Built to Break, a world constructed on unregulated capitalism.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SuicideBankers

 

I imagine price alone is what keeps these technologies from the average consumer. Safety shouldn't have a price.

exactly. a price controlled by those who own the patents and produce the products. it could be made cheaply, but there isn't money in durable products. there isn't money in medicine that completely cures people, only in constantly treating symptoms.

So you are saying that the cars that are designed to travel at 140 mph and are provided with safety equipment for one driver, no passengers ...that the technology used is not expensive to implement and would not limit the number of passengers? That the same tech could be implemented in stock cars on the assembly line with little or no increase in price?

I have one word for that, and it ain't "intelligence".

Now there is a conspiracy to create unsafe vehicles ... holy crap.

I just want to scream...

The technology isnt really technology. It's a freaking roll cage, with a special harness system and a freaking helmet. It's a fire resistant suit... You can buy those, you know. You can buy a helmet...and you can get someone who knows how to weld to install a roll cage in your car. Then you can rip out all the stuff on the dash that could break loose and become projectiles in a crash. This isnt rocket science guys...no one is witholding crap and no one is pricing it so high you cannot afford it. The most expensive single component is probably the suit...you can buy one similar in a motorcycle shop...either that or the labor costs to install the roll cage if you cannot do it yourself. Nobody holds patents on installing a roll cage in your car. You are likely to void your vehicles warranty though...not to mention become the laughing stock of your neighborhood.

Do you wear a helmet as you drive your car? Do you put them on your kids and wife? If not then just stfu .

In the immortal words of the 3 stooges: "What a maroon!"

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Most wrenches are solid state items, casting would be the main issue I'd worry about, stanely makes a good wrench too.

Most items we buy are not made from solid state construction, nor are they as durable as even the cheapest made wrench you can find. Seems this Thread is being derailed for some reason, and cannot have an honest conversation as to why more cheaply made items are being allowed to be sold, yes people need to be able to sell their wares, but wares worth selling would be a main focus I'd hope.

Funny you say wrench, since I can mention something about tools and time.
For a while when I was younger, you'd buy a toolset and it would come in a metal sturdy box, now you buy a toolset most of the metal boxes are considered " High End " while the regular joe's toolset comes inside a plastic snapshut. Why the change, to cut on costs, but the price didn't drop, the quality did.

Cheaper items are sold to appeal to the market that can't afford the higher quality items. Yes they break but its because...well...they are made cheaply.

Pointing out logic is not derailing your thread.

No, but refusing to acknowledge any vague point of the thread, and continuing to come from only your narrow perspective is.

I will acknowledge that there are cheap things and expensive things and you get what you pay for.

But as a general trend, you've got to be kidding not to see it. I forget what make it was, but a friend of mine had this van that was 17 years old. And it looked brand frigging new. And I asked him why it looked so good. And he told me that the company issued one version of this van with a certain material on the body that just didn't corrode. Didn't cost extra, didn't make the car more expensive, just corroded less. They discontinued it as soon as they saw that this would slow new car sales.

OPs point being: many manufacturer's could easily make things that last at little or no extra cost, but they don't because they want you to run out of them, and buy new ones.

100-150 years ago, there really was the shoemaker who took pride in what he sold, and made it to last. Did the shoemaker become rich? No. Did he have continuous customers? Yes. Sadly, this value has been almost completely replaced with spend as little to manufacture as possible, and charge as much as possible. If we can save money cutting corners, then do it. If we made $1 billion dollars last year, we have to make $2 billion this year. Constant growth - we must take over the world and stamp out all competitors and be kings of the world with no regard for much else.

It happens. You can scarcely derail this thread by pretending it doesn't.

Originally posted by Hopechest
It would be called technology.

If you would prefer to drive the horse and buggy that you can fix by finding sticks on the side of the road I'm sure the Amish would welcome you with open arms.

The rest of us however like to progress.

