5 ms·

These studies never account for survivorship bias. There were plenty of crappy appliances decades ago, but they’ve all long since broken, so we only have the ve

These studies never account for survivorship bias. There were plenty of crappy appliances decades ago, but they’ve all long since broken, so we only have the very best old appliances to compare against today. Also, the inflation adjusted cost of a fridge in the 50s was something like $10k. A $10k fridge today (e.g. Sub Zero) will easily last for many decades. A $1k Wal-Mart special will not.

e40 4y ago
Sub Zero fridges are terrible. The people I’ve known that had them rued the day they bought them. They are a status symbols, that’s why they cost so much, not because they are top quality.
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  That is not what I’ve heard from speaking to appliance repair techs, or builders/architects, or the Sub Zero owners I know with 15+ year old refrigerators that have never had any issues (except the ice maker, which is an inherently unreliable piece of technology). My guess is your friends aren’t maintaining them properly (they know they have to clean the condenser coils every couple months, right?) Either that, or they have those “integrated” models with no visible vent for the condenser, which of course will overheat the compressors and electronics.
  - AnonymousPlanet 4y ago
    Ah, the fridge equivalent of "you're holding it wrong"
  - e40 4y ago
    See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32464782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32464782
- liminalsunset 4y ago
  I've worked on one from ~2008. The fridge has a decent build quality, and two (!) compressors inside of it. It uses more metal components, more structural supports, etc, compared to most other fridges I've seen. So it's "better". It also is designed such that you absolutely cannot clean the inner layers of the fan-cooled condenser coil without major disassembly of the fridge. The service panel on the front can be removed, but there is a metal fan shroud that is difficult to remove and turns what ought to be routine maintenance into an ordeal involving taking things apart and taking the built in fridge out of the wall. Whether this was deliberate or just an oversight, I don't know. There would have been many other simple and cost-neutral ways to implement this cover.
userbinator 4y ago
The point is that the curve of MTBF has a much narrower standard deviation than it used to --- there aren't as many early failures on newer models, but there also won't be as many old-age survivors. A 70 year old fridge that cost the equivalent of $10k today when new, and is likely to last over a century, is still a better value than replacing a $1k model a dozen times in the same timespan.
- kcexn 4y ago
  Not necessarily, if you accommodate for inflation.
BirAdam 4y ago
Yeah, the adjusted prices are a major factor. Today, that could get you a Miele that would be inherited by your children, nephews, or grandchildren. The other thing people forget is that older appliances and electronics were built to be easily serviced, and therefore the ones today that survive have been repaired at some point (most likely). Today, most of those dedicated repair shops are long gone and products are no longer designed to be serviceable.
- hotcoffeebear 4y ago
  Usually repairing costs are incredibly high. So you usually end up buying new one and creating more waste.
  - s0rce 4y ago
    I had an inexpensive fridge in my apartment break and the cost of having the tech just come out to look at it was around 1/2 of a new unit and then who knows how much the parts and labor would have been to fix it. Sadly, it just went to the scrap yard and we got a new one.
pfdietz 4y ago
I just watched an amusing video that compares Mr. Coffee's original machine to modern drip coffeemakers. Mr. Coffee would cost $300 today (adjusted for inflation). There's been great simplification of the design over the years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp9H0MO-qS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp9H0MO-qS8 Given a more than order of magnitude reduction in price, a shorter lifespan can be tolerated, and could even be a rational consumer choice.
- dundarious 4y ago
  In this specific case, I think you're too quick to accept that trade-off. I don't remember the video drawing any such conclusion, and from memory, it seemed to slightly indicate that the older-and-more-expensive model was likely the less reliable of the pair in one or two ways (the flimsy and dangerous wire, and less importantly the dual heating elements). The new model is probably only less reliable in one way -- the outer shell is probably easier to break if you really smash it. In general, I think it's almost always the case that compared to historical offerings, you can get an order or so drop in price, without sacrificing core lifespan. Sacrificing lifespan can be done, but for such devices, such sacrifices lead to saving an additional $10-$20 rather than $100-$200 -- those come from access to cheaper materials. It's like buying shoes for $20 that you'll have to replace every year, instead of an $80 pair that last 10 years. It's a trap, and the goal should be to lift people out of it, rather than make an even worse $15 shoe, and so on.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    The newer model is more subject to failure due to scale buildup inside the heating tube, causing the thermostat to trip.
    - bobsmooth 4y ago
      As Alec recounts you can run vinegar through it to descale it.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
DangitBobby 4y ago
Weird that we've been making a lot of the same appliances for so long but haven't really gotten any better at making them reliable. I mean, if I'd been making fridges for the last 60 years I'd probably know how to make one last, right?
- t-3 4y ago
  They've gotten really good at making them break down on time to ensure more business for the fridge-making company. Planned obsolescence isn't a conspiracy theory.
schiffern 4y ago
