Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ronnoc527 t1_iznlwnf wrote

Suppose light bulbs cost twice as much but lasted much longer, you would not need to buy them nearly so frequently. Therefore, consumers would spend less money on lightbulbs in a lifetime and the manufacturers would make less money.

Things are often designed to break and force the consumer to purchase new stock. It's known as planned obsolescence.

The only reason to build things to last would be if you cared more about workmanship and pride than economics. While this might be true for individuals, it is almost never true for shareholders and therefore incredibly rare as a company outlook.

45

Lrxst t1_izpze5n wrote

Sort of an aside, sort of on topic, but suppose light bulbs were supplied by the power company as part of the service. You’d visit the utility office and exchange burnt out bulbs for new ones, for a $2 (1978 dollars) yearly subscription. That’s the world my parents (born 1930s) lived in until the service stopped in 1978 because a store owner sued the utility. My parents would complain about the low quality bulbs they had to buy in the stores, that were never as good as the ones from the utility.

https://www.nytimes.com/1978/05/26/archives/free-light-bulb-program-in-detroit-switched-off-upheld-in-supreme.html

9

SirCheeseAlot OP t1_iznm66k wrote

Could that not be a viable business modal though? Pay 25% more for our product, but it lasts you 300% longer.

6

Vod_Kanockers2 t1_iznmqmb wrote

I think it could, however that would require a consumer base that actually cared about longevity more than the rush from acquiring the latest greatest shiny thing. Unfortunately that is no longer the world we live in as most of society is more concerned with having the newest thing than buying items that last.

15

SirCheeseAlot OP t1_iznmxu6 wrote

Could human perception and values not be changed. I know in my grandparents time, they would buy quality stuff, and you would be thought of as a sucker if you bought something that didnt last for a very very long time.

7

DontWorryImADr t1_izpxz8m wrote

Some of this perspective isn’t true, but the survivor bias of what’s still around.

Was there cheap crap offered and sold back then? Of course! But it broke and went in the garbage. Same as now, what’s left are the things that happened to keep going and/or have such a massive stockpile as to still allow replacement parts to be found.

3

Public-Dig-6690 t1_iznsuqc wrote

Oh it's so out of style. Last year white kitchen cabinets were in but now our advertising is pushing so that you have to buy these new green kitchen cabinets or or house will look outdated !

5

yahnne954 t1_izouii4 wrote

I suppose you would need to make it your corporate identity to attract the smaller demographic willing to pay more for more durable stuff. Kind of like brands who advertise how they use materials or methods that protect the environment. First brand to come to mind is Eastpack, who hve a pretty lengthy warranty.

1

Ronnoc527 t1_iznmgvq wrote

That sounds great for the consumer. But it makes them less money. The only reason to do so would be if you really care about quality or PR. These are the companies you see in this sub.

4

SirCheeseAlot OP t1_iznmqzr wrote

It would be nice if the government provided incentives or passed restrictions on selling junk here.

3

Ronnoc527 t1_izo2az5 wrote

The necessary legislation would be passings laws that both:

  1. Restricted monopolies and oligopolies and

  2. Secured the "right to repair"

If there were a more competitive market, it would incentivize the production of higher quality products to secure more of the market share. And if products were not designed in such a way as to hinder repair, they could be fixed for cheaper than the cost of buying a replacement. This would, in turn, reduce the profit that planned obsolescence brings. These laws have been proposed often and have even passed in some places.

But politicians are richer than their trade and deep pockets weigh heavily on the scales. Everybody has a price, and politicians don't often succeed based on traits of impeccable morality and stalwart resolution to their beliefs.

8

Potato-Engineer t1_izppdrp wrote

Massachusetts has some decent Right To Repair laws, but it's pretty much alone. It's one of the few ways you can get a Tesla repair manual right now: by being a Masshole.

2

TheJackal927 t1_izo4he0 wrote

Unfortunately in our current economic system, successful firms aren't formed based on good ideas, but on profitable ones. Firms have found that as a whole it's more profitable to sell low quality products more frequently, so that's what we get to deal with

2

TDMcCormick t1_izp6fky wrote

The price bump is more like pay 300% more for BIFL quality

1

thequestforquestions t1_izp6v2m wrote

So you want a company to willingly make a product they make 25% more profit on but instead of customers having to buy another one within a year, they buy another one in 4 years? Do you see why this is a bad business model?

I’m not saying I disagree, but given your post here I think you understand why they do it. A company needs profits to compete. If everyone buys a product that lasts forever, you eventually run out of customers.

1

BoilerButtSlut t1_izp9bfb wrote

Planned obsolescence isn't a thing. It is a myth.

I am an engineer and I know dozens of other engineers across multiple industries. None has ever been asked or told to make things fail faster.

Even your own example doesn't really work: the lighting industry moved from incandescent to LED despite LED lasting much much longer. According to planned obsolescence that cannot happen.

It doesn't even make sense: if I have something that breaks immediately after buying it, why would I go out and buy from the same manufacturer? It just sends people to their competitor.

You can also find long-lasting appliances or whatever without issue. Again, planned obsolescence says that shouldn't happen either.

2

dildonicphilharmonic t1_izpq9r1 wrote

Engineering to a price point seems to be mistaken for planned obsolescence often.

6

BoilerButtSlut t1_izpsrys wrote

Pretty much.

It's always the same story: "well this fridge from 1973 worked fine for over 40 years!"

Yeah, and that fridge cost the equivalent of $2k and would be considered super basic today. Buying a giant one with fancy features everywhere for less than $1k means that they had to cut corners somewhere.

1

Buccaneeer t1_izyt1g1 wrote

It absolutely is a thing. Actually the lighting industry came together in the past and agreed upon a limit as to how long a bulb should last...

1

BoilerButtSlut t1_izyysi3 wrote

Engineers are not being told to make thing fail faster. I promise you that is not a thing.

The only proof anyone can ever come up for it is the dumb "phoebus cartel" thing from the 30s. No other proof is ever offered. It also conveniently ignores that you could still buy long life bulbs during that time as well, which planned obsolescence says shouldn't be possible. And as mentioned, which you still didn't address: the lighting industry universally moved to LED. Those last way longer. Planned obsolescence says that's impossible.

The "cartel" was to make a consumer standard: you cannot have both long life AND high brightness bulbs. Those two goals contradict each other. 1000 hours was decided as a compromise, but as mentioned, you could still get 5k or 10k hour bulbs: they were called rough service or commercial. They were also noticeably less bright for the same power hence why they weren't popular.

The idea doesn't even make sense: why would consumers go back to buying the same thing that just broke on them? Like, if I have a washing machine that breaks after 6 months, why on earth would I go out and buy the same thing? The only way this idea ever works is if you have a full monopoly on that item. Otherwise it is just driving people to their competitors.

1

Buccaneeer t1_j011l3l wrote

Alongside monopoly there's something called oligopoly too

1

BoilerButtSlut t1_j015ltl wrote

If there is some kind of collusion, then that is a clear and provable anti-trust violation, and anyone at any of these companies can make a lot of money being a whistleblower.

Yet somehow no whistleblower ever seems to show up. No proof is ever offered.

And for the oligopoly idea to work, you feel full cooperation between everyone. As soon as one company doesn't play along the whole thing falls apart.

Since there are indeed no shortage of long-lasting choices, that leads me to think this isn't really a problem.

1