Software - Computers - all with 'planned obsolense - it's called 'sun-setting'. It's part of every 'tech' companies business model.

reply to post by FyreByrd


In the case of computers the "planned" obsolescence is based on the doubling of computing power approximately every 18 months....it is not planned, in fact recently there has been observations that we may be reaching limits that will slow down that pace due to limitations of current technology. It is referred to as Moore's law...that computing power doubles every 18 months. So attach a conspiracy to that....please!

Once something like a quantum computer becomes a reality though it will more than double..we will likely see a change in advancing computer technology that will be based more on leaps than steady progress.

Originally posted by thebtheb

OPs point being: many manufacturer's could easily make things that last at little or no extra cost, but they don't because they want you to run out of them, and buy new ones.

I disagree with the OP's opinion for several reasons.

One...back up 40 years and cars would be doing well to last 100k miles and still be something more than a POS. Today, if a car is a POS at 100k it is simply cause the owner(s) did not take care of it or observe common maintenance schedules.

Competition from Japanese automakers prompted a huge quality push. Offer a better product at a competitive price and you will own market share....simple as that.

In today's extremely competitive global market there are items that are crap because they want to be the lowest cost provider of that product or service and there are ranges above. If someone could offer a better product that lasts longer they could charge a premium price and use the longer lasting quality as their sales tool.

This whole "planned obsolescence" as a conspiracy only comes from those with no experience in the manufacturing industry. Everything is driven by consumers...what they want, what they will pay for and what will sit on the shelf unsold. If a company could produce a product of vastly superior quality (such as is purported here) at a competitive cost, the item would fly off the shelves and the manufacturer would be king of the hill.

With all the people in manufacturing and design you would think a few would have stepped forward (daily) stating that so-so company replaced widget a with widget b in the designs for the sole purpose of intentionally making an inferior product with no cost logic involved in the decisions.

Are inferior parts occasionally substituted for quality parts so some unscrupulous individual can fatten his wallet or make goals etc? Sure it happens. But there is no global conspiracy to "withhold" technology that would improve the longevity of products at no additional cost for the purpose of intentionally creating an inferior product...that is just plain stupid. Shows an absolute lack of understanding how competition and consumer choices affects the success or failure of a product in the market place.

It's called "planned obsolescence," and it's symptomatic of a larger problem.

reply to post by bbracken677


It is not a conspiracy, it is a fact

Why? Think for example, what does it give to the company, if they manage to sell all their products once and do not benefit at all after the initial cost, whether repairs or a new product sold. Financially it is better for the company, if everybody buys their product more than once, whether because of one going out of fashion or breaking down. If I buy once iPhone, apple gets only once the price. If I buy one, every time a new model comes out, they earn much more Every company would, it is financially the best choice for them as capitalistic companies.

Study made by EU consumers, some examples:www.connexionfrance.com...

Apple iPods: Early iPods had non-removable batteries which failed after about 18 months so the iPod had to be replaced. Apple has started offering replacement batteries after unhappy US owners launched a class action court case. Users also complain operating system updates on iPads and iPhones make older versions run slower. Rapid product launches such as three iPads in 18 months mean technological change makes older models obsolete.

Cars: A lack of spare parts for some vehicles can mean that they become unusable and consigned to the scrap heap.

Computer printers: They tell users when they are out of ink or toner – even though they will continue to print for some time, especially in draft mode. Some manufacturers use a chip on the cartridge to count the number of prints and halt printing once the pre-set limit is reached.

Mobile phones: Several types of obsolescence affect these, whether it is a failed battery or a lost charger and a problem in finding replacements; updated applications needing more memory than is available, or application updates no longer being available. Plus, they go out of fashion with each new version launch and many are changed every 20 months.

Televisions: A few years ago TVs with cathode ray tubes would commonly last for 10 or 15 years, but now the CEC says they are programmed to work for 20,000 hours – or at most nine years. On LCD or plasma TVs common faults include the condenser failing due to a power surge or excess heat.

