Why everything you buy is worse now [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
About a toaster company:
"If you are passionate about toast, you will not work at a company that does not build toasters, that only does marketing. So my central thesis here is that if as an organization, you outsource too much with the idea that we will still retain the designers and our own power to innovate, it will not actually work.
The smart people will not work for your company, because you have turned into a marketing and financing exercise. And the smart engineers, they want to build better toasters, they want to touch actual stuff. So the thing is, there is a point of no return.
If as a company you have outsourced too much. No good engineer will still want to work for your company."
I ended up buying vintage because it turns out technological advancement has been directed to finding and building an ever more minimal viable toaster to keep prices sorrrrta constant under inflation. So that 80's-90's toaster is delivering value right now.
This is such a nice (and accurate) way to look at it.
Imputed value.
I'm interested to hear about the rest of your setup: espresso machine, clothes washer, car?
Can I just pay someone $50 for a toaster that actually works please?
Probably true for many parts. 1 or 2 highly specialized manufacturers that are absolute king in their market niche.
Vendor picks a bunch of such parts, slaps custom housing around it (made by yet another specialist), and moves the boxes. Branding, logistics & perhaps assembly (if not outsourced to 3rd party too), rather than manufacturing most of an appliance themselves.
It only takes buying the same thing 2 or 3 times before it’s more expensive than the quality options anyway.
An example, I bought a DeWalt electric pole trimmer. It was expensive, but I bought it because I wanted something that lasted. It broke after a couple of weeks and sits collecting dust. DeWalt used to be known for top quality stuff that contractors use. The brand is now diluted and probably crap.
It really makes me hesitant to buy much anything I don't absolutely need.
I have other pairs of dress shoes from Red Wing that are similar; I doubt I'll EVER need to replace them.
Note: the boots are style 2412, the shoes are a variety but the oldest are called MIL-1 Congress boots (Chelsea). I have a few pairs of a different style dress shoe from the heritage line as well.
I understand your point, but realize some of us really do live in these boots and have found some that make a huge difference.
The only (and big) negative for the Red Wings was the break in process. It was protracted and brutal. Once broken in they've been wonderful though.
Also, I'm giving the boots too much credit. Just looked them up and the Bellevilles I wore (800 ST) just before the Red Wings are $230 today. I replaced them yearly because they were coming apart.
For hiking and climbing I wear La Sportiva and they have been excellent as well, as another brand to look at.
> Our boot regulations and contracts severely limit our options to only a few very expensive-and often ineffective-models.
So these are just overpriced boots. My main point is that OP is pushing a narrative about how rich people somehow save money with their expensive purchases, which is complete nonsense. They buy luxury products which are more expensive in the long run.
I give them a 10 second clean before use and 30 second clean + some polish after.
Scale accordingly for variance in usage and quality for the ones claiming 2w vs 1y.
I hope they're still in business.
I purchased a pair of Chelsea Boots from Churches of London in the late 90s and they still look great today!
I’ve had new soles a few times, and recent had a partial reconstruction; liners, pull tags and so on.
But I’ve had them 25 years and the actual boot leather is still fantastic!
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots...
(I know this wasn't spoken by DEATH but it seemed appropriate)
For a true DEATH quote:
‘DON’T THINK OF IT AS DYING,’ said Death. ‘JUST THINK OF IT AS LEAVING EARLY TO AVOID THE RUSH.’
> I’m buying a new iPhone if the one i have doesn’t get any updates anymore
There have been many cases of Apple deploying planned obsolescence - intentionally crippling devices to get people to buy new models. So I wouldn't call Apple products that 'quality stuff'.
I base decisions on quality products based on how good they function, how long they last, and how easy and straightforward they are to repair yourself. Apple checks absolutely none of those boxes.
I've done this with umbrellas, camelbaks, tents, ski equipment, but mostly, as stated before, tools.
What so you do about the cheap tools that turn out so bad that they cause damage?
For example, you get a cheap screwdriver, it breaks while you use it, and you end up making a hole in the cabinet you were trying to fix.
While the general approach sounds sane, it seems to me there are a lot of cases where going for the cheap version could cost a lot in collateral damage.
Imagine you get a cheap drone for videography. It fails mid flight, falls and kills someone.
Bad tools can have consequences. What does parent commenter do about this?
Oh, how naive you can be? https://old.reddit.com/r/Chinesium/
But I will do my research and get the better product (which is not necessarily the more expensive product) in these cases:
- I already know that I will use it a lot and wear it out if it is not good. (An example of a tool that falls into this category, for me, would be a drill or a garden hose.)
- The poor quality variant won't (or won't just) wear out, but it will give me worse results and is barely fit for purpose. (An example would be a mitre saw or a sewing machine, where cheaper ones are inaccurate/finicky and ruin projects.)
I also spend like half on food since I buy in bulk and mostly directly from farmers. But realistically who can afford paying hundreds of dollars for a pack of meat today? Like in right now without missing the money elsewhere. I am sure the majority can't. (Maybe different on here)
Obviously doesn't apply to stuff you know you will seldom use.
A few days back there was a discussion on HN, The Tyranny of the Marginal User[1]. This applies to products. Products are made worse, advertised as great deals using all kinds of psychological tricks (Eg: discounting tricks in Austria discussed today in HN.), influencers, wellness peddlers, bloggers, podcasters, etc. Everyone, everywhere, everything, all the time is about buying stuff! See Temu, how it gamified shopping, bringing in game app store pressure tactics to shopping.
People complain all the time about how things are costly or getting costlier or shrinkflation, but it doesn't stop anyone from buying, which leads me to think most people have too much money and have zero discretion on what to buy. A while back, people used to back away from buying stuff which they thought wasn't a great deal. But something has changed in the past few years, anybody can make any garbage and people will buy it! Think about cars: most everyone bought cars a few thousand below MSRP, but now undiscerning people have proven to manufacturers and dealers that they will buy whatever crap car is made at 50% markup. There is no selection pressure on manufacturers to make good stuff.
I've noticed that people seem to expect less from things nowadays. In video games, they're okay with spending a lot of money on cosmetic skins. Even big companies like Apple advertise features like sending animated cat emojis as a big deal.
I find it a bit strange, but some people really like and defend them. It's just how things are changing in the world.
On the other hand for clothing, it is clear that the quality decreases, like was shown in the video, because people buy more often. It gets out of fashion very fast anyway. Fashionability is bad for the environment.
For electro mechanical devices, like coffee machines or printers, they suffer from addition of electronic features (like better ui or more features in one device) that mainly tend to add comfort but at the cost of more possible points of failure.
So we have this problem because companies have test equipment that can tell them exactlly how long a product will last. Initially it was used to prevent bad products, now it is also used to prevent products that are too good.
Regarding personal consumption I'd use Total Cost of Ownership equation. Need a screwdriver 3 times a year - no need to buy something very good. Need a keyboard for you computer and you're a programmer - buy the best you can, because your hands are irreplaceable. But you don't need a fancy laptop stand - a box and couple of books can do the thing (if you don't mind the ugly desk). With the money saved you can always just invest them and get them working or spend them on something more meaningful like health, socializing or whatever you like.
In hindsight seems like Capone, being commoner friendly.
I've found discontinued products in particular (by chance) almost a sign of a product which had tonnes of R&D poured into it, then, was deemed too expensive by the company.
I fundamentally believe that the human being requires designing their environment. This is also why cities in their current configuration may be such an anti-pattern with the trajectory of dystopian qualities; it is absurdly difficult for any human in a city to modify their environment in such a way it is the product of their inspiration and function.
Tl:dr I think people value things less when they don’t directly build it.