SirCheeseAlot OP t1_iznm66k wrote
Reply to comment by Ronnoc527 in What makes one product cheap junk that breaks in a week and another that lasts a lifetime? by SirCheeseAlot
Could that not be a viable business modal though? Pay 25% more for our product, but it lasts you 300% longer.
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.
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.
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.
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in but now our advertising is pushing so that you have to buy these new green kitchen cabinets or or house will look outdated !
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.
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.
SirCheeseAlot OP t1_iznmqzr wrote
It would be nice if the government provided incentives or passed restrictions on selling junk here.
Ronnoc527 t1_izo2az5 wrote
The necessary legislation would be passings laws that both:
-
Restricted monopolies and oligopolies and
-
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.
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.
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
TDMcCormick t1_izp6fky wrote
The price bump is more like pay 300% more for BIFL quality
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments