8 ms·

I recall reading a quasi-debunking of this. I didn't go down the rabbit hole far enough to understand all the details, but it seems the situation was more compl

I recall reading a quasi-debunking of this. I didn't go down the rabbit hole far enough to understand all the details, but it seems the situation was more complicated than just corporate greed. [1] The topic has been discussed here in the past a few times, including [2] and [3] 1: https://readmedium.com/en/the-phoebus-cartel-was-never-really-evil-b16d3121385b https://readmedium.com/en/the-phoebus-cartel-was-never-reall... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596792 3: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17606748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17606748

0xEF 2y ago
I would not call any of that a debunking, even quasi. Just a different dance around the same hard-to-swallow pill. Company X makes a great product that everyone only needs one of and lasts a long time. Over time, the market starts to dwindle and. Company X is going broke. Now, Company X must either invest in innovation or reduce the lifespan of its current offering. There's nothing inherently evil about this concept, but we tend to want to chalk it up to greed when Company X really just wants to survive and make a profit, which I suppose is the point. The problem is the concept is ripe for abuse. If Company X makes their product worse, but starts charging more while laying off employees, posting record profits during recessions, adopts unnecessary subscription models cosplaying as continued service and development, etc...now we get to the greed part. There seems to be a line between designing a product to secure the longevity of Company X and straight up using your customers as micro-transaction ATMs with planned obsolescence. Some companies conspire to cross it.
- duckmysick 2y ago
  How do the manufacturers of long-lasting one-off-purchase products survive? Stuff like doors, windows, roof tiles, floor tiles, faucets, staircase railings, fences, etc. Are they filling Chapter 13 or are they in the process in reducing the lifespan so their products are replaced every couple of years? What's their secret?
  - cafard 2y ago
    Some do go broke. We rely on New York Replacement Parts for cartridges for our bathroom faucets, the original manufacturer being long out of business. Double-glazed windows may get blurry over the years, I guess, and then one would replace those. But that should take ten or more years. A properly protected door should last many years. One that we bought was not up to outside use, and failed. That manufacturer ended up purchased by a competitor, I think.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    I have replaced or added many of those things. People remodel, build new houses, etc. There are certainly business models around goods that people aren't renewing on an annual basis. Collectively it's probably fair to say that people in a country like the US buy a lot of doors even if it's a rare purchase for an individual.
    - djbusby 2y ago
      This place https://www.franklumber.com/ https://www.franklumber.com/ has been selling only doors for 50+ years. One can model their business around market rules. It just might not be as huge as you want.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        I just ordered a butcher block counter from a local company. I've also ordered butcher block from a different company. At a rather larger scale there's Andersen Windows and Doors. None of these are or ever going to be--or presumably have ambitions to be--Home Depot.
  - hirsin 2y ago
    They go broke or rely on an ever growing market, ie housing is always being built (most of your examples). But Instant Pot is the classic example of going broke because everyone bought exactly one of their products and never needed another (ignoring the three we have...)
    - 2y ago
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > There's nothing inherently evil about this concept, but we tend to want to chalk it up to greed when Company X really just wants to survive and make a profit, which I suppose is the point. No, that's exactly the problem. Company X surviving isn't a good enough justification for it to start making shittier products. Especially when they don't inform the customers of the degradation. This is a business model problem, or perhaps a whole-market problem; papering over it with "oh just a little planned obsolescence is good, because it lets the vendor survive" is kind of a bailout, and prevents the problem from being corrected. By now, this has happened in so many places across so many industries that it's a rot that runs deep through entirety of the market.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  Sounds to me that Company X sold their product for too cheap if they really lasted that long. Which then it becomes: "Company X undervalued their product, leading to bankruptcy".
mmkhd 2y ago
Nice video from the well known channel Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY => It's complicated. Yes, there was a cartel, but it was not all bad. There were legitimate reasons to go for 1000h light bulbs.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>but it seems the situation was more complicated than just corporate greed Then their strategy worked - if you really believe it's more complicated. Haven't investigated this particular subject, but many others subjects are _made_ complicated to achieve a particular outcome. Along lines of: 'let's protect the children' argument.

0xEF 2y ago

I would not call any of that a debunking, even quasi. Just a different dance around the same hard-to-swallow pill. Company X makes a great product that everyone only needs one of and lasts a long time. Over time, the market starts to dwindle and. Company X is going broke. Now, Company X must either invest in innovation or reduce the lifespan of its current offering. There's nothing inherently evil about this concept, but we tend to want to chalk it up to greed when Company X really just wants to survive and make a profit, which I suppose is the point. The problem is the concept is ripe for abuse. If Company X makes their product worse, but starts charging more while laying off employees, posting record profits during recessions, adopts unnecessary subscription models cosplaying as continued service and development, etc...now we get to the greed part. There seems to be a line between designing a product to secure the longevity of Company X and straight up using your customers as micro-transaction ATMs with planned obsolescence. Some companies conspire to cross it.

duckmysick 2y ago
How do the manufacturers of long-lasting one-off-purchase products survive? Stuff like doors, windows, roof tiles, floor tiles, faucets, staircase railings, fences, etc. Are they filling Chapter 13 or are they in the process in reducing the lifespan so their products are replaced every couple of years? What's their secret?
- cafard 2y ago
  Some do go broke. We rely on New York Replacement Parts for cartridges for our bathroom faucets, the original manufacturer being long out of business. Double-glazed windows may get blurry over the years, I guess, and then one would replace those. But that should take ten or more years. A properly protected door should last many years. One that we bought was not up to outside use, and failed. That manufacturer ended up purchased by a competitor, I think.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I have replaced or added many of those things. People remodel, build new houses, etc. There are certainly business models around goods that people aren't renewing on an annual basis. Collectively it's probably fair to say that people in a country like the US buy a lot of doors even if it's a rare purchase for an individual.
  - djbusby 2y ago
    This place https://www.franklumber.com/ https://www.franklumber.com/ has been selling only doors for 50+ years. One can model their business around market rules. It just might not be as huge as you want.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      I just ordered a butcher block counter from a local company. I've also ordered butcher block from a different company. At a rather larger scale there's Andersen Windows and Doors. None of these are or ever going to be--or presumably have ambitions to be--Home Depot.
- hirsin 2y ago
  They go broke or rely on an ever growing market, ie housing is always being built (most of your examples). But Instant Pot is the classic example of going broke because everyone bought exactly one of their products and never needed another (ignoring the three we have...)
  - 2y ago
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> There's nothing inherently evil about this concept, but we tend to want to chalk it up to greed when Company X really just wants to survive and make a profit, which I suppose is the point. No, that's exactly the problem. Company X surviving isn't a good enough justification for it to start making shittier products. Especially when they don't inform the customers of the degradation. This is a business model problem, or perhaps a whole-market problem; papering over it with "oh just a little planned obsolescence is good, because it lets the vendor survive" is kind of a bailout, and prevents the problem from being corrected. By now, this has happened in so many places across so many industries that it's a rot that runs deep through entirety of the market.
xboxnolifes 2y ago
Sounds to me that Company X sold their product for too cheap if they really lasted that long. Which then it becomes: "Company X undervalued their product, leading to bankruptcy".

mmkhd 2y ago

Nice video from the well known channel Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY => It's complicated. Yes, there was a cartel, but it was not all bad. There were legitimate reasons to go for 1000h light bulbs.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

>but it seems the situation was more complicated than just corporate greed Then their strategy worked - if you really believe it's more complicated. Haven't investigated this particular subject, but many others subjects are _made_ complicated to achieve a particular outcome. Along lines of: 'let's protect the children' argument.