the market equilibrium is usually the worst possible garbage that's still fit enough for purpose that it won't break (on average) before the warranty period ends. Some of the money you save on this isn't really saved, you just pay for it in having to replace the product sooner, or being constantly stressed and irritated with the quality and fragility of your tooling (it's essentially death by a thousand cuts for your psyche). So there is a reason to add some extra pressures to the market to raise the floor.

jeffdavis 7y ago
Is that true or does it just seem that way? Cars today are pretty reliable. Random other stuff seems pretty decent as long as you don't buy the absolute cheapest stuff around. I'm working on a solid wood desk with no nails or screws (it's called a "puzzle" desk because it fits together in a stable configuration without any connectors). I'm looking at a backpack, which I assume is nylon, and it seems pretty tough and has lasted through a few adventures. I'm looking at my metal-framed bookcase, which has fake-wood shelves but it still seems pretty sturdy. There are certainly some things that seem worse. Furniture is probably worse overall, but that's because good wood is so much more scarce now. If you buy metal/glass furniture than it's fine. There are also some worrisome practices that are pretty widespread, like using plastic-threaded screw holes rather than metal; or just using really cheap metal that can be stripped or cross-threaded easily. On balance, where are we? I have a feeling that we're basically better off. We remember the old stuff that lasts, and forget about the stuff that breaks (unless it's still celebrated/historical, like the Liberty Bell).
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Is that true or does it just seem that way? Definitely seems that way, but I don't think it's just an illusion. Cheapest stuff is absolute garbage, arguably to the point you could consider it a waste of natural resources (for a few cents here and there, you could make things not break halfway their first use). What worries me though is that price isn't a reliable quality signal anymore - there's profit being made in selling cheap garbage at high prices, because many people are fooled into believing a more expensive good must be quality. Brands are no longer a quality signal either. Even ignoring that the market is currently DDoSed by throwaway "brands", even the proper ones don't mean much anymore. For instance, witness any discussion about white goods. Next to the people telling you which brands are historically quality ones, you'll find people reporting that recently, those quality brands started to cheap out on hardware and their products are no longer reliable or repairable. Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that the market equilibrium for price-sensitive customers is complete garbage; some companies can survive on less price-sensitive customers, but I see a trend towards converting quality into better margins even there. It's true that we have more of everything now, but it also seems most of those things are short-lived, and increasingly shorter-lived. It would be fine if matter and energy were too cheap to meter, but they aren't - especially not if you factor in the environmental costs.

dorgo 7y ago

The ideal racecar will expire 100 yards past the finish line.

choward 7y ago

> The same could be said about supersonic travel. We could do it again, but enough of us are happy to not pay the premium, so that product has disappeared. That and sonic booms.