Hacker News Reader

Comment by odbol_ | Hacker News Reader

If only they made crappier products that break more often, at least then their stock shareholders would think it's a good company. This exemplifies everything that's wrong with capitalism and planned obsolescence.

View on HN

It's not really about "crappier products that break more often." It's about not giving people compelling reasons to buy upgraded versions or not expanding into new product areas (as they've just recently done with their drone). And, yes, if you're a company with shareholders, you can't get away with selling a product and then have your sales dwindle when you don't follow up with anything people want to buy.

Or.. its just a reflection of the market they're in. Understanding how much innovation opportunity is left in a market/category is a huge part of identifying whether you should continue to invest there or elsewhere.

Leica cameras have always been quality products and that didn't hurt them at all. A Leica will last forever.

Leica is privately owned, which does make it easier to choose less growth. As a public company you need to grow or return enough steady dividends to make it worthwhile for people to keep their money invested in you.

But Leica as a company would have never reached the valuation Gopro enjoyed (and now suffers from, we would not have this conversation if the Gopro brand had not inspired unrealistic expectations)

That's the second half of the equation. The first half was "video editing is harder than they hoped so they sell it". Maybe focus on making the product EVEN better (vs worse) by identifying how to make the process after the video is shot better. Aka don't ruin resale value, instead focus on WHY people are reselling them and fix that. Maybe make an iMovie style tool for common go pro uses.

It's not them, if their product broke, someone else in China would have made a better one.

I think consumer video in the last 10 years went from expensive and ok quality to dirt cheap and professional quality. The same thing that happened to audio happened to video. Now all of that GoPro tech is hitting smart phones and ultra cheap Chinese knock offs.. The whole consumer electronics space has been eaten by the smartphone.

Same thing is happening to Apple. The cutting edge is slowing down or is too good already and everything is starting to get super cheap and commoditized. It's hard for premium brands to get an edge.

Or maybe they shouldnt build the company around one product. If they made a crappy product, someone else would make a better one, and people would buy that one.

GoPro's market segment requires toughness and reliability. It's the central plank in their offering. They'd never have built their name if they made shoddy stuff.

In what way do you think that strategy is an inescapable consequence of capitalism?

Capitalism isn't a bad idea, it just needs proper regulation. What we have is an unregulated mess which gives both stupid and unscrupulous execs the advantage.

That doesn't answer my question, at all. What is it about capitalism that makes the strategy you describe a) inevitable, and b) worthy of regulation (since you brought that up)?

Also, I disagree that the modern economy is unregulated. Quite the contrary, in fact. And it's regulation, bailouts and crony capitalism that protect companies who make awful products.

What is it about capitalism that makes the strategy you describe a) inevitable, and b) worthy of regulation (since you brought that up)?

The profit motive covers (a).

No, it doesn't. Consumers value products that last a long time.

This is a big reason Apple is the world's largest computer computer company despite charging more for the same transistor counts. People are actually willing to pay a huge premium for reliable stuff that they don't have to junk after a year. The market gets it right.

It doesn't cover why it would be an inescapable consequence.

A company that built lasting products of high quality wouldn't earn profits? Hmmmmmm[0]

[0] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAAPL&fstype=ii&ei=...

haha is this a joke? Apple basically forces you to upgrade your phone every two years, by releasing a mandatory OS update that makes older phones slow as dirt.

I'm talking about my mom's 1957 Ford pickup that still runs great today. I'm talking about the Ostrisizer can opener from the 1970s that my family still uses in their kitchen. 5 years lifetime for a $800 product is not "built to last".

A 1957 Ford pickup is going to be an absolute deathtrap in an accident. I'm not sure that's a great example.

Not quite that exact combo, but you get the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

I had my MacBook Pro for 6 years before I upgraded, and didn't really need to. Are there many better examples within the computer / smartphone industry than Apple? Capitalism allows $1000 to buy progressively more powerful computers year after year.

Oh but you're talking about pickup trucks and can-openers. Oh ok my bad.

Were those created by socialist / communist economies now?

What are we even talking about here? Did capitalist economies develop these things or not? Does the profit motive not motivate the auto company and can opener company to produce a better product?

We're not talking about capitalism vs. communism. We're talking about capitalism vs. consumerism, aka Planned Obsolescence.

Capitalism _could_ produce products (even high-tech products like phones) that last for longer than 2 years (e.g. swappable chips/boards/screens, etc), but it doesn't, because the rapid, constant growth demanded by investors is antithetical to making products that are built to last.

1957 Fords were made in a capitalist society under less regulations than todays cars. Cold War era Trabants, Skodas or Ladas that were made under a socialist economy were neither as durable nor as desirable as those capitalist cars made in the West.

Nothing in the profit motive prohibits Apple's success, no. Apple certainly pays attention to its margins and how to increase them, it's just that they're not afraid to do it with price. However, and this can't be the first time you've seen this, but brands and their products are routinely downgraded in quality over time, particularly after acquisitions. Have you seen a Bell & Howell product line lately?[1] See also: Converse Chuck Taylor and Doc Marten shoes.

1. http://bellandhowell.com/

"This hypothetical scenario that I just made up and isn't what's actually happening here is everything wrong with capitalism."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com