Not sure if this was a troll, but I'll assume it was honest and then point out that every system optimizes for profit. Profit is just taking out more than what you put in. That could be being paid even if you don't show up to work, or doing one hour of work and getting paid for 2, or selling something for $2 when you could easily sell it for $1. Everyone wants to take out more than they put in.

The genius of capitalism is in encouraging and facilitating competition so that other firms can come and take away your profit by selling something that appeals to customers more. In this way, the universal profit motive is turned into better products as people compete for surplus income rather than having that assigned by birth (middle ages), political connections (soviet systems), religious considerations (indulgences/moral crusaders), etc.

But everyone is going to optimize to get more than what they put in -- e.g. profit. The only question is what determines that income stream -- being able to sell products to consumers better than the other guy, or being a loyal party deputy.

Hi, author here (and I really am looking for answers).

Thanks for your comment.

As someone below you hinted at, wouldn't one expect that "high profit" would result from "high consumer satisfaction"? I think that's the step that puzzles me.

I have to say, reading through this thread I'm beginning to think that the existing offering of kettles in the market does deliver sufficient satisfaction to consumers, removing the incentive to create a better product.

Multiple commenters have said they don't mind beeps, or flashy lights, or the lack of a calcium mesh. It may be worth pointing out that the kettles I bought had VERY loud beeps (I don't mind a "normal" beep), VERY strong lights (I don't mind "normal" lights, I actually enjoy seeing light in my kettle). Also, I actually do pre-filter my water with a Brita jug, and I also descale my kettle regularly, but the calcium content in my area is so high that I'd have to descale between every 2 cups of tea not to get calc bits in my drink.

This all leads me to conclude that probably my opening premise is wrong: maybe I am unreasonably picky about kettles and, since capitalism makes kettles for the masses and not for the 3% of people who are as picky as I seem to be, then I can't find a (cheap) kettle that meets my requirements.

But... why did the first 19.99€ kettle exist then? How come that product was possible (and later disappeared)?

Another part of me feels that if someone produces a reasonably durable kettle that meets all the requirements in my post (as well as some secondary requirements that I didn't write about but that my 19.99€ kettle did meet), then that will quickly become the new gold standard for kettles and in 10 years we'll look back and say "oh my goodness, can you believe we used to not have temperature control in most kettles?"

You may ask "then why did the 19.99€ kettle disappear?" and that is a good question. The best answer I've been able to find is that it was a generic supermarket-brand kettle and it cannibalised profits from other more expensive brandname kettles. I also don't understand why the super advanced toaster (that someone else in this thread posted a video of) disappeared. And I guess that is the crux of my question, really: in 1948 we had a design of a toaster that was superior in every way to modern day toasters. How come it's disappeared for good?

But that wouldn’t answer the question. Why is it not profitable to make good kettles?

Also, you’re wrong. The people designing these kettles aren’t doing so to make more money for their company. If anything you could say that capitalism optimises for job security. That’s why you don’t see new features on kettles, and why no one will make a left handed microwave. No one wants to take a risk