11 ms·

I am somewhat disappointed that we associate weight with quality. I assume this came from early plastics that were brittle and started to replace metal parts. B

I am somewhat disappointed that we associate weight with quality. I assume this came from early plastics that were brittle and started to replace metal parts. But the science of plastics have come so far, we have plastics that are incredibly durable while still being lightweight. However many manufacturers are sticking to metal and glass for that "premium look and feed" even if it is heavier and less durable. Another issue might be the variety of plastic qualities that are hard to tell apart from a quick impression. Something that our launch followed by rush to quick reviews society can't adequately test. Glass and especially metals tend to have more predictable durability profiles. I think the main problem that we haven't solved in plastics is hardness, so glass screens are here to stay, but I wish we could move away from this plastic == low quality perception. I think it would result in better products at then end of the day.

buzzy_hacker 6y ago
Reminds me of the crazy lightweight Richard Mille watches that are absurdly expensive but undeniably high-quality.
admiralspoo 6y ago
Plastics do not have good heat conductivity. I can't stand plastic over-year headphones because my ears get too warm. Apple seems to have solved this problem with fabrics and metal construction.
- bartvk 6y ago
  How about open over-ear headphones such as the Sennheiser HD 558?
thrwaway2020aug 6y ago
The ski boot industry has been focused on reducing plastic weight / thickness while remaining sturdy. People very much appreciate the innovations there.
- Kalium 6y ago
  Camping and backpacking, too. I think everyone in the outdoorsing space has been hard at working shaving weight. My back appreciates it.
ghaff 6y ago
This was a fairly hot topic when SLR cameras started switching over to incorporating more and more plastic. This was quite a while ago but there was definitely a class of buyer who associated metal with solidity.
AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
> I am somewhat disappointed that we associate weight with quality. To the point that Beats headphones seemed to have random bits of decorative metal added to it simply to increase the weight and make it feel more "premium": https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-took-apart-some-beats-headphones_b_7639618 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-took-apart-some-beats-head... https://medium.com/@BenEinstein/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our-beats-were-counterfeit-but-they-cost-about-the-same-to-make-as-the-364cc6808d18 https://medium.com/@BenEinstein/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our...
- hyperbovine 6y ago
  I often wonder this about my Bose Soundlink Mini II. That thing is a shocking little brick when you pick it up. Like, it's roughly the size of a hotdog bun, and you could probably kill someone with it. Great sound though.
piva00 6y ago
My issue with plastic for construction of bodies for higher-end products (be it synths, headphones, computers, etc.) is that they are... Soft, they get scratched easily (most of them at least, I know a few types that are scratch-resistant), they show wear and tear in a much more unpleasant way than metal, glass or wood. It's a hugely important material but I can't imagine ever perceiving plastics, even the higher grade and durable ones, to a premium feeling. I don't associate that with brittleness but more with aesthetics and touch feel.
- taeric 6y ago
  I have to say that I am very happy with my pixel 4a. It is plastic, but looks and feels very nice.
- kibwen 6y ago
  > My issue with plastic for construction of bodies for higher-end products (be it synths, headphones, computers, etc.) is that they are... Soft, they get scratched easily (most of them at least, I know a few types that are scratch-resistant), they show wear and tear in a much more unpleasant way than metal, glass or wood. Most of the visible metal bits in any consumer electronic will be aluminum, which is notoriously soft (softer than gold) and scratches easily. Likewise, most any product made of wood (moving beyond electronics now) will be made of a wood that's soft enough to scratch easily. I'm not convinced that scratch-resistance is the metric for instinctively classifying the cheapness of a material.
  - ahartmetz 6y ago
    Aluminum is not used in elementary form though, and the common alloys are decently scratch resistant. Source: seems so from having used a few things made from aluminum alloys.
altarius 6y ago
The same mentality is widespread in photography, heavier metal construction (even though often just exterior shell and interior is polycarbonate) and weight are associated with quality and longevity. But it's starting to change as more lenses are exclusively made from "engineered plastics" - a marketing term to make these new lenses sound better. OTOH, those robust lenses from the 50s to early 80s survived until today and are often still used and adapted on modern mirrorless cameras.
- taeric 6y ago
  Oddly, for a camera, I prefer some weight. Not so much I will get fatigued, but it is easier to hold steady if it is not feather weight. And having it balance away from the lens is nice. Overall, agreed, though.
- hajile 6y ago
  I'm not a photography expert, but won't plastics subtly deform over time (especially when exposed to sunlight)?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The plastics chosen for lenses are incredibly resistant to UV light due to many additives and often powder coatings, and in general incredibly dimensionally stable. This is actually when even very expensive lenses often use plastics inside, because those plastics don't expand/contract/deform as much because of heat as metals, leading to more precise optical alignments and higher image quality. Ironically, since these lenses often need much smaller adjustments and don't need as much to be readjusted after taking them apart, I find it easier to repair them than some complex metal lenses.
