Hacker News Reader

Comment by brianwawok | Hacker News Reader

So what was this like 30 years ago? No algo with no internet. You make a business, you try to sell it around your town. If you do really awesome you can get 75% of X business in your town. If you do really really really awesome maybe you can franchise it across the country. But most people topped out at ruling a town.

Now we are competing on a world market. Gains are much bigger, but everyone has 500 competitors. You tend to get nothing or $billions.

Good for the consumer I think, as they can get the best version of X. Not so good for the 499 other businesses that close.

View on HN

>Good for the consumer I think, as they can get the best version of X. //

I look around and I don't see consumers getting the best version of things I see consumers getting what they're told they should want whilst seemingly ignoring major improvements.

Engineered obsolescence seems like a major thing, how does it benefit consumers (except the rich ones who're probably involved in profiting from it themselves - even then they get the downsides of environmental damage and wastage of resources, eventually).

I want a kettle that has the lid catches made in a resilient and repairable way - instead all the kettles I can find (up to about £80) have plastic that is seemingly designed to perish in a year or two at most. My first washing machine lasted about 15 years; now washing machine repair people are telling me that a machine 3 years old is past it and should be replaced. Progress?

Wealthy companies can see off poor companies and bury better designs. Consumers don't tend to look beyond the end of their wallet, or can't afford to.

We're not working together to create better products we're fighting each other to get consumers money.

I think a solution to planned obsolescence would be to require prominent labelling of guaranteed product lifetimes. (Including "0 Months" if they aren't willing to offer a warranty.) That way consumers can judge products based on lifetime value instead of just the immediate price.

Is it? Long lasting durable white goods are available if you purchase from the manufacturer's commercial line - they are built to higher standards as businesses purchase them based on lifetime ROI. However, few consumers buy them as the bottom line price is too high.

Just face it, people are cheap and care most about the sticker price.

Consumers don't buy based on lifetime value because that's not the choice presented to them.

Most likely the consumer store they go to doesn't even carry the commercial lines, and even if they do, the fact that they last longer isn't made obvious. There's no incentive for stores make that information readily available to consumers, because they benefit just as much from planned obsolescence as the manufacturer. When all people can see is the sticker price, is it any wonder that that's what drives their decisions?

If there were a big sticker saying that the one that costs 50% more last 10 years instead of 2, I think consumers would happily buy the more expensive one. They're cheap, but they're not stupid.

So I hear the washing machine story a lot. And it is true, insomuch as a 1970s washing machine would last for 20 years, and a 2010 washing machine will last for 6 years. Good read here:

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/myth-or-legend-the-...

The 1950s washing machine cost the equivalent of $5000. A modern one can be had for $300, and wash clothes far far far better. You can buy one every 5 years for the rest of your life, and come out way ahead.. so why not?

>You can buy one every 5 years for the rest of your life, and come out way ahead.. so why not?

For me the main reason is environmental impact which isn't accounted for properly in the price AFAICT. I'm currently trying to recycle parts from an old machine - many of which are polypropylene - but which despite bearing recycling logos aren't seemingly recyclable anywhere. Not even the ferrous seems to be wanted any more - stainless steel drum, few parts from aluminium, rest seems to be destined for landfill.

I'm talking about turn of the millennium washing machine (front-loader, UK) versus a current one. Price seems pretty comparable from what I recall.

Negative externalities are a big problem in almost any free market type situation. This is no exception.

> You can buy one every 5 years for the rest of your life, and come out way ahead.. so why not?

This is the principle behind planned obsolescence [0]. While I agree it may in some cases benefit the consumer, it generally seems designed more to maximize volume of sales and leads to degradation of product quality overall.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Here is my counter argument to this.

If there was a way to say, make a $300 washing machine last 20 years for only $100 more.. there would be a huge incentive for a new washing machine manufacturer to sell a $600 washer machine guaranteed to last 20 years.

Sure he only made $200 more profit than the guy selling the $300 washer machine, and he lost 3 future sales.. but he has 0% of the market to start with. Not like he has anything to lose.

I suspect we could make a 20 year washer for less than $5000.. but I bet it would still be a lot. Say $2000. And even at that price, still cheaper to the user to throw away the $300 washer every 5 years.

The argument against planned obsolescence is not an economic one but rather one against the immense waste it creates. The so-called "fast fashion" model now employed by H & M and other clothing retailers also falls into this model and it's an established business model in many other spaces as well.

If you create products that need to be thrown out and bought again cyclically, you create a much higher volume of sales. The problem with this is that our current recycling capacity is not able to handle the excess in resultant waste products.

A modern washing machine can be had for $300 in large part thanks to more automated manufacturing, better materials and electronics. I don't think there's any fundamental reason why someone couldn't build a reliable, efficient, repairable modern washing machine for close to the price of current machines - the extra cost would be miniscule compared to the cost of building a functional washing machine in the first place. They just don't because it means more sales.

Coming soon: The rise of the washing machine rent / lease

https://www.rentacenter.com/appliances/washers-and-dryers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com