Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

And these highlight the main reason why IKEA is still so successful. The apparent starting price for a bed appears to be $1800 on those sites (at least the ones in which I could easily find a price). Meanwhile IKEA has options under $200. I understand all the complaints that people have regarding the durability of IKEA furniture and how it is potentially getting worse, but replacing IKEA furniture every 2 years is still a more attractive deal for many people than replacing some higher quality stuff every 15-20 years.

View on HN

> replacing IKEA furniture every 2 years

What the hell are you doing with your Ikea furniture ? I have stuff going towards twenty years, no problem.

Most of it really doesn't like being disassembled and reassembled, so moving home every year or so would do that to the lifespan

I second this. Ikea furniture is great until you have to move it. Nothing wears and tears faster.

You clearly haven't tried moving with your local "designer furniture center" "high quality" furniture. IKEA is pretty much as good as the "quality furniture", when it comes to moving.

In my experience, the trick is to move them without disassembly or with minimal disassembly (removing only moving parts like shelves that are planned to be removed) like any other furniture. Nothing weird with that: Most traditional furniture items made by a carpenter would be equally incompatible with disassembly.

Likewise, if you're not planning on moving then you can make Ikea furniture much stronger by adding wood glue between the pieces during assembly. That way it stays tight and nothing comes loose or flexes.

It highly depends on the region and the local manufacturers they use. IKEA furniture is of very good quality in the Baltic/Scandinavian region in my experience, and significantly poorer quality in the UK.

I’ve also seen many packing mistakes (like two right sides of an armchair and no left side being packed) and similar in the UK that I never encountered around the Baltics/Nordics. I think a lot depends on the work and business culture in the region, as I’ve noticed more emphasis on quality in a lot of things in Scandinavia.

If you have kids, it's likely they are eating it.

Left them in a sandbox with a feather and an anvil and came back to half the anvil and feathers spread around everywhere.

While sarcasm, never underestimate how insanely destructive children are.

Ikea is perhaps the ultimate YMMV brand.

I have a sofa I bought in 2005. I keep thinking I'll replace it after my next move, but even after several since then, it barely shows a fraction of its age (though I will admit a lack of kids or pets has likely helped).

I also bought an ottoman at some point after the sofa. It never looked great to start with, and I threw it out before the first move.

I have a desk of similar vintage to the sofa. I'm typing at it right now. I think I've been in offices with contract-grade furniture less durable than it.

I bought two different Ikea dressers over the years. One I didn't bother taking with me on the first move; the other is still holding up great several moves later.

> replacing IKEA furniture every 2 years is still a more attractive deal for many people than replacing some higher quality stuff every 15-20 years.

Especially true for those of us living in apartments and moving residences every 3-4 years

I'm missing something, why is it assumed that living in an apartment is short term?

United States

not everyone is in a tech hub and can jump jobs without moving. and the parent comment implies they're doing a 3-5 year jump / move.

that doesn't mean people can stay in the same place long term, but if you're going to be there for 10+ years it might make sense to buy. yeah yeah i get no one can do that in SF or London, but plenty of HN posters who aren't in those cities.

But if you buy, it would be more common to buy an apartment than a house, no? At least in European cities. Which would counter the assumption of short-term apartment living.

Universal rent increases.

It's common both to own an apartment and rent a single-family house? I'm probably missing some US cultural assumptions.

No, if you live in an apartment your typical experience right now is one of rent increases pricing you out of your neighborhood - if you owned a home this wouldnt be a problem. So living in an apartment kinda has an implicit expiration - your time is up once you get priced out.

My point what I tried to make above -- why the assumption you're renting if you live in an apartment? Some naming convention I'm not familiar with that implies renting?

From reading other snippets - yes! Funnily enough, to me apartment exclusively refers to rentals, you would call it a condo if you purchased it but the connotations of condo to me are 'some one with too much money paying too much for too little'.

Too funny.

And why is it assumed that living in apartment is renting?

Generally the colloquial way to refer to an owned unit is as a "condo" whereas an "apartment" is assumed to be renting

It's more complicated than that but it's basically how it works in normal conversation

USA bias I guess: they consider apartments undesirable, only to be tolerated by the younger and/or poorer - but families are expected to try for a house.

People who live in apartments in the US tend to move to another apartment frequently, either to get a better unit, to avoid a sharp rent increase, or to move to another neighborhood. We moved 7 times over a 20 year span.

Young people do move often but, once they settle and buy their family apartment, they are just as static as occupants of any other type of dwelling.

That sounds super stressful. Especially since moving is considered one of the most stressful moments in life.

It's definitely something you adapt to - I moved 7 times as a kid growing up with my family (one of those being overseas) and now it's something I actually look forward too when the comes around.

Most people in the US don't have any rent control, not even controls for percentage increase year to year.

When I was renting, I could expect a 10-15% increase year to year. With the current average apartment cost being $1700, that can mean paying an additional $500-$800 per month after 3 years. At that point it becomes worth it to look elsewhere.

US bias. Sorry, should have clarified that in my comment.

No problem, I'm indeed not from US so I was just confused for a moment there.

What was astonishing to me is the resale value of IKEA stuff. We sold off a bunch of furniture when we moved a year ago and I think that the price I got for my PAX unit was somewhere close to what my parents paid for it for me like 25 years ago.

Used furniture is a weird market because it's hard to match buyers and sellers. But for whatever reason people seek out IKEA stuff. I've never had a problem moving it and have generally been happy with the prices I get

IKEA is like a chain restaurant, you know what you’re getting into and there’s a fair bit of supply.

It is probably a lot easier to acquire a set of used Ikea furniture that matches reasonably well, than doing it with the random stuff that gets out there.

I was going to comment this as well. Similar to a used Hondas, IKEA furniture can fetch higher prices because it’s so ubiquitous and easy to own. You know it will be easy to move, what to expect, and where you can find spare parts.

Not to mention when people need only one thing from IKEA, some will pay a premium to get it from down the street versus driving to IKEA.

PAX cabinets are a modular system.

Unlike virtually all other brands, IKEA enables you to purchase additional parts years or even decades down the line. Instead of searching for a second-hand cabinet which 100% matches your needs, you just look for something which is close enough and buy a few additional shelves and door handles new.

Yup. Wasn't just PAX though, I've had similar experiences with a cheapo couch, bookshelves, and my old desk.

The IKEA products are recognizable and easy to measurements for online. It's likely people have tried them out before because they're so common as well (or they've walked through the store a few times).

Besides that: no thanks to solid wood. It's super heavy and annoying to move around, and I say that as a guy. A woman of a smaller build or a child that needs to move a bit of furniture will hate them even more. Especially stuff like chairs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com