- Finnucane 6y ago
  The oldest lenses I have that I still sometimes use are from the late 1940s, though they are both large-format lenses in shutters (that have been serviced). The main issue with those is that parts are scarce. I wouldn't expect any gear made today to have that much of a lifetime.
kristopolous 6y ago
The blue microphone is guilty of this. They are needlessly bulky and the stands they come with are unnecessarily heavy. It's consumer theatrics
- beckingz 6y ago
  I still tip mine over though, so maybe it isn't heavy enough? But I think I agree that it's overkill, as the weak spot is definitely going to be the usb port.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  Which Blue microphone? The Yeti? Or do you just mean Blue microphones tend to do this in general?
s1mon 6y ago
While certainly some high quality expensive products focus on weight reduction (e.g. carbon fiber in camera tripods or hiking gear), many customers still have a subconscious association between weight an quality. After you’ve removed all the unnecessary parts or features and really optimized high volume manufacturing, at some point product cost is highly associated with part weight. More material costs more money. If a designer or manufacturer goes too far optimizing for cost by removing material, the product is more likely to be damaged under normal use or misuse. Even if many consumers can’t tell you directly that something feels cheap to them or why, they are subconsciously aware of it. There’s a classic story from the history of industrial design where in the development of a desk clock, the designer, Henry Dreyfus observed consumers in a store evaluating competitive models of clocks. They picked them up and sensed the weight. By adding mass the product became much more successful. [1] In the course of my work as a product engineer, I’ve designed many docks and stands for devices, and torn down competitive products. These kinds of things often have added weight in the form of stamped steel plates or die cast zinc. The weight helps keep the dock stable so it doesn’t tip when the user puts in the device, and it also adds to the feeling of quality and security. [1] “In 1939, he designed the Big Ben Alarm clock for Westclock. After a year of development, it was ready to market. The first customer was the John Wanamaker department store in New York City. Henry Dreyfus, in what is considered to be the first live ‘user testing,’ observed potential customers pick up the clock, examine it and put it down without buying it or asking any questions. Eventually, he questioned customers. Why were they putting it down after examining it? What was wrong? Their response: it felt too light. Something so light couldn’t be substantive. Whether they were right or wrong, Dreyfus realized that people were associating weight with value even though he knew there was no connection. In a radical departure from the notion that ‘less is more,’ he added a 3 oz. weight, serving no function whatsoever, but to create the perception of greater substance. In this case, more weight equated to more value. He said, ‘people want the experience of knowing that their alarm clock had something inside.’ Weight was an attribute that had meaning and relevance… it created a cue that led to a perception of value and substance.” From https://drozmarketing.com/designers-role/ https://drozmarketing.com/designers-role/
- kevincox 6y ago
  I think this is part of the problem why we subconsciously think of weight == quality. In many cases these things are correlated. In fact this use case may be a reasonable time for aluminum and steel. However the metric is too simple, and easy to game, and it seems that this simplistic weight == quality is emphasized by many reviewers.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spijdar 6y ago
I think another aspect of heavy > light is it's (perceived) as a gauge of how much "stuff" is in a product. If I picked up some very light electronic, I may suspect that it's simply not very dense, and it was made bigger to (try) and fool another "quality signal", size. You know, knock-off products made to look like something bigger/higher quality but containing mostly air. It is a shame though, since light can be very strong and high value. I personally wouldn't want almost half a kilo of headphones on my noggin, and this article's emphasis on weight is ... disappointing.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I'm definitely guilty of using metal and weight as signals for quality. And heavier metal objects do feel nicer but that's not really my reasoning. If a manufacturer is willing to self-flagellate by making their products out a mode expensive material, using a more expensive manufacturing process, and pony up the shipping costs to transport the heavier goods then I can be reasonably sure that they're not obsessively cost-cutting.
Eric_WVGG 6y ago
If you care about waste and renewability, this is kind of a good thing. I can't buy anything made of plastic without feeling shitty about the fact that it's almost certainly going to end up in a landfill within my lifetime, if not within 2-5 years.
clarkmoody 6y ago
The weight equals quality thing is probably related to the use of dense metals as money since the dawn of history. Maybe it's a quirk of human psychology that caused us to choose dense metals or maybe it's the choice of dense metals that persists as the weight/quality association. With plastics, I think there are subtle differences in flex & texture that can clue you in you quality.
kitsunesoba 6y ago
I think some of this mentality is partially an effect of the flood of cheap black glossy plastic electronics that came in the 00s and 10s. I'm not an expert on plastic formulations, but the variety used for these products is not pleasant to touch, shows fingerprints like crazy, scratches easily, and breaks easily on top of sounding hollow. The plastics used for electronics in the 90s didn't exhibit these problems as much, generally being thicker with a nice matte textured finish. Perhaps the key to winning the public mind back over to plastic would be to mimic those 90s plastics.

