When we moved into this house 12 years ago, I got the cheapest, simplest, most "mechanical" washer and dryer set that Lowe's offered (I think it's branded GE).
Haven't had a single problem other than the light inside the dryer eventually burned out when a housemate left the door open.
I know that when one of them eventually fails, it will hopefully be a cheap and simple mechanical fix.
I have no desire to own a "major appliance" (W/D, dishwasher, fridge) that has LCD screens, Internet connectivity, or any of those features that you don't really need and are just another point of failure. I manage computers all day at work, I don't want to come home and have to apply a firmware update to my washing machine.
My problem with the current market is that it's next to impossible to determine the quality of a machine. I would gladly pay $3000 for a washer if I could somehow tell that it will be better built, with higher quality metals, inner parts, and overall longer lasting. But it seems that the extra money these days just buys more flashy bells and whistles that just increase the chance of failure.
Sadly my strategy has been to buy the cheapest possible appliances, understanding that they will fail within 2-3 years no matter what we buy, and then just replace them with less hard feelings. Disposable appliances indeed.
Did this with a display model Whirlpool dishwasher from Home Depot which we bought for $200. Had some dings on the stainless surface, and I was sure it was going to have a short life given it was a display unit. But ironically at this point it's made it twice as long as the fancy Samsung unit it replaced.
I remember seeing on HN a year or two ago? About Samsung smart fridges calendar app not being updated when Google phased out the API it was using.
Also Blu-ray players don't get updates after a long while too I've heard as YouTube and Netflix changes their APIs - the devs of these devices don't keep them up to date.
I would prefer a dumb TV, and just buy a replaceable box with the computer part. The only way I could see embedded software lasting is if the company made the firmware/OS across all their devices and made it more generalized to work with all their devices of that class.
After repairing my appliances one by one, finding the schematics, diagnosing parts and then searching for replacements I discovered the cheapest model and the most expensive model of most appliances by the same manufacturer share all the same parts except the exterior and control panel.
That dishwasher or washing machine with extra modes for $1,000 more? It's the same as the cheapest model, they just didn't put the extra controls on the panel.
I've had many cars with electric windows. They all eventually failed, usually when it was raining, and the windows could not be raised. Fixing them would cost over $500. My truck now has hand cranked windows, and mechanical door locks. They're no trouble at all, and I'm happy with them.
Microwave ovens are another classic. We got ours 25 years ago, and it's still going strong. In fact several people who know about appliances have warned us never to ditch it - apparently the magnetron tubes for all modern microwave ovens burn out in a couple of years.
A serious problem in the US was that regulation demanded clothes washer lids be locked when in operation. This led to forced electronics on clothes washers starting several years ago just to handle the automatic switch. I know Speed Queen was trying to delay this mess but I don't know if they are still manufacturing purely mechanical washers or not...
Random note, seems to me that the *washers market has been a scam for a long time, the only difference between models seem superficial: interface aesthetics, a few programs and a new screen. Imagine if the rotor and fluid was decoupled and you could swap the controlling part ?
Newer ones from any manufacturer are indeed failing more often, and are designed worse.
The only explanation is that this is on purpose - just like cars or laptops or smartphones, they are designed to fail faster so you buy new ones. Planned obsolescence, plain and simple.
The best appliances today, by the way, are made by Bosch/Siemens and Miele. None of the other manufacturers come close, period.
Interestingly, the high-end machines from Bosch/Siemens made in Germany are higher quality than the ones made in Poland, China, Spain or Turkey.
Same design, but it seems they use lower quality electronics and metals, as the most common failures are with the motors, control boards and bearings.
When I went to the first semester of engineering school at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, there was a class called Engineering Professional Development 160: Introduction to Engineering.
One of the early class sessions was a lecture from a guy at a power tool company, making some kind of jigsaw or handheld cutting tool.
He explicitly told us, paraphrasing, "You don't want to make your product too reliable, because people won't buy more of them, and you won't make as much money". I was horrified, literally looked around at my classmates to see how horrified they would be, none of them were. I ended up majoring in philosophy.
Of course this site is dedicated to the idea he expressed, so I am not looking for agreement here, just relaying what I consider an interesting historical fact.
It's a failure of feedback that makes this happen.
If people can't get reliable information about quality, quality will not determine what they buy. Price will, and price is readily available. To get price down, you need costs down. To do that, you replace the parts with crappy parts.
