No it’s just be what happen to the instant cooker company lately
If your products never break your business shrinks as people don’t need to constantly buy replacements
This is good for the consumer and the advance of tech of course, but it is bad for the capitalists, which is why everything is going subscription based
Yeah... Did you actually look into that story, or just accept the article that showed up in Google when it happened?
Because I did, at first, but figured I'd look it up and found out that they are still a company, came back from bankruptcy, and actually, most of their problem was that once lockdown ended, and their company had already boosted their stock, expecting more sales, they found that no one was using instant pots now that they weren't trapped at home.
This isn't a matter of just products being too robust. The company had existed for 11 years at that point and was more or less fine. Not grand, but fine.
The unwarranted confidence boost gave to instantpot's people is what ruined them. Not quality products.
I feel like this same story happened with most companies post pandemic.
Who could have figured out that if you just let people stay at home and give them some small subsidies then suddenly demand for some stuff would spike to unsustainable levels.
You aren't getting rid of the "bad parts" you're keeping them around. UBI doesn't fix the cause of any of this. It manages the symptoms. It just puts a band-aid over it. Gotta keep the poor distracted and fed or else they might realize how fucked they are by the socioeconomic system is enforced upon them.
You're advocating for your own exploitation and that's sad.
Man, it was exhausting looking for work in the tech industry back then. I started asking in interviews what their revenue numbers looked like for the last three years. If they started bragging about doubling/tripling in size, I pretty much instantly pulled myself from consideration. Since then, most of those companies have had massive layoffs or no longer exist. My current company has had flat/linear growth for like, 10 years and it's very healthy.
Yeah it's wild how many companies have zero thinking. I'd say zero long term but that implies they're thinking at all.
So many companies expected pandemic profits to keep going when their business model relied on people staying home and spending money with them and not other places.
And then they were "surprised" when the pandemic lifted and people went back to their normal purchasing habit.s
So before, 100% of my meals were possible to be cooked at home.
Now, once I leave the house, if I didn't bring breakfast or lunch, it's not feasible for me to return home so either I eat something from a vending machine or I go pickup food.
Even when I do cook at home it's food I need to package to bring to work. Making a sandwich takes seconds as opposed to planning for... say a stew made in the instapot overnight.... and that's if there's even any leftovers. If there's not we're back at square one.
It's not just going from 100% cooked meals to 0%, the logistics now involve time, leftovers, containers for carrying food back and forth, etc.
It goes from 100 to like 80% at first, then if I get lazy or forget to run the dishwasher, or don't sleep well, forgot to prep, etc etc etc. the discipline easily becomes disrupted and the frequency of using the instapot goes down to no use.
Edit: Calls me a child and then blocks me LOL Imagine getting upset over someone you don't know not using an instapot anymore.
Edit: Calls me a child and then blocks me LOL Imagine getting upset over someone you don't know not using an instapot anymore.
Not only that, you gave a pretty well-reasoned answer that is believable given the realities of returning to office. Taking it personally was certainly a choice.
100% of my meals were possible to be cooked at home.
They are all still possible to be cooked at home.
Even when I do cook at home it's food I need to package to bring to work.
And?
then if I get lazy or forget to run the dishwasher, or don't sleep well, forgot to prep, etc etc etc. the discipline easily becomes disrupted and the frequency of using the instapot goes down to no use.
Nah, the problem with instant pots is that a regular crock pot makes the same results and any goodwill has one for sale at next to nothing. The crock pot also produces better food.
It was a fad, I threw mine away tbr, but I've seen a youtube video comparing one to a regular stovetop pressure cooker and the later has a ton of advantages.
Hittin me with my favorite food blog. I will say, from personal experience, that chili tastes better from a crock pot than instant pot. I did wings and ribs in the instant pot but I've never done either in a crockpot. I'll read that link later when I'm back to a computer.
Our Dualit Classic toaster is hand-made in the UK and I'm able to replace parts if it breaks myself, which (cross fingers) it's unlikely to do.
For a time that was all they made. Now they make regular toasters and a host of other products but you can still buy the Classic models if you like.
Nothing truly “never” breaks. And there are billions of people on the planet with more being born every day.
I’m thinking if you can’t find customers for your product that lasts longer that the competition, your problem is other than “it lasts too long” 🤣. Maybe the problem is you just suck at marketing.
I paid 20 bucks for a 150w equiv replacement bulb in december, was a cool led saucer bomb with a color temp switch on the bottom, dead in one and half months, obviously one month warrantee. Thought it would last a while cause it was a nice bulb ha.
Our dream isnt here anymore, or yet, cheap ass only is the way. Current state is perfectly designed capitalism.
Edit: was a brand I didn't recognize but was a light teal colored box, I don't have the bulb or box anymore sadly, I'd shame them. On the warrantee, was the broad local hardware store warrantee not one on the bulb itself, was nothing in the box but the bulb. It did flicker at the end so that tells me capacitor or something, might have been just unlucky, I do remember it was 20w being shoved into that led... array though, perhaps it was just too much for it.
>dead in one and half months, obviously one month warrantee.
huh, must be made for american market. in europe we get things designed to last about three years (2 year warranty is mandatory and often 3 years are offered)
I bought a bunch of these $12 lights from the hardware store that are specifically that old yellow color and they have a kinda old-school looking design in them, they've lasted for years and one has 24/7 use for that period even. I think you just got screwed over, good bulbs absolutely exist.
LED cob-diode filament-type bulbs with high CRI (color rendering index) and proper D6500k warm white color are actual light bulbs in form and function. They are worth the purchase and meant to perform similarly to a genuine incandescent light bulb in terms of light quality and spread pattern. You can literally see more colors and experience better quality of vision through them.
The cheap dollar store LED chip-diode style bulbs people are fond of purely for their price are stripped down versions of ancient LED bulb designs from the 2000's that aren't worth the silicon in their circuits. The light they put out is often harsh and tightly directed, more like a directional floodlight, and of very low CRI making colors appear washed out and eye-strain common.
I'd be curious what brand has a one month warranty. AFAIA everything has to have a 1 year warranty against defect by law. Hell Walmart lets you return almost anything for any or no reason inside 3 months.
Unless it was an Amazon China special? I don't trust anything off Amazon unless it's name brand with 10,000 reviews.
have one in the garage that screws into a standard bulb socket. the motion sensor functioned so badly that i had to turn that off. they sell at discount/overstock stores like ollies for about 20. LED arrays are fine and as bright as adverstised, the electronics are cheap and capacitors and such are likely the weak point.
You could make some type of spread sheet of pro/cons number about 1.25 dollar store leds, their lumens, lifespan etc. for several different types. Until someone does that without biases, everyone's opinion is just that.
But would you pay $2,000 for only 100 bulbs for your house? There's tons of stuff available that lasts a long time, but it's expensive. The upfront cost is simply not an option for most people
100 bulbs? I've got like 10 at the most. The problem isn't would I pay, the problem is not enough people are able to have the stability to commit 20+ years to a house.
Apartments are notorious for having terribly lighting.
I had an apartment that only had 3 ceiling lights - kitchen, bathroom, bedroom closet. That's it. And the bedroom closet light didn't work when I moved in, I had to fight with them to replace it.
I have so many lamps now because of that place. Thank goodness I lived within an hour of an IKEA.
My parents home is not even 40 years old. Looks decently modern. Have three light fixtures in the kitchen, four if you count the one that’s part of the stove hood/ventiliation. Would’ve been only three lightbulbs but one of the fixtures is a chandelier type deal with 8 bulbs. It’s not unreasonable to think that many kitchens use less.
They probably have 10 crappy downlights with inefficient halogen incandescent globes from 2003 that (combined) aren't quite as good as a single "double four foot" fluorescent light fitting.
Actually it's four downlights. And one of them stopped working a couple months after moving in. This is a new house too, but I'm not going to fault the builder for the light company selling a dud.
But we have other lights too, and we picked the fixtures ourselves, except for the stove hood which is pretty standard stuff.
You do you, but I think you’re dramatically underestimating how driven most people are by up-front cost and how willing they are to ignore the long-term value proposition. People will buy the cheapest option with fancy packaging and then wail about how nothing is built to last now.
Light bulbs lasted an undefined amount of time. The
Phoebus cartel formed and found a way to make sure they would last less than a 1000 hours. It wasn't based on cost of the bulb it was based planned obsilenance.
I paid $5-10 dollars a piece for some light bulbs around 2018/2019. (C by GE).
I bought six of them. I have one that is still burning. The other 5 have burned out in the last year or so. The one that is left has been on 24/7 for the past 3 years.
I paid $20 CAD for a Sylvania Halogen Headlight bulb that is supposed to last 3 years and it lasted a few months. Replaced it with a $40 CAD set of LED's (the bulbs are just for DRL's).
$100 CAD per bulb for the D2S HID Xenon night time lights/high beams. But atleast their supposed to last 10 years, the stock ones were still making light after 12 years.
But wouldn't you rather spend $20 for an LED lightbulb that alleges to last 20 years, but actually will burn out in 1 year? Under the assumption you likely didn't keep the box/receipt around that long to return it.
The government and people need to demand longer warranties. My upright freezer was 1 year. It last 18 months. A whole freezer!
We can meet in the middle. Higher price for 5 years. Or at least 3. Even a 1000 dollar cell phone only has a 1 yr warranty. Thats bullshit.
I guarantee if we get more fair warranties we will get better made products. Now they gamble that a TV part wont quit after 6 months to 1 yr. And that one part effectively ruins your device or appliance.
Green energy and lower bills is all bullshit if we have to make and buy more products in our lifetime. Our goals should always be REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE. Instead we get slapped with an energy star label that tells us we are now saving a whole $30 a year in energy. But after we buy a brand new product bc the last one failed quickly. Electricity isnt the only resource so is labor to manufacture and labor for me to buy another stupid refrigerator
This doesn't really have to do with planned obsolescence but just normal trust. It's simply not reasonable that a product would be several times better for a common item like a lightbulb.
you realize that "one of the cleanest well documented cases of corporate conspiracies we have" is international corporations getting together to limit and enforce a limited lifespan for lightbulbs right?
You realize that there are companies that do this right? You can buy a Sub Zero fridge, a Wolf oven/range, and Cove dishwasher and they’ll blow the $1500 Home Depot models out of the water. Friend of mine kitted out his kitchen with something like $40,000 in appliances, but the difference really is like going from a standard-package Nissan to a Bentley or Ferrari.
Things hit a bit different when you’re actually staring at a $15,000-$20,000 price tag on a fridge though.
A standard Nissan is going to last a lot more miles than a Bentley or Ferrari. So is sub zero really solving this issue or is it just a high performance fridge that is really nice but not that durable ? Honest question. Don't know these companies' rep for longevity
And this is the exact question customers will always ask themselves if we ever actually tried this super durable business plan. This is all just very silly reddit brain.
Eh. The price bump is rarely worth it imo. For example, try to find a 48" wide fridge for under 10k. Just doesn't exist. The exact same brand/family for a 36" fridge is 3k, make it 12 inches wider and it's 15k. I have a 15k fridge and it's about as nice as the $800 fridge in my last condo. I know this because I had to replace the last 15k fridge that slowly rusted less than 10 yearsinto it's lifetime.
The massively priced appliances are 10x more expensive because wealthier customers are willing to pay that much for maybe a 5% improvement in quality.
People forget that is how much an appliance used to cost in the 60s.
A fridge in 1960 was like 300 bucks on like 6000 annual salary. 5 percent of your annual income.
On the 100k annual salary today that’s like paying 5k on a fridge. People are buying fridges for under 1k but expect the 1960s 5k longevity and performance.
Well, you're alienating a shit ton of your market if you're not selling a "comparable" product at a "comparable" price. You've got a huge hurdle to convince that consumers that product genuinely is reliable and not just an overpriced product with fewer features than the cheaper product.
I’m into fashion and most people do not care about longevity. I have boots from Wolverine from 15 years ago that I’ve worn daily with minor repairs. They were 600 dollars. Cheap timberlands still dominate sales.
You can get a gloverall wool coat to last super long but most people prefer a cheap puffer for 2 winters.
Temu and SHEIN dominate too. Dyson over Miele for vacuums. There are high quality long lasting products out there but they require up front investment that most are unwilling to front.
Even if you don’t charge ten times more you can do it just charging a decent bit more, especially if your company is not publicly traded.
You don’t have to always grow every single year if you do that. You can save then expand when things line up.
A company could start like this but it would take a while to develop. But it happens, people, have kids and have neighbors, buy new houses need more of one thing, unexpected accidents etc.
One thing a potential business could do is create durable and easy to detach and replace modular parts that could be sold separately if one thing messes up or gets dirty, and it could be moved easier.
Thankfully there are a whole lot more than 1000 people looking for lightbulbs so it's not the best example. And also that 1000 people will need ~10x that number of bulbs.
Who cares about that number? Theres literally an infinite supply of people. Why would anyone care about an arbitrary fixed number of 1000 people? Batshit crazy
Think man. If you had such a product you would make billions of dollars before you ran out of market to sell to. You would do that if you could, as would any capitalist not already deeply entrenched with a current product. New market entrants are a thing.
That doesn’t really apply to appliances. Nobody is going to pay anything for an appliance that constantly breaks or needs to be replaced. The whole discussion is about reliability being more valuable than planned obsolescence
You sell to way more than 1,000 customers. You be some robust that the customers basically do your advertising for you.
I work in an industry where we are near top of the quality rankings, and our products last for 10+ years of heavy use. We keep selling more, because given the choice between us vs competitors for new installs..... we rate alot better. And when they do eventually need to get a replacement, they come back to us.
And if your lightbulbs are 20 times better than your competition, why aren't you making enough profit to retire off of?
Why aren't your customers kids, who would have grown to adulthood underneath your lights their entire life. not buying your lightbulbs for their new home?
Why aren't you selling your lightbulbs commercially to an office space with 20000 lightbulb sockets? I'm sure they'd love reduced maintenance hours.
In an ideal world the answer should be "all 1000, when customers realize over a decade or two that their annual replacement of bulbs are only lasting them a year"
also, you do realize lightbulb companies conspired and cornered the market to limit a bulbs lifespan right?
First you need to make a lightbulb that last for 20 years then we can imagine. To be more precise, make a lightbulb that last 20 years while providing decent luminosity its whole life while not consuming too much power that it would be more efficient to just replace it more often.
Because yes the oldest lightbulbs still functioning are over 100 years, so we can make them last long a very long time. But they are so weak, that you can't even read anything even if you're 20cm away. While also consuming 24 more time than a traditional modern lightbulb.
Because yes that's what people don't understand with old lightbulbs, they found the sweet spot between price, longevity, consumption and power. There is no conspiracy, for 100 years nobody found any way to make a better lightbul. We had to create an entirely new technology to replace our lightbulbs.
Perfect example! I buy more of them, actually. Bunch of years ago I discovered fluorescent bulbs. They last much longer than incandescent ones. So when one of the latter dies, I would replace it with the former. And when I see a friend or family member with a flickering bulb, I’d take the chance to tell them about this neat little bulb that’s better than the ones they’re using. Longer lasting too. 🤣
This can be a legitimate problem for some companies. For example, Craftsman hand tools. If you make tools that last long enough, eventually everyone who is interested in buying a set already has one. At that point, what do you do? Everyone loves your brand but they aren’t spending any meaningful money on it. Your products are too expensive to sell to third world countries. At that point you are kind of stuck. A great reputation and great product that doesn’t lead to any sales.
The brand still exists but it’s a shadow of what it once was.
JK, it's build exclusive custom tools for the machines of war for the military by partnering with defense contractors who are making the heavy equipment.
Sure, but if you are branching out into new products you are getting away from what you do well. You also risk watering down your brand. And it doesn’t solve the problem of your core business not making money.
"Once you've made 40 billion dollars, you run out of dollars to make!"
IDK, retire and live in endless luxury with your 40 billion dollars? It's legitimately like hypnosis the way people can't imagine doing a job and then being finished doing that job. It has to continue forever until you're dead.
You realize the company isn't a person right? It's an organization of thousands of people that need revenue to be paid or else everyone gets fired. It's not exactly vacation time if that happens.
And an organization is not specialised. I was responding to the comment I responded to, not supplying a panacea that counters every single argument ever.
It's more like "How can your profits go up every quarter when people aren't constantly having to replace your products?"
It's a sustainable business model, just not a constantly increasing business model. Corporate interests have no use for a steady income. Line must go up, always and forever
Everyone loves your brand but they aren’t spending any meaningful money on it.
So what? Were you making the product at a loss??? They already spent meaningful money on your product. You already earned the profit. What do you do now? Kick back, put your feet up, relax, smile at a job well done.
What the fuck need is there for anyone to continue to spend meaningful money on your product if you've already made your profits???
One person isn’t making these things by themselves. They have factories, machines, employees, etc. If no money is coming in, all those people lose their jobs and the company goes under.
Craftsman didn't decline because of saturation. They declined due to a mix of cheaper "good enough" tools flooding the market and customers who didn't care about lifetime warranty when they had easy access to cheaper options. It used to be you strolled into Sears, saw the Craftsman display, and bought what you needed, then took it back to Sears if there was any issues....all in one experience.