> These studies never account for survivorship bias. Then I'm sure you were relieved to discover that the author didn't! From the link: "The very early (30's and 40's) ones were less consistent in their life spans. I've seen a document on this somewhere and will share it if I run across it again. They didn't have the automated and consistent manufacturing processes like we have today. Some of them did go out early. The ones we still have today from the early days are the ones which were especially good, and are still in the long flat bottom of the failure bathtub curve. "What I foresee killing off many of the 2000's compressors are the lower engineering margins in the design. It takes less of an incident to go beyond that margin into the region of damage and failure; as compared to earlier compressors with a larger engineering margin.
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  That does not account for survivorship bias. It makes no mention of compressors from the 30s and 40s that were universally terrible, so none existed for long enough to evaluate their MTBF. It also does not evaluate reliability of units from the 50s through the 2000s, which is apparently when everything became unreliable junk. In order to properly control for survivorship bias, you need to tabulate reliability figures for each year (and for each price point). The handwaving assertion about manufacturing consistency does not do that in the slightest.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    You're making an unnecessary distinction between intra-brand survivorship bias and inter-brand survivorship bias. Both effects are at play in the real world, obviously. Reply to edits: >It also does not evaluate reliability of units from the 50s through the 2000s "This isn't a massive cross-brand longitudinal study" is a pretty low-hanging critique. Who could afford such a study? >In order to properly control for survivorship bias, you need to tabulate reliability figures for each year (and for each price point). Does any party have access to these data, realistically?
    - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
unixbane 4y ago
but electronics are literally shit. perhaps they always were, but there are things that are new since the early 2000s that automatically make them shit, like those buttons on a microwave, digital controls, and having javascript inside the product. i cant think of a single piece of hardware i bought after 2005 that i was happy about. i buy a scale (the most expensive one in the store this time) and it automatically shuts off after a minute and i have to re-tare it. i buy a thermostat and it has a vuln that lets people remotely control it. i buy a keyboard and it has LEDs and when you turn them off (lucky it has the feature), you cant see the key labels because they are just holes for the LED. i buy another "gaming" keyboard and it has 2KRO (i.e, worse than $5 generic keyboard). the last decent product i can remember was a CRT in 2005. LCDs starting with HDMI or so take longer to turn on that a CRT, they are THAT bad. (LCDs did not compete with CRT until 2015 or so, btw). i cant even imagine why you would downvote this. are you the one agreeing with OP's "no evidence" claim, or are you just some frothing idiot consumer who is upset that your little purchases arent being extolled as they usually are?
littlestymaar 4y ago
Every time this quality decline pops up there always someone to argue that this is all caused by survivorship bias, but this argument just doesn't hold water: if it was survivorship bias, you would see isolated old appliances scattered between homes, but nobody with many appliances from the 80s and earlier still working, yet it's the opposite that occurs. I'm extraordinarily happy to still have 3 of my grand parents (95/93 and 86) and most of their stuff is almost 40 years old : - fridge - oven - dishwasher - freezer - hairdryer - vacuum cleaner - mixer - coffee machine - and even a microwave oven that's been in use daily since 1984! The notable exception being the toaster (thrown away when we learned it had asbestos in it very close to the bread) and the washing machines. > A $10k fridge today (e.g. Sub Zero) will easily last for many decades. I wouldn't take a bet on it. Especially because luxury stuff are targeting a wealthy audience who often change their still fully functional appliance after a few year to buy “better” ones (bigger, additional feature, or even just a design that isn't out of fashion), they have very limited incentive in making things that last several decades, it just needs not to die during the typical ownership duration. Related trivia: the most expensive Hermès handbags are really fragile because the crocodile skin is untreated, and if you carry them outside when it rains, every drop will leave a stain. That doesn't seem to negatively affect their business in any way. That being said, it is true that household appliance used to cost much more back then, and people where willing to pay that much money. That's the tragedy of competitive markets for commodities: it's a race to the bottom.
quartz 4y ago
The nice thing about Sub Zero is that the whole thing can be disassembled so when something does go wrong it can be repaired. I inherited a 12+ year old one one with my apartment and have been able to strip it down to its circuit boards to clean, maintain, and repair it when needed which I love. The bad thing is the company treats itself like a luxury car brand so OEM parts are a fortune ($400 for a shelf!) and if you aren't interested in doing the work yourself the certified repair guy is going to rake you over the coals like a luxury German auto dealer's service department for simple repairs. Luckily, like with luxury car brands, the resale value of all the parts is basically $0 so you can get used parts (or even entire used appliances) super cheap and there are lots of compatible parts out there on amazon for reasonable prices (I recently had to replace the compressor switch which took about 10 minutes and a $10 part but would have been $200+ to have a tech show up). Net-net it's the best fridge I've ever owned but even so I'm not sure I would have chosen to shell out the $12k for it if I had been the original buyer.

e40 4y ago

Sub Zero fridges are terrible. The people I’ve known that had them rued the day they bought them. They are a status symbols, that’s why they cost so much, not because they are top quality.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago
That is not what I’ve heard from speaking to appliance repair techs, or builders/architects, or the Sub Zero owners I know with 15+ year old refrigerators that have never had any issues (except the ice maker, which is an inherently unreliable piece of technology). My guess is your friends aren’t maintaining them properly (they know they have to clean the condenser coils every couple months, right?) Either that, or they have those “integrated” models with no visible vent for the condenser, which of course will overheat the compressors and electronics.
- AnonymousPlanet 4y ago
  Ah, the fridge equivalent of "you're holding it wrong"
- e40 4y ago
  See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32464782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32464782
liminalsunset 4y ago
I've worked on one from ~2008. The fridge has a decent build quality, and two (!) compressors inside of it. It uses more metal components, more structural supports, etc, compared to most other fridges I've seen. So it's "better". It also is designed such that you absolutely cannot clean the inner layers of the fan-cooled condenser coil without major disassembly of the fridge. The service panel on the front can be removed, but there is a metal fan shroud that is difficult to remove and turns what ought to be routine maintenance into an ordeal involving taking things apart and taking the built in fridge out of the wall. Whether this was deliberate or just an oversight, I don't know. There would have been many other simple and cost-neutral ways to implement this cover.

userbinator 4y ago

The point is that the curve of MTBF has a much narrower standard deviation than it used to --- there aren't as many early failures on newer models, but there also won't be as many old-age survivors. A 70 year old fridge that cost the equivalent of $10k today when new, and is likely to last over a century, is still a better value than replacing a $1k model a dozen times in the same timespan.

kcexn 4y ago
Not necessarily, if you accommodate for inflation.

BirAdam 4y ago

Yeah, the adjusted prices are a major factor. Today, that could get you a Miele that would be inherited by your children, nephews, or grandchildren. The other thing people forget is that older appliances and electronics were built to be easily serviced, and therefore the ones today that survive have been repaired at some point (most likely). Today, most of those dedicated repair shops are long gone and products are no longer designed to be serviceable.

hotcoffeebear 4y ago
Usually repairing costs are incredibly high. So you usually end up buying new one and creating more waste.
- s0rce 4y ago
  I had an inexpensive fridge in my apartment break and the cost of having the tech just come out to look at it was around 1/2 of a new unit and then who knows how much the parts and labor would have been to fix it. Sadly, it just went to the scrap yard and we got a new one.

pfdietz 4y ago

I just watched an amusing video that compares Mr. Coffee's original machine to modern drip coffeemakers. Mr. Coffee would cost $300 today (adjusted for inflation). There's been great simplification of the design over the years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp9H0MO-qS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp9H0MO-qS8 Given a more than order of magnitude reduction in price, a shorter lifespan can be tolerated, and could even be a rational consumer choice.

dundarious 4y ago
In this specific case, I think you're too quick to accept that trade-off. I don't remember the video drawing any such conclusion, and from memory, it seemed to slightly indicate that the older-and-more-expensive model was likely the less reliable of the pair in one or two ways (the flimsy and dangerous wire, and less importantly the dual heating elements). The new model is probably only less reliable in one way -- the outer shell is probably easier to break if you really smash it. In general, I think it's almost always the case that compared to historical offerings, you can get an order or so drop in price, without sacrificing core lifespan. Sacrificing lifespan can be done, but for such devices, such sacrifices lead to saving an additional $10-$20 rather than $100-$200 -- those come from access to cheaper materials. It's like buying shoes for $20 that you'll have to replace every year, instead of an $80 pair that last 10 years. It's a trap, and the goal should be to lift people out of it, rather than make an even worse $15 shoe, and so on.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  The newer model is more subject to failure due to scale buildup inside the heating tube, causing the thermostat to trip.
  - bobsmooth 4y ago
    As Alec recounts you can run vinegar through it to descale it.
    - pfdietz 4y ago

DangitBobby 4y ago

Weird that we've been making a lot of the same appliances for so long but haven't really gotten any better at making them reliable. I mean, if I'd been making fridges for the last 60 years I'd probably know how to make one last, right?

t-3 4y ago
They've gotten really good at making them break down on time to ensure more business for the fridge-making company. Planned obsolescence isn't a conspiracy theory.

