5 ms·
I personally don't favour cheap over longevity, and I don't really believe most consumer do either. The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to
by mattmanser 3y ago
I personally don't favour cheap over longevity, and I don't really believe most consumer do either.
The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to discern if something will last.
An expensive product, from what was a trusted brand, can be just as short lived as a cheap one these days. Cost does not always reflect quality.
And brands that build long-lived products struggle as they don't have the repeat customers of products that are good, but contain forced obsolescence features.
It's a hidden cost to consumers that is often hard to figure out without extensive research.
- wellanyway 3y agoExactly. Marshall Major headphones I bought some tears ago looked and were priced in a way I thought would guarantee decade of service at least. They fell apart in half a year revealing multiple fundamental design flaws.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago> And brands that build long-lived products struggle as they don't have the repeat customers of products that are good I know of a company that was a national leader in a certain kind of industrial equipment. Now that the industry isn't expanding in this country, the market is saturated and they can't sell anything because what they sold decades ago was designed for excellence and just won't die. Nearly all business now is occasional servicing of their old equipment.
- peteradio 3y agoThey should be able to increase the margin of their meager sales at the least, with a history like that.
- noisy_boy 3y agoWell, if their brand is that strong, that itself allows them to start making something else - you know, "from the makers of <stuff_that_just_wouldn't_die>"; won't need much brand building and convincing because people are still eating the pudding containing the proof.