buzzy_hacker 6y ago

Reminds me of the crazy lightweight Richard Mille watches that are absurdly expensive but undeniably high-quality.

admiralspoo 6y ago

Plastics do not have good heat conductivity. I can't stand plastic over-year headphones because my ears get too warm. Apple seems to have solved this problem with fabrics and metal construction.

bartvk 6y ago
How about open over-ear headphones such as the Sennheiser HD 558?

thrwaway2020aug 6y ago

The ski boot industry has been focused on reducing plastic weight / thickness while remaining sturdy. People very much appreciate the innovations there.

Kalium 6y ago
Camping and backpacking, too. I think everyone in the outdoorsing space has been hard at working shaving weight. My back appreciates it.

ghaff 6y ago

This was a fairly hot topic when SLR cameras started switching over to incorporating more and more plastic. This was quite a while ago but there was definitely a class of buyer who associated metal with solidity.

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago

> I am somewhat disappointed that we associate weight with quality. To the point that Beats headphones seemed to have random bits of decorative metal added to it simply to increase the weight and make it feel more "premium": https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-took-apart-some-beats-headphones_b_7639618 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-took-apart-some-beats-head... https://medium.com/@BenEinstein/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our-beats-were-counterfeit-but-they-cost-about-the-same-to-make-as-the-364cc6808d18 https://medium.com/@BenEinstein/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our...

hyperbovine 6y ago
I often wonder this about my Bose Soundlink Mini II. That thing is a shocking little brick when you pick it up. Like, it's roughly the size of a hotdog bun, and you could probably kill someone with it. Great sound though.

piva00 6y ago

My issue with plastic for construction of bodies for higher-end products (be it synths, headphones, computers, etc.) is that they are... Soft, they get scratched easily (most of them at least, I know a few types that are scratch-resistant), they show wear and tear in a much more unpleasant way than metal, glass or wood. It's a hugely important material but I can't imagine ever perceiving plastics, even the higher grade and durable ones, to a premium feeling. I don't associate that with brittleness but more with aesthetics and touch feel.

taeric 6y ago
I have to say that I am very happy with my pixel 4a. It is plastic, but looks and feels very nice.
kibwen 6y ago
> My issue with plastic for construction of bodies for higher-end products (be it synths, headphones, computers, etc.) is that they are... Soft, they get scratched easily (most of them at least, I know a few types that are scratch-resistant), they show wear and tear in a much more unpleasant way than metal, glass or wood. Most of the visible metal bits in any consumer electronic will be aluminum, which is notoriously soft (softer than gold) and scratches easily. Likewise, most any product made of wood (moving beyond electronics now) will be made of a wood that's soft enough to scratch easily. I'm not convinced that scratch-resistance is the metric for instinctively classifying the cheapness of a material.
- ahartmetz 6y ago
  Aluminum is not used in elementary form though, and the common alloys are decently scratch resistant. Source: seems so from having used a few things made from aluminum alloys.

altarius 6y ago

The same mentality is widespread in photography, heavier metal construction (even though often just exterior shell and interior is polycarbonate) and weight are associated with quality and longevity. But it's starting to change as more lenses are exclusively made from "engineered plastics" - a marketing term to make these new lenses sound better. OTOH, those robust lenses from the 50s to early 80s survived until today and are often still used and adapted on modern mirrorless cameras.

taeric 6y ago
Oddly, for a camera, I prefer some weight. Not so much I will get fatigued, but it is easier to hold steady if it is not feather weight. And having it balance away from the lens is nice. Overall, agreed, though.
hajile 6y ago
I'm not a photography expert, but won't plastics subtly deform over time (especially when exposed to sunlight)?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The plastics chosen for lenses are incredibly resistant to UV light due to many additives and often powder coatings, and in general incredibly dimensionally stable. This is actually when even very expensive lenses often use plastics inside, because those plastics don't expand/contract/deform as much because of heat as metals, leading to more precise optical alignments and higher image quality. Ironically, since these lenses often need much smaller adjustments and don't need as much to be readjusted after taking them apart, I find it easier to repair them than some complex metal lenses.
Finnucane 6y ago
The oldest lenses I have that I still sometimes use are from the late 1940s, though they are both large-format lenses in shutters (that have been serviced). The main issue with those is that parts are scarce. I wouldn't expect any gear made today to have that much of a lifetime.