Washing machines: It is thought they are programmed to do only 2,000 to 2,500 washes. Eight out of 10 use plastic instead of steel for some components, such as the drum, which means they are more liable to fail if damaged by a coin or too high a temperature in a dryer. The bearings have also been integrated, so a failed bearing means a complete new drum assembly.

Cheaper fashion clothes are specifically made of weak materials, so after the season ends these would not be wearable anymore. Try wearing some of these for more than a year (2-3 times a week). T-Shirt wears off. Holes in the collar. The whole fashion industry is based on it to be honest. Planned obsolence can also be "out-of-fashion". Overmarketing makes many people buy new clothes, new products as soon as they come out, as that is "the latest fashion".

Some car companies use specific tools (not because they are needed, but because of only company having access to the tools). That way 1) No person can fix their car themselves 2) Any mechanic can not fix these. Only the ones, who buy the certificate + buy the tools,

Certain printer companies use all-in-one ink cartridges, so for example when one colour is out, you need to buy all new ones.For example, my previous printer was using CMYK colours. Black ran out, I had to buy all new ones... Absurd.

A classic case of planned obsolescence was the nylon stocking. The inevitable “laddering” of stockings made consumers buy new ones and for years discouraged manufacturers from looking for a fibre that did not ladder. The garment industry in any case is not inclined to such innovation. Fashion of any sort is, by definition, deeply committed to built-in obsolescence. Last year's skirts, for example, are designed to be replaced by this year's new models.

The strategy of planned obsolescence is common in the computer industry too. New software is often carefully calculated to reduce the value to consumers of the previous version. This is achieved by making programs upwardly compatible only; in other words, the new versions can read all the files of the old versions, but not the other way round. Someone holding the old version can communicate only with others using the old version. It is as if every generation of children came into the world speaking a completely different language from their parents. While they could understand their parents' language, their parents could not understand theirs.

As the life cycle of products has increased—largely because of their greater technical excellence—firms have found that they need to plan for those products' obsolescence more carefully. Take, for instance, the example of the automobile. Its greater durability has made consumers reluctant to change their models as frequently as they used to. As the useful life of the car has been extended, manufacturers have focused on shortening its fashionable life. By adding styling and cosmetic changes to their vehicles, they have subtly attempted to make their older models look outdated, thus persuading consumers to trade them in for new ones.

www.economist.com...

The software can also be about closing older servers in video-games. The player might still be there, but closing makes them buy new ones to compete.

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

In the case of computers the "planned" obsolescence is based on the doubling of computing power approximately every 18 months....it is not planned, in fact recently there has been observations that we may be reaching limits that will slow down that pace due to limitations of current technology. It is referred to as Moore's law...that computing power doubles every 18 months. So attach a conspiracy to that....please!

Once something like a quantum computer becomes a reality though it will more than double..we will likely see a change in advancing computer technology that will be based more on leaps than steady progress.

Interesting - however companies stop supporting perfectly functional H/W and S/W all the time. It becomes very annoying to those of us who don't need 'the latest thing' and take care of things - to not be able to get support when things do go awry.

Not calling anything a conspiracy - just a business model.

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


start a company that makes things meant to last or be repaired.. then sell the tools and parts to repair those products. Make your money retire and let the company die.

I don't really understand why a company has to exist forever.

If i had a business i would only keep it in my life time or as long as i could have business till no one wanted anymore of my built to last product.

if i went out of business at least it would open a market for a new young up start to pick up where i left off.

making disposable under performing products to keep the cash flow going is asinine

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by SuicideBankers

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


much of the innovation and technology isn't widely used. race car drivers can crash at extreme speeds and walk away without a scratch, try that in a common vehicle.

There is a huge difference between a race car and a stock vehicle, price being one of them. The technology is available for you to implement in your own vehicle. No one is stopping you. Would you pay for it? If so, then why haven't you?

