4 ms·

It's not very surprising, it's by design. They're intentionally not pursuing maximum quality and longevity. In most cases they're pursuing an optimization for l

It's not very surprising, it's by design. They're intentionally not pursuing maximum quality and longevity. In most cases they're pursuing an optimization for lower to moderate cost, margin, volume of sales, manufacturing optimization, supply chain matters (including shipping). You'll make more money selling 10 humidifiers to a typical consumer over a 20 year span at $40-$60 each, than what you could ever max them out on for one humidifier that will last that full 20 years. If you're the business in question, it's illogical to pursue any other path unless you're making a conscious choice to give up profit to specifically build something of vastly superior quality. It's obviously not because we can't do it. The great majority of consumers won't pay for it and or can't afford it. It's cheap-rotational-product-as-a-service. Most consumers don't have the purchasing power to buy a $500 humidifier (and or don't want to save up to do so), and they want to allocate their money elsewhere at a given time, so the $39.95 plastic cheap humidifier that'll last 2-3 years wins every time (that way they can buy 10-12 things that last a few years for $40 instead of one per year for a decade). Or put another way, it's payday loan consumerism.

ksdale 5y ago
There's also a large element of survivorship bias. Everything that's left is the stuff that was built well enough to last, and we don't see all the other things that are long gone.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> If you're the business in question, it's illogical to pursue any other path unless you're making a conscious choice to give up profit to specifically build something of vastly superior quality. The logic is that customers will prefer your product and you'll take market share from competitors. But that logic only works if you're small. If you have 2% of the market and making a better product would allow you to take 5% of the market, you do it. If you have 30% of the market and making a better product would allow you to take 33% of the market, at the cost of having a longer interval between repeat business, eh. So the real problem is that we have too much consolidation and vertical integration. It's too hard to start a new company that goes from zero to 5% of the market in the first year by making a better product. So that's not what happens anymore. And it's in the interest of the consolidated incumbents to sell you a new device every three years, not to sell you a 20% more expensive device that lasts for decades. Although I wonder if an upstart couldn't still disrupt this in some markets. The Korean automakers took a big chunk of the market from out of nowhere by offering triple the usual powertrain warranties. What happens if you design a washing machine to last for decades and sell it with a 30 year warranty?
- oceanghost 5y ago
  The main problem is missing from your model here-- It's impossible for a consumer to asses the "quality" of an item at the time of purchase. We infer quality from reputation, price, and warranty, but there's no direct measure of it available. There's barely even a definition of quality. Even if we ignore the metaphysical aspects of quality, we are left with messy problem. Price correlates to quality only in as much as the least expensive thing is most likely to be the worse thing, but imagine if we used price as our only measure of quality? The strategy people would arrive at is to charge the most for the least-- which is pretty much where we are now already. This incentivizes products that work great for a little bit-- which is again exactly where we are now. My point is only that we've arrived at a crappy capitalism stalemate. I'd love to make high quality products for high quality people, but, that market isn't out there due to... human nature.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
I have been using three Vicks brand $30 or $40 humidifiers for 7+ years now.

ksdale 5y ago

There's also a large element of survivorship bias. Everything that's left is the stuff that was built well enough to last, and we don't see all the other things that are long gone.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> If you're the business in question, it's illogical to pursue any other path unless you're making a conscious choice to give up profit to specifically build something of vastly superior quality. The logic is that customers will prefer your product and you'll take market share from competitors. But that logic only works if you're small. If you have 2% of the market and making a better product would allow you to take 5% of the market, you do it. If you have 30% of the market and making a better product would allow you to take 33% of the market, at the cost of having a longer interval between repeat business, eh. So the real problem is that we have too much consolidation and vertical integration. It's too hard to start a new company that goes from zero to 5% of the market in the first year by making a better product. So that's not what happens anymore. And it's in the interest of the consolidated incumbents to sell you a new device every three years, not to sell you a 20% more expensive device that lasts for decades. Although I wonder if an upstart couldn't still disrupt this in some markets. The Korean automakers took a big chunk of the market from out of nowhere by offering triple the usual powertrain warranties. What happens if you design a washing machine to last for decades and sell it with a 30 year warranty?

oceanghost 5y ago
The main problem is missing from your model here-- It's impossible for a consumer to asses the "quality" of an item at the time of purchase. We infer quality from reputation, price, and warranty, but there's no direct measure of it available. There's barely even a definition of quality. Even if we ignore the metaphysical aspects of quality, we are left with messy problem. Price correlates to quality only in as much as the least expensive thing is most likely to be the worse thing, but imagine if we used price as our only measure of quality? The strategy people would arrive at is to charge the most for the least-- which is pretty much where we are now already. This incentivizes products that work great for a little bit-- which is again exactly where we are now. My point is only that we've arrived at a crappy capitalism stalemate. I'd love to make high quality products for high quality people, but, that market isn't out there due to... human nature.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I have been using three Vicks brand $30 or $40 humidifiers for 7+ years now.