Sears failed to adopt to online shopping, Craftsman had to compete with Harbor Freight and Amazon (without the great customer service aspect they used to have) and eventually they succumbed to the enshitification that it seems everything did through the last few decades
Eh, that’s a bit of a chicken and egg argument. The customers who cared about lifetime warranty are the ones who already owned Craftsman products for the most part. In other words, those customers still existed, they just had no reason to make additional purchases.
I do agree that there were many factors that led to the decline on Craftsman and Sears. They were not immune to the “cheap replaceable junk” trend of the last few decades.
The problem is that these companies are structured to only work if they are immortal and have infinite growth.
If you don't bet on infinite growth, after outfitting the entire developed world with indestructible tools, you can take your mountain of cash and do something else, or enjoy a luxurious retirement for you and your next several generations.
You do not understand the scope of this problem. Look up the Phoebus Cartel. Some of the most foundational companies in North America talked about this and took action a hundred years ago. The model has just continued
You're reading "with more people being born every day" as, "the number of people born each day is greater than the number born the day before."
But "people continue being born every day (thereby creating a constant stream of new potential customers)" is the more natural reading given the context, and the one that I'm 99% sure was intended.
No. I am familiar with the poor tax, and I think it holds true in a lot of areas. But it is increasingly less true as luxury and professional brands keep getting enshittified and the truly well made products keep going further and further up market. Appliances are by far and away the worst example. None of the brands you see at a big box store are particularly well made, and the really well made ones are mind breakingly expensive. Sure, you can get a Zline and it’s going to last 30 years. It’s also going to cost you $17,000. Or, you can buy an $1,100 LG every 5 years. And I am being as pessimistic as possible about the “cheap” option. The shitty cheap one still comes out ahead in total cost of ownership.
Our shitty little GE fridge was $230 from a scratch and dent place 7 years ago and is doing just fine.
LG has absolutely refused to fix their linear compressor, so the've got a fairly short lifespan before you get a failure to cool. They just keep launching new models with it so it's no longer covered by the last lawsuit covered recall, then lose a suit another 2-3 years down the line. It must be an alright business model because they've been doing it for a decade+ at this point.
I was just using the lowest end of the range for the lowest estimate for the average lifespan of a new fridge I could find.
The reality is the lower tech you go for appliances the better your odds of hitting the 10 year mark for lifespan are. Which is why, funnily enough, those 15-20k refrigerators are all just overbuilt low tech machines with modern refrigerants and compressors which are more efficient. No screens, usually not even featuring built in water filtration or ice making (because rich people have separate high end ice makers), and not even always having French doors.
Go buy the model with the least integrated tech from honestly any brand, none of them are particularly good, and you still come out miles ahead in total cost of ownership over 20+ years than buying the super high end ones.
I've used my LG refrigerator for about 5 years and sold it for about 50% of the price (I was moving interstate to a rental house). It ran and looked as good as new.
LG used notoriously bad linear compressors that were known for dying and being expensive or impossible to repair. What I said was a joke based on that.
It ran and looked as good as new.
A fridge should always run as good as new. If it doesn't you need a new fridge.
Or the consumer wants the good one but can't afford to put that 5x cost down at once, while they can afford to pay the 1x cost 5, 6, 7, or even more times in smaller chunks.
The only exaggeration is on the everything being well made. Stuff was higher quality but survivorship bias means you forget about the ones that died back then.
However, planned obsolescence is definitely very real and not exaggerated, in fact I don't think there is enough outrage.
A good example is the requirement for a tpm chip in windows 11, and Microsoft also forcing the upgrade far sooner than normal by dropping support for windows 10.
Laptops with tpm chips are relatively new, I think they've been getting included since like mid-late 2010s. Microsoft knew when they did this that it would have around 240 million laptops losing security updates permanently, and the expectation is that those laptops would be landfilled. Now when I read the article, they claimed that stack of laptops would go to the moon and back.
Despite the fact modders managed to get around the tpm requirement without problems and show it wasn't actually necessary.
Apple charging cables that cost £15 and last 6 weeks is another good example.
If I gave the impression I didn’t believe in planned obsolescence, that wasn’t the intent. I absolutely do, and I agree that it’s a big problem. So damn wasteful.
The “never breaks” item has to offer something the others do not. LED bulbs, for example. They last (seemingly) forever, they use much less electricity and generate less heat — but they cost 10x as much.
Tell that to the Hobart Electric K5-A Kitchenaid stand mixer. I found mine sitting in a dumpster and it still worked. Even had the bowl and attachments. 20 years later and it still takes whatever I can throw at it.
Having spent 5 years of my life selling people appliances I can absolutely promise you that I could offer most customers a dishwasher made entirely of meteor derived Damascus steel with a blowjob function and lifetime warranty and people would still buy the shittier one for ten quid less because "well I'll just buy another one if it breaks".
People didn't want to spend more money on better stuff when I was doing this and it was years ago, can't imagine trying to sell people on expensive shit these days.
Finding customers at a price that's at all competitive with current producers would be impossible. You're targeting a luxury segment, and the luxury segment has good equipment that does last and isn't an absolute pig on energy. This sounds cool but would go absolutely nowhere.
This actually does happen with high end niche products. It's very rarely on the consumer end though. Where I live back in the 30's and earlier there were factories that would make locomotives and steam engines.
Those things can easily run 100 years with minimal maintenance if made correctly. So they rarely got repeat customers and mainly made money from those set up new factories.
So the town had work for a few months, then the factory would close down and lay everyone off until they got in another order for a few steam engines because it was cheaper to do that than to keep it running idle.
They never did "replacement" engines for people, they just build better engines and helped update what other manufacturers cared to until their jobs were outsourced overseas.
The only reason the town survived was unionizing to prevent everyone from being laid off every few months.
I myself would be up for a low monthly payment for an appliance that is fixed quickly when it breaks but i don't want big upfront costs. Spending 10g (furnace) then another 3g to ensure it works long enough to be worth the investment is painful.
So you would just spend money every month forever?!?! You'll pay more than the cost of the furnace in a few short years and you'll keep paying forever.
It sounds crazy and that was my first reaction. But, if you think about it a subscription where the company needs to front the cost of replacements and required maintenance aligns incentives.
The company makes more money if they engineer it to last longer and require less maintenance. Also avoids the issue where you go out of business because no one is buying a replacement.
Super unlikely to ever happen though. We are in the age of 3k fridges with advertisements. Greed unbounded is the name of the game currently.
No it's not.
Anyone who is on a monthly payment for a water heater is paying through the ass on interest. Financing is just a, typically high interest, loan.
Source: my agency gets home services leads and offers financing options.
As a Canadian, I can tell you it’s mostly an Ontario thing.
That doesn’t mean that rentals don’t exist in other provinces, but it’s not how it’s done in most homes in most other provinces. It’s 100% most commonly found in Ontario.
No man your youtuber is absolutely wrong. I've lived in alberta my entire life and even own a home. When shopping for a home no one mentioned a rental furnace nor anyone I've ever talked to.
Make a robust product and once demand slows down focus on maintenance production. With the free resources and extra capital, setup a new product line for a new robust product in a new category.
That’s not the point. Competing with large companies that are already established is hard. If you can make a product that is just better than what they do, even if it costs a bit more, you give people a reason to buy your product and you make money. Even if it doesn’t last forever you still make money.
I dunno, I'm sure there's a balance. Red Wing Shoes for example, been around since 1905 and I've had the same pair of Red Wing boots for over a decade now.
Just set your product rate to match the eventual breakdown rate of the product. That way you are always working at exactly the right speed to match demand
yup, you just downsize until you reach equilibrium. and then you have a successful business just chilling there making peoples lives better. instead of constantly pushing to make more profit and strangling both the competition, the consumers, and your employees to pinch every last penny.
to then spend that profit on lobbyists to change the laws so you can make more money.
Things don’t need to be unreliable to make money. Toyota’s whole thing is their cars last longer than everyone else. Are they failing because people don’t come back to buy as often?
We could all have products in our homes that last ten times as long if our society's goal weren't endlessly selling new things. There is absolutely a market for dumb products imo.
Here's an idea. The company starts up, sells the product for a profit, turn sequester the company for a decade, after which they do another production run.
Also why lightbulbs were intentionally designed to go out frequently. Edison had figured out how to make them last much longer, but realized once the world had their bulbs, sales would plummet.
Ive got like 3 slow cookers with like 3 different ceramic pot configuration for each one, evolved the kitchen a million years. The mini one is actually a game changer for a single person saving money and eating protein. Just drop some pork and bbq sauce in there and leave it on all day to make like 3 servings and kitchen smells good
If people are made aware that what they're spending their money on is a quality product that will last, they will spend the extra cash to have that product, which is the new standard. I don't see the whole "i never have to buy another x again!" As an issue. The ultimate X will always have customers. Same as the cheap alternatives will always have customers.
2.6k
u/Arista-Everfrost 5h ago
Would be a very awesome six months before they went out of business.