The dynamic is whether or not something is "cost effective". Is there a market for it? The fact that people do not spend 10s of thousands of dollars on safety systems that exist for race cars indicates there is Zero market for that. Have you ever heard of anyone even attempting to do this? Again, it's back on the consumer. If there is a demand, the demand will be filled


Disingenuous argument.

I imagine price alone is what keeps these technologies from the average consumer. Safety shouldn't have a price.

So what are you saying...we should spend whatever the price for safety? If they were to add 10k onto the price of a car, how many people would not buy it who otherwise would at the cheaper price? Or perhaps they should just make the cars "race car safe" for free?

What is a human life worth to you? How much? Its more than auto safety as it was pointed out in an earlier post. Its life saving pharmaceuticals kept from those who need them because they cost to much. There are many more examples. So tell me what is the price tag on a human life these days?

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SuicideBankers

 

I imagine price alone is what keeps these technologies from the average consumer. Safety shouldn't have a price.

exactly. a price controlled by those who own the patents and produce the products. it could be made cheaply, but there isn't money in durable products. there isn't money in medicine that completely cures people, only in constantly treating symptoms.

So you are saying that the cars that are designed to travel at 140 mph and are provided with safety equipment for one driver, no passengers ...that the technology used is not expensive to implement and would not limit the number of passengers? That the same tech could be implemented in stock cars on the assembly line with little or no increase in price?

I have one word for that, and it ain't "intelligence".

Now there is a conspiracy to create unsafe vehicles ... holy crap.

I just want to scream...

The technology isnt really technology. It's a freaking roll cage, with a special harness system and a freaking helmet. It's a fire resistant suit... You can buy those, you know. You can buy a helmet...and you can get someone who knows how to weld to install a roll cage in your car. Then you can rip out all the stuff on the dash that could break loose and become projectiles in a crash. This isnt rocket science guys...no one is witholding crap and no one is pricing it so high you cannot afford it. The most expensive single component is probably the suit...you can buy one similar in a motorcycle shop...either that or the labor costs to install the roll cage if you cannot do it yourself. Nobody holds patents on installing a roll cage in your car. You are likely to void your vehicles warranty though...not to mention become the laughing stock of your neighborhood.

Do you wear a helmet as you drive your car? Do you put them on your kids and wife? If not then just stfu .

In the immortal words of the 3 stooges: "What a maroon!"

edit on 30-5-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

No one is saying making a Nascar for the streets. I was talking about the technology and safety features built into the cars. I don't recall saying anything about fire suits or helmets. Its shown even in the way the cars are made. Look up auto recalls and if you are not amazed at the number of defective designs, faulty assembly, and poor materials used in the manufacturing then nothing will convince you. Cars for the consumer are designed to be produced cheap above all else. Cheap things tend to break.

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


I liked the bugies that were just coming out about the time the horseless carriage was just coming in, light comfortable and quite fast, but your right you need special tool number ??? to fix something. When it would have been a plain old spanner.

Capitalism is based on perpetual growth, which is inherently impossible. Therefor, Capitalism is doomed without some serious tweeking. If you are a company that turns raw materials into finished goods, you want to use up more resources. Recycling is good. I think landfills are future gold mines. A great deal of finished or pure form articles of valuable metals may be easier to obtain from them than raw resources. How many tons of ore does it take to produce aluminum, gold, silver, etc, when they are found in all the electronics thrown into the trash? Anyway..... as is, Capitalism is like sprinting down a dead end. You can't grow forever with limits on resources. We need to stop from polluting our world to the point where it won't matter if your shiny car and tv are free because we will be dying out. Green tech, yay! Fusion? Energy storage to take advantage of uneven energy sources like wind and solar? Tapping into the BIG stuff like volcanoes or geothermal. As far as the sociological aspect, its gotten out of control. Without checks and balances on greed and power hungry people, the haves and have nots get further and further apart, and that never ends up good. Our Congress has been useless as they change laws to suit the corporations. They have become puppets with the wealthy pulling the strings.... not that this wasn't the case before... perhaps they don't even care anymore as they are blatant about it. Perhaps in the knowledge that its too late, the public has lost control over government totally. We vote on the choices given to us. The lesser of two evils, which at this point is almost negligible, just as the work Congress is doing to run our country well is negligible. RESET. Control Alt Delete. Stop voting for millionaires. Stop voting for tans. Stop voting for good hair and a good fake smile. Vote for nerds. Vote for geeks. Vote for people that don't come from money. Vote for people that weren't big CEOs or went to Yale and Harvard. We have been getting the same crappy governing for years... we can't continue to vote for people from the same old mold!

reply to post by Cabin


The examples you provide do not, in any form, fashion, or manner prove a conspiracy.

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. Consider any manufacturer of any product...Company A producing product Z. They currently are competing against others and not making huge profits per unit, but rather depend on volume and market share to drive profits. If you had a product that was vastly superior to other products and you COULD sell one to everyone your sales would be in the billions world wide. What Company wouldnt opt for that kind of market share if provided the opportunity to do so and not incur significant manufacturing costs, as implied by others in this thread. They could charge more per unit, maximizing profits at the same time that they captured vastly increased market share.

Oh, and regards to spare parts and cars? Holy crap lol....as cars become "obsolete" (like any other product) and fewer of them are on the road, demand for parts drops to a point where it is no longer cost effective for a manufacturer to tool up to make a few hundred, as opposed to a run of thousands on the same tooling. This is the most ignorant argument for planned obsolescence I have yet heard.

No matter how well a product is it will eventually fail. Your premise of only selling one item to everyone and then never making sales again is just plain stupid.

Your examples of batteries failing etc is disingenuous at best. The loss of a batter charger is an example of planned obsolescence? WTF? Batteries are constantly being improved on. I am 58 years old and the batteries today are far and away better than those of 40 years ago. Much smaller and last much longer. Your whole premise falls apart if you merely look at improvements in product technology over the last 20-40 years. Your whole premise falls apart and becomes totally laughable to anyone in manufacturing.

Bottom line is this:

I spent 23 years in a career in manufacturing...my final position before I retired (I retired at 45 and have gone on to doing other things...I got tired of the rat race that was manufacturing) was as materials manager. I was intimately involved in the manufacturing process and PERSONALLY involved in the selection and purchase of raw materials. Your premise of some conspiracy to produce products that fail is laughable at the least.
It would be a corporations wet dream to produce a longer lasting higher quality product, such as has been described in this thread, at no additional cost. They would capture a market share unrivaled by anything we have yet seen. Profits would indeed be obscene since they could charge more without the additional manufacturing costs. Billions of dollars are spent on improving products.

There is, however, always a line to walk between cost and quality. Most people will not pony up the bucks to buy something that WILL last a lifetime. If you had any (ANY) knowledge of the manufacturing process you would understand what it takes to produce quality products. It takes quality components, quality raw materials all throughout the chain and process. It requires manufacturing standards that incur additional costs as well, manufacturing tolerances that exceed average as well as tooling and equipment that is maintained to the highest standards. Do you think all the above can be done at the same cost as producing a cheap effing product to sell to the masses who will not pay for the quality? If you do then in the immortal words of the 3 stooges: "What a maroon".

The biggest problem with our system is the ignorant consumer. The consumer that would rather buy a cheap set of kitchen knives at walmart than spend more on a really nice set that would last them a lifetime. Then they bitch about the knives breaking or rusting or the handles falling apart when all they want to buy is cheap crap. And then walmart sees that product A (cheap crap) sells well and product Z (quality item) sits on the shelf...which do you think they are going to continue to carry and which will they ditch in favor of some other item which will sell? Shelf space at walmart is premium space. They will not carry expensive stuff that will not move fast. So the next time you shop for stuff you want, and you want quality, if you go to walmart then STFU.

You want to buy kitchen products that will last a lifetime? Go to an effing restaurant supply store and dont buy the cheapest stuff, but rather the most expensive and you will have mixers, knives, etc etc that are designed to last...but you pay for it...the average consumer cannot or will not pay for quality...they cast their votes to cheap crap and then make claims regarding "planned obsolescence" in total ignorance of what they are doing by making the purchases they make. Consumers drive the market....so next time you buy a mixer, or kitchen knives if you go to walmart instead of a restaurant supply store than just STFU.

The same thing applies to just about any product except for high cost items such as cars, where there is no "industrial" version since the cost would be so prohibitive as to be impossible to sell enough to be profitable.

The whole premise of "planned obsolescence" is ignorant.

reply to post by bbracken677

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. Consider any manufacturer of any product...Company A producing product Z. They currently are competing against others and not making huge profits per unit, but rather depend on volume and market share to drive profits.

yes, thank you for admitting this fact. early ipods were made with unremovable batteries designed to fail rather rapidly, forcing people to buy another one or get it fixed. this is an example of them artificially increasing sales due to intentional flaws in the product.

microsoft did something similar with the 360. they were built to overheat, and in time "red ring". preferably outside the warranty, forcing people to get another one.

to the pure capitalist, money is god, and more money can be made with dirty tactics like planned obsolescence than making durable, fully functional products. capitalism rewards this business strategy, thereby failing to produce the best goods possible for a fair price.

It was once planned obsolescence. It's now more psychological obsolescence.

The iLemmings are brainwashed into thinking they need a new smartphone or TV every 12 months and thus perpetuate the production-waste cycle that drives the world's unsustainable economies.

Originally posted by jaxnmarko
Capitalism is based on perpetual growth, which is inherently impossible. Therefor, Capitalism is doomed without some serious tweeking...

You are thinking linearly and the world does not operate in straight lines. Capitalism follows a cycle just like any other economic system. Perpetual growth is a concept invented by a centrally controlled, regulated, Marxist based theory of economics which is not the norm historically.

I'll repeat, we are not in a capitalist system. A proper capitalist system follows the natural order of growth, death, and renewal. When was the last time the system you think of as capitalist allowed an inefficient, or non optimally functional sector die so renewal could take place?

Instead, the system we have zombifies these sectors and their carcasses bloat to the point where they become "too big to fail", and the people who run them "too big to jail". The people who drive the whole system (you and me) become hosts to a parasite that is so large, restrictive, and burdensome, that they become slaves until the parasite eventually destroys the host, destroys itself, and the natural cycle can restore itself.

The system we live in has nothing to do with the prosperity of society, and everything to do with the control and enslavement of the masses i.e.. the great unwashed.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


These things you complain about are not necessarily deliberate. the pressure to be first to market is intense, and quite often, technology is released before it's completely ready.

I experienced first hand the release of the DVD into the marketplace. The technology was not ready and the laser diodes would burn out within a short period of time. The manufacturers sold them anyway (for less than it cost to make), knowing that they would have to replace them every few months in some cases. Why? Simply to establish market share in a new market. did some fail outside of the warranty period? Certainly. Was the consumer forced to purchase a new model? In some cases, probably. The company I worked for had a policy of replacing the gen 1 units free of charge no matter how long it took for them to fail.

This is just one example of many I can give of a legitimate reason why things die so soon. Now, my history with printers is another story lol!

reply to post by UnderGetty

These things you complain about are not necessarily deliberate. the pressure to be first to market is intense, and quite often, technology is released before it's completely ready.

game consoles were nothing new. no new technology, just more processing power. they are just specialized computers. you would argue that forgetting to vent heat properly (as all computers require) was just an accidental mistake?

ipods with unremovable batteries? what isn't deliberate about that?

capitalism is built around making money, and these tactics make more money. this is a good thing for these companies, and so they did it out of greed.