kristopolous 6y ago

The blue microphone is guilty of this. They are needlessly bulky and the stands they come with are unnecessarily heavy. It's consumer theatrics

beckingz 6y ago
I still tip mine over though, so maybe it isn't heavy enough? But I think I agree that it's overkill, as the weak spot is definitely going to be the usb port.
buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
Which Blue microphone? The Yeti? Or do you just mean Blue microphones tend to do this in general?

s1mon 6y ago

While certainly some high quality expensive products focus on weight reduction (e.g. carbon fiber in camera tripods or hiking gear), many customers still have a subconscious association between weight an quality. After you’ve removed all the unnecessary parts or features and really optimized high volume manufacturing, at some point product cost is highly associated with part weight. More material costs more money. If a designer or manufacturer goes too far optimizing for cost by removing material, the product is more likely to be damaged under normal use or misuse. Even if many consumers can’t tell you directly that something feels cheap to them or why, they are subconsciously aware of it. There’s a classic story from the history of industrial design where in the development of a desk clock, the designer, Henry Dreyfus observed consumers in a store evaluating competitive models of clocks. They picked them up and sensed the weight. By adding mass the product became much more successful. [1] In the course of my work as a product engineer, I’ve designed many docks and stands for devices, and torn down competitive products. These kinds of things often have added weight in the form of stamped steel plates or die cast zinc. The weight helps keep the dock stable so it doesn’t tip when the user puts in the device, and it also adds to the feeling of quality and security. [1] “In 1939, he designed the Big Ben Alarm clock for Westclock. After a year of development, it was ready to market. The first customer was the John Wanamaker department store in New York City. Henry Dreyfus, in what is considered to be the first live ‘user testing,’ observed potential customers pick up the clock, examine it and put it down without buying it or asking any questions. Eventually, he questioned customers. Why were they putting it down after examining it? What was wrong? Their response: it felt too light. Something so light couldn’t be substantive. Whether they were right or wrong, Dreyfus realized that people were associating weight with value even though he knew there was no connection. In a radical departure from the notion that ‘less is more,’ he added a 3 oz. weight, serving no function whatsoever, but to create the perception of greater substance. In this case, more weight equated to more value. He said, ‘people want the experience of knowing that their alarm clock had something inside.’ Weight was an attribute that had meaning and relevance… it created a cue that led to a perception of value and substance.” From https://drozmarketing.com/designers-role/ https://drozmarketing.com/designers-role/

kevincox 6y ago
I think this is part of the problem why we subconsciously think of weight == quality. In many cases these things are correlated. In fact this use case may be a reasonable time for aluminum and steel. However the metric is too simple, and easy to game, and it seems that this simplistic weight == quality is emphasized by many reviewers.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

spijdar 6y ago

I think another aspect of heavy > light is it's (perceived) as a gauge of how much "stuff" is in a product. If I picked up some very light electronic, I may suspect that it's simply not very dense, and it was made bigger to (try) and fool another "quality signal", size. You know, knock-off products made to look like something bigger/higher quality but containing mostly air. It is a shame though, since light can be very strong and high value. I personally wouldn't want almost half a kilo of headphones on my noggin, and this article's emphasis on weight is ... disappointing.

Spivak 6y ago
I'm definitely guilty of using metal and weight as signals for quality. And heavier metal objects do feel nicer but that's not really my reasoning. If a manufacturer is willing to self-flagellate by making their products out a mode expensive material, using a more expensive manufacturing process, and pony up the shipping costs to transport the heavier goods then I can be reasonably sure that they're not obsessively cost-cutting.

Eric_WVGG 6y ago

If you care about waste and renewability, this is kind of a good thing. I can't buy anything made of plastic without feeling shitty about the fact that it's almost certainly going to end up in a landfill within my lifetime, if not within 2-5 years.

clarkmoody 6y ago

The weight equals quality thing is probably related to the use of dense metals as money since the dawn of history. Maybe it's a quirk of human psychology that caused us to choose dense metals or maybe it's the choice of dense metals that persists as the weight/quality association. With plastics, I think there are subtle differences in flex & texture that can clue you in you quality.

kitsunesoba 6y ago

I think some of this mentality is partially an effect of the flood of cheap black glossy plastic electronics that came in the 00s and 10s. I'm not an expert on plastic formulations, but the variety used for these products is not pleasant to touch, shows fingerprints like crazy, scratches easily, and breaks easily on top of sounding hollow. The plastics used for electronics in the 90s didn't exhibit these problems as much, generally being thicker with a nice matte textured finish. Perhaps the key to winning the public mind back over to plastic would be to mimic those 90s plastics.