If feedback worked, people would know they were paying less for a less good appliance that will have more downtime, and they would act accordingly.
Part of it is statistical noise: you only get to use so many washing machines in your life, and you may or may not have big problems with them. Your only direct evidence on quality then depends on this roll of the dice.
Part of it is lack of competition: only 4 competitors. You only need to be in the ballpark of "OK" to sell. You're not scratching around for every customer, there's definitely going to be some. So why spend a lot of money making your machine more reliable?
Part of it is cost of information: how much time are you going to spend finding this information? You'll need to learn a bunch of technical terms. And how do you find trustworthy reviews? Most likely reviews are another source of noise, for the same reason as mentioned. So information is expensive to get and anyway if you're right about the manufacturers being the same it's also worthless!
But they're cheaper, by something like 75% (and even more when you take energy efficiency into account). [1]
For people who move every few years, whose requirements change (from solo to 4-person family), and so on, the current situation is pretty ideal.
Spend less money, change models more frequently to fit your changing needs, and often it's even cheaper to buy a new one than to get it fixed -- which for consumers is amazing! (Because repair costs certainly aren't getting cheaper.)
Of course, the negative externalities on the environment are pretty clear and potentially horrific. As well as what it means for cultural values where more and more things are disposable.
But that's the answer, that's why they don't last 50 years -- because consumers actually prefer something that lasts only a few years at 25% of the price.
The prices of appliances has dropped dramatically in the last few decades.
Building a long-lasting appliance often requires even marginally more expensive materials - many of which are highlighted in this article.
If consumers are primarily price sensitive at the time of purchase, they may choose the $50 cheaper appliance even if it lasts 40 years less. What I mean to suggest is that price sensitivity at time of purchase often trumps long term gains - which is why you often see things like payday loans being used. When a person is paycheck-to-paycheck they probably aren't thinking about their financial position in 50 years, simply out of necessity.
Another reason might be that the Nokia 3310's of the world have been basically prototypical products - they are overdesigned. When the user has a perception that a phone is fragile, what's the threshold? We might not need a phone that can be run over by a truck to think a phone is tough. If the split of material cost -> price point and consumer perception is optimal at a certain point - companies will try and design to that point.
Around 40%[1] of the population rents, which means 40% doesn't make the purchasing decision for many appliances. We can sanity-check your argument with this: That reasoning should predict no change in the quality of commercial appliances used in apartment complexes and laundromats, since these customers are used to making spreadsheets with a capital expenditures budget that they pay into for 30 years.
Yeah, somewhat related when we purchased our first tractor we were shocked that a 30hp tractor can go well north of $30,000. A large part of the reason is they will run for 50 years with minimal maintenance. We ended up picking up a '81 29hp tractor that was still ~6k.
Sure there's planned obsolescence but there's also the cost factor as well.
If consumers are price-sensitive, then companies locked in a race to the bottom will end up producing utter crap, that honestly shouldn't even exist in the civilized society. I don't think we can keep blaming consumers; the goal here is to ensure a minimum quality standard.
Completely agree. There are niches were quality is paid for, where appliances no not self-destroy after a couple of years. Cases in point: Kitchenette, Thermomix.
But outside these niches, it is a race to the bottom.
part of the issue, and I'm surprised the author didnt mention it, is that in the last 10 years most devices have switched from mechanical to electronic.
when i bought my speed queen washer and dryer, the person selling it said they only had mechanical, which some consider an advantage. I tend to agree.
I’ve bought and sold refrigerators and freezers from the 1950’s that still work perfectly fine. I’ve come across washers and dryers from the 1960’s and 1970’s that were still working like the day they were made.
Isn't there an element of survivorship bias to these statements? What about all the 1950's fridges that didn't last until today?
> Isn't there an element of survivorship bias to these statements? What about all the 1950's fridges that didn't last until today?
Right. If fridges made in the 50s routinely lasted 50 years I should have seen lots of 50s style models growing up. I didn't. Anecdotal, so take it FWIW.
He may have good points about declining quality, but I suspect it is demonstrably true that such appliances didn't typically last 50 years. In fact, it is the rarity of seeing such old appliances that make people really pay attention when they see one.