schiffern 4y ago

> These studies never account for survivorship bias. Then I'm sure you were relieved to discover that the author didn't! From the link: "The very early (30's and 40's) ones were less consistent in their life spans. I've seen a document on this somewhere and will share it if I run across it again. They didn't have the automated and consistent manufacturing processes like we have today. Some of them did go out early. The ones we still have today from the early days are the ones which were especially good, and are still in the long flat bottom of the failure bathtub curve. "What I foresee killing off many of the 2000's compressors are the lower engineering margins in the design. It takes less of an incident to go beyond that margin into the region of damage and failure; as compared to earlier compressors with a larger engineering margin.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago
That does not account for survivorship bias. It makes no mention of compressors from the 30s and 40s that were universally terrible, so none existed for long enough to evaluate their MTBF. It also does not evaluate reliability of units from the 50s through the 2000s, which is apparently when everything became unreliable junk. In order to properly control for survivorship bias, you need to tabulate reliability figures for each year (and for each price point). The handwaving assertion about manufacturing consistency does not do that in the slightest.
- schiffern 4y ago
  You're making an unnecessary distinction between intra-brand survivorship bias and inter-brand survivorship bias. Both effects are at play in the real world, obviously. Reply to edits: >It also does not evaluate reliability of units from the 50s through the 2000s "This isn't a massive cross-brand longitudinal study" is a pretty low-hanging critique. Who could afford such a study? >In order to properly control for survivorship bias, you need to tabulate reliability figures for each year (and for each price point). Does any party have access to these data, realistically?
  - MontyCarloHall 4y ago

unixbane 4y ago

but electronics are literally shit. perhaps they always were, but there are things that are new since the early 2000s that automatically make them shit, like those buttons on a microwave, digital controls, and having javascript inside the product. i cant think of a single piece of hardware i bought after 2005 that i was happy about. i buy a scale (the most expensive one in the store this time) and it automatically shuts off after a minute and i have to re-tare it. i buy a thermostat and it has a vuln that lets people remotely control it. i buy a keyboard and it has LEDs and when you turn them off (lucky it has the feature), you cant see the key labels because they are just holes for the LED. i buy another "gaming" keyboard and it has 2KRO (i.e, worse than $5 generic keyboard). the last decent product i can remember was a CRT in 2005. LCDs starting with HDMI or so take longer to turn on that a CRT, they are THAT bad. (LCDs did not compete with CRT until 2015 or so, btw). i cant even imagine why you would downvote this. are you the one agreeing with OP's "no evidence" claim, or are you just some frothing idiot consumer who is upset that your little purchases arent being extolled as they usually are?

littlestymaar 4y ago

Every time this quality decline pops up there always someone to argue that this is all caused by survivorship bias, but this argument just doesn't hold water: if it was survivorship bias, you would see isolated old appliances scattered between homes, but nobody with many appliances from the 80s and earlier still working, yet it's the opposite that occurs. I'm extraordinarily happy to still have 3 of my grand parents (95/93 and 86) and most of their stuff is almost 40 years old : - fridge - oven - dishwasher - freezer - hairdryer - vacuum cleaner - mixer - coffee machine - and even a microwave oven that's been in use daily since 1984! The notable exception being the toaster (thrown away when we learned it had asbestos in it very close to the bread) and the washing machines. > A $10k fridge today (e.g. Sub Zero) will easily last for many decades. I wouldn't take a bet on it. Especially because luxury stuff are targeting a wealthy audience who often change their still fully functional appliance after a few year to buy “better” ones (bigger, additional feature, or even just a design that isn't out of fashion), they have very limited incentive in making things that last several decades, it just needs not to die during the typical ownership duration. Related trivia: the most expensive Hermès handbags are really fragile because the crocodile skin is untreated, and if you carry them outside when it rains, every drop will leave a stain. That doesn't seem to negatively affect their business in any way. That being said, it is true that household appliance used to cost much more back then, and people where willing to pay that much money. That's the tragedy of competitive markets for commodities: it's a race to the bottom.

quartz 4y ago

The nice thing about Sub Zero is that the whole thing can be disassembled so when something does go wrong it can be repaired. I inherited a 12+ year old one one with my apartment and have been able to strip it down to its circuit boards to clean, maintain, and repair it when needed which I love. The bad thing is the company treats itself like a luxury car brand so OEM parts are a fortune ($400 for a shelf!) and if you aren't interested in doing the work yourself the certified repair guy is going to rake you over the coals like a luxury German auto dealer's service department for simple repairs. Luckily, like with luxury car brands, the resale value of all the parts is basically $0 so you can get used parts (or even entire used appliances) super cheap and there are lots of compatible parts out there on amazon for reasonable prices (I recently had to replace the compressor switch which took about 10 minutes and a $10 part but would have been $200+ to have a tech show up). Net-net it's the best fridge I've ever owned but even so I'm not sure I would have chosen to shell out the $12k for it if I had been the original buyer.