3 ms·

How much are you willing to pay for the fridge?

toast0 4y ago
I paid a ton of money for a sub-zero fridge, but it came with a free house. The console is pretty neat, but I can't figure out how or when to input the finishing moves.
somenameforme 4y ago
Veritasium has an awesome video on planned obsolescence here. [1] The problem in many cases isn't that it costs so much more to make products that last, but rather that making products that break is just way more profitable when you can effectively control the market to such a degree that you don't need to worry about some party pooper (1) coming in and making stuff that does genuinely last and (2) gaining significant marketshare. The example of the light bulb cartel that had unquality assurance, spot testing, and a formal structure of fines and penalties for any members who made too long of lasting lightbulbs is just hilariously dystopic. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE
- dx034 4y ago
  But I don't believe there's a fridge cartel. However, few customers spend more money to have a product with higher quality components that'd increase durability but not features. Using more expensive cables, valves, etc isn't really worth it for manufacturers unless customers are willing to pay extra. But one of the major reasons is probably that products have become much more complex. A 30 year old fridge had few components that could break. Modern fridges are much more complex (because extra features sell well), thus more stuff that can break.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    In modern times planned obsolescence is a normal part of business. The comments for the linked video [1] are awesome because it has so many people from different areas of industry (and academia) sharing anecdotes. So cartel? Probably not. Built to fail? Almost certainly. If we view things only through the lens of profit, then MTTF (mean time to fail) is just another curve to maximize against profit. If it's too short then your reputation will suffer and you'll lose money. If it's too long, then you're just leaving money on the table. In our society the brilliant engineer is not the one who makes a thing that last for 50 years, but one that lasts for just long enough to avoid damaging your brand image, and also fails in a way that makes the consumer more incentivized to buy a new thing than try to repair their current one. The guy who came up with the idea of slowing old iPhones "to save battery life" is who the bonus+promotion is going to. One of the biggest problems that has to be understood is that there is every incentive for money-driven governments to actively support planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence drives factors that we believe are indicators of a strong economy, like GDP. If people were able to stop endlessly buying the same things over and over, the "economy" would take an absolutely massive hit. And with it there would also be declines in employment, tax revenue, and everything else. This is one of the many examples where the socially detrimental relationship between government and big business isn't just based around corruption. Of course our system, for all its flaws, also has its benefits. Like the old Soviet joke goes, "It may be true that the Americans have the biggest skyscrapers, but we have the biggest transistors!" [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE
- kodah 4y ago
  Profitable yes, but I think it's also part of our obsession with new, shiny hardware.
  - derbOac 4y ago
    I've had this thought many times. Durable products are great but some become obsolete before they break, and a new purchase is made not because the old one isn't working, but because the new product is better (more efficient, more ergonomic, more functionality, more capacity, or whatever). I guess all other things being equal, I'd still rather have something fully functional replaced because there's something new and preferable, than having to replace something that just breaks. But if the cost of the "lifetime" good is a lot more money due to its quality, than the replacement costs of the less durable good that you'd replace anyway due to improved function, it becomes harder to say. Even harder given uncertainty about all of the variables involved.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Incidentally what you're describing is precisely where the term of planned obsolescence [1] actually comes from! In the early 20th century GM wanted to sell cars but the problem is that the market was already saturated with cars that were well functioning and built to last. And so they needed to develop a way to convince people to buy another thing that does effectively the same as some other thing they already own. And so instead of working on creating better cars, they worked on marketing, persuading people that round edges were better than square were better than round were better than square. Hey, look at this new color! I quite like the quote referenced in Wiki, describing this all as "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History
wiz21c 4y ago
How many fridges are made each year ?

I paid a ton of money for a sub-zero fridge, but it came with a free house. The console is pretty neat, but I can't figure out how or when to input the finishing moves.

somenameforme 4y ago

Veritasium has an awesome video on planned obsolescence here. [1] The problem in many cases isn't that it costs so much more to make products that last, but rather that making products that break is just way more profitable when you can effectively control the market to such a degree that you don't need to worry about some party pooper (1) coming in and making stuff that does genuinely last and (2) gaining significant marketshare. The example of the light bulb cartel that had unquality assurance, spot testing, and a formal structure of fines and penalties for any members who made too long of lasting lightbulbs is just hilariously dystopic. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

dx034 4y ago
But I don't believe there's a fridge cartel. However, few customers spend more money to have a product with higher quality components that'd increase durability but not features. Using more expensive cables, valves, etc isn't really worth it for manufacturers unless customers are willing to pay extra. But one of the major reasons is probably that products have become much more complex. A 30 year old fridge had few components that could break. Modern fridges are much more complex (because extra features sell well), thus more stuff that can break.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  In modern times planned obsolescence is a normal part of business. The comments for the linked video [1] are awesome because it has so many people from different areas of industry (and academia) sharing anecdotes. So cartel? Probably not. Built to fail? Almost certainly. If we view things only through the lens of profit, then MTTF (mean time to fail) is just another curve to maximize against profit. If it's too short then your reputation will suffer and you'll lose money. If it's too long, then you're just leaving money on the table. In our society the brilliant engineer is not the one who makes a thing that last for 50 years, but one that lasts for just long enough to avoid damaging your brand image, and also fails in a way that makes the consumer more incentivized to buy a new thing than try to repair their current one. The guy who came up with the idea of slowing old iPhones "to save battery life" is who the bonus+promotion is going to. One of the biggest problems that has to be understood is that there is every incentive for money-driven governments to actively support planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence drives factors that we believe are indicators of a strong economy, like GDP. If people were able to stop endlessly buying the same things over and over, the "economy" would take an absolutely massive hit. And with it there would also be declines in employment, tax revenue, and everything else. This is one of the many examples where the socially detrimental relationship between government and big business isn't just based around corruption. Of course our system, for all its flaws, also has its benefits. Like the old Soviet joke goes, "It may be true that the Americans have the biggest skyscrapers, but we have the biggest transistors!" [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE
kodah 4y ago
Profitable yes, but I think it's also part of our obsession with new, shiny hardware.
- derbOac 4y ago
  I've had this thought many times. Durable products are great but some become obsolete before they break, and a new purchase is made not because the old one isn't working, but because the new product is better (more efficient, more ergonomic, more functionality, more capacity, or whatever). I guess all other things being equal, I'd still rather have something fully functional replaced because there's something new and preferable, than having to replace something that just breaks. But if the cost of the "lifetime" good is a lot more money due to its quality, than the replacement costs of the less durable good that you'd replace anyway due to improved function, it becomes harder to say. Even harder given uncertainty about all of the variables involved.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Incidentally what you're describing is precisely where the term of planned obsolescence [1] actually comes from! In the early 20th century GM wanted to sell cars but the problem is that the market was already saturated with cars that were well functioning and built to last. And so they needed to develop a way to convince people to buy another thing that does effectively the same as some other thing they already own. And so instead of working on creating better cars, they worked on marketing, persuading people that round edges were better than square were better than round were better than square. Hey, look at this new color! I quite like the quote referenced in Wiki, describing this all as "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History

wiz21c 4y ago

How many fridges are made each year ?