Perhaps also of interest, Consumer Reports regularly reports that modern cars are much MORE reliable than cars of old. (They have lots of data on the issue.) This despite being much more complicated machines than they used to be.
Another anecdote. Watching an 80s TV show with my not-yet-tween daughter, we came upon a part where a character hopped in a car and found it turned over but wouldn't start. My daughter asked me why it wouldn't start. She has to this point in life never seen a car not start! That was a weird thought to me, someone growing up in the 80s. (My daughter has heard of dead batteries possibly being a problem with cars from time to time).
I think survivorship bias could very well be a part of it, but very rarely is there a "root cause" to something like this.
I tend to be a more optimistic person (feel free to call it naive!). While i'm sure there are brands/companies out there plotting to make a dishwasher that breaks 6 months outside the warranty, I have a feeling its much more likely that it's due to other reasons.
As someone else in this thread brought up, quality costs money. People are getting used to paying less up-front for their appliances, and in order to stay competitive these companies need to also drop their prices, which means cutting corners in some areas. If they make it look nicer "at purchase time" (like with fancy exteriors, easier install due to lighter weight, more features, etc...) and skimp on the reliability, they will sell more now and stay competitive (with a possibly intended, but also possibly unintended side effect of causing more to be sold in the long run due to failures).
Elsewhere in this thread, people are comparing prices of 1950's appliances to todays, and I'm noticing that in the 1950's they cost around 4x more than they do today about across the board! That right there could account for a fairly significant amount of the difference in quality.
Fridges have come a long way in efficiency. I cannot believe that operating a fridge from the 80s or before is not a ridiculous waste of money, no matter how inexpensive your electricity is.
They don't make [foo] like they used to. Lamentations like these have been going around in western culture since at least the time of iron age Greece, which people felt was a regression from the bronze age.
The observations from the article can be explained by simple attrition. Old fridges that were crap have been thrown away. Old buildings that were crap have been demolished. Old cars that were crap have been scrapped. What you're left with is the tiny percentage of buildings, appliances and cars that were designed and built a little better and cared for a little bette than the rest, making it look like old things are of a higher quality than new things.
Half a century from now, there will be people who, looking at the few surviving buildings, cars and appliances from today, will lament that they don't build things like they used to in the early 21st century.
I seriously doubt a real study of appliance reliability over the past 70 years would show that the stuff sold in the 50s is actually more reliable or longer-lasting than the stuff sold today. Sure, you can find appliances that old that still work fine, but you don't see the ones that broke down after a year or two--they were junked decades ago and forgotten about. Since you can't grow the supply of working 50-year-old fridges, you are tautologically going to see far, far more appliances that are 10 years old or less failing, because there are far more such appliances.
In any case, I also guarantee that most of the junked appliances people throw out either still work fine, or are repairable. But there are other factors at work. A new kitchen remodel will often include new appliances. Is it wasteful? Sure. But it doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of older appliances.
As for repairs, labor costs have increased far faster than the cost of new appliances, so repairs are not always the better economic decision. Then add in large gains in efficiency of newer appliances, and utility savings _alone_ often make it worthwhile to junk a working appliance in favor or something newer.
I'm not trying to defend reliability of modern appliances, but this article way overstates the reliability and manufacturing quality of older ones, while ignoring a lot of other factors at play.
The old timers who almost universally report this phenomenon just don't know enough arm chair statistics. Delusional, basically.
If a study were done, or a set of studies, say between changes in average appliance lifespan between 1993 and 2007, these could never show a dramatic decrease in the average lifespan of most appliance categories.
I have a complaint letter written by my father-in-law back in the 50s about his car, which had seized up three times. The manufacturer wrote back to say it was his fault for driving at the same speed all the time, and he should vary his speed to prevent this happening.
Well counter top appliances are more likely to have survived, there is a decent number of them popping up on ebay. from toasters to blenders. my 1b16 toastmaster toaster can be found there (its over fifty years old and runs like a champ).
I do tend to notice the common theme with modern appliances, especially counter top, is that people just don't treat the equipment nicely. put it away as clean as the day you bought it!
large appliances, especially refrigerators just are never going to be as efficient as modern ones.
Companies have a staff for each area that goes around repairing the appliances and those people get jobs and the companies sell more appliances.
I bought a GE refrigerator last year. Just a few weeks after having it, I woke up one morning to the thing not getting cold. GE insisted they come to look at it, while I insisted they replace the refrigerator. Repair guy comes on the first visit 2 weeks later, tries some different parts, tells me, "I'll be back next Friday.", which was 7 days away. He comes back the next Friday and determines the refrigerator is unrepairable. It had heated up and completely warped the inside. The repair guy had to take photos and video for corporate. That means a brand new refrigerator went straight to the dump. It's upsetting. And note how much time it took before this poor guy could get to me. He was booked with appointments.
This was a month long fiasco. I had spent time researching and purchasing the refrigerator before hand, which was even more frustrating. During the month without a refrigerator my only option as I saw it was to bite the bullet and buy another refrigerator. That refrigerator has been great, albeit my standards for a 'great' refrigerator have lowered.
This isn't the first piece to claim that new appliances, and cars, and other manufactured goods, are made to lower standards as a conspiracy to sell more.
But planned obsolescence isn't a conspiracy, it's a design requirement: there is a requirement to reduce costs, at a greater rate than reduce in production cost due to advancements in manufacturing and logistics. That reduction in cost can not come from thin air, so most balance it by designing products that are not designed to last as long as those that were made 70 years ago.
That reduced cost isn't driven as much by consumers no longer ready to pay the high costs that they used to. You can find a premium fridge for +$5,000, but would you be willing to pay that much for a fridge?
When adjusted for inflation, that isn't much more than a good refrigerator cost in the 1950s. Only today, a $5,000 would get you a top end fridge, while $495 in 1950's Dollars might allow you to buy an average one then. iow, you'd have to spend much more for premium products then. And because there is less market for $5,000 fridges, it only drives the price of those upwards.
Some make the argument that amortized the cost over the lifetime of the appliance, a $5K fridge would cost the same or less per year of service, than a $1,000 one. This discounts the cost to operate the refrigerator (newer ones are more efficient,) and that a dollar spent today is worth more than a dollar saved today. Assuming you can even spend $5,000 today. Most can't.
In 10 years, I'd throw that old fridge, and buy a new one, cheaper and better, more efficient, quieter (those 50's refrigerator are quite noisy), and that won't contain as many hazardous and poisonous materials. The problem this creates is one of disposal and recycling, which is one to solve; but arguing that things used to be give better bang for the buck. You get same bang/buck, at a difference balance of features.
While planned obsolescence is probably a factor I'd also consider the desire for more complicated features, efficiency requirements, and high (upfront) price sensitivity on the part of consumers. To the last point in particular I think you will find that a refrigerator was way more expensive in real dollars in 1950.
OMG, the "features". My stove is relatively simple except for 1 part, the one that sets the oven temperature (and the time, but who the hell needs a third clock in their kitchen). That part is a 300 dollar, proprietary circuit board. Of course it's the first thing to go. I'm sure the board doesn't cost the maker anywhere near $300 but I'm sure it's a lot more than an industry standard knob. If they want to cut a few bucks off the price, there's a good place to start. Put a standard knob only stove on the showroom floor and it might not be the first appliance everyone purchases but it will the be second of anyone that realizes how stupid it is to have a computer where single function piece of hardware belongs.
I agree and think that this article needs an inflation-adjusted comparison of the cost of different models so we can see how much of the decline might be caused by a race to the bottom in terms of price.
There's a subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/) trying to track objects that don't suffer from planned obsolescence. Not a lot of appliances there, though.
The article seems very US-centric, and doesn't mention European brands such as Miele, Bosch, Siemens and Jura (coffee machines), all of which are wholly owned and produce high-quality stuff.
Look for a brand called "Speed Queen". They generally make commercial washers, but have a few home units they sell as well. They're all built like tanks, and some still have old mechanical controls. I have a mechanical set, and love it.
I don't get why you're being downvoted. Anyone remembers the years after RoHS went into effect and e.g. NVidia's mobile GPUs started failing left and right due to no one having experience with lead-free solder?
I just went through this with a refrigerator and I was amazed that I had to spend hours reading reviews of innumerable brands (most of which are really the same, as mentioned in the article) before coming up with even a handful that seemed reasonable. This should have been a simple task but virtually all of them have several got-completely-screwed-a-few-months-after-purchase comments.
My own repair guy told me that often the insides of different brands are IDENTICAL, changing only the brand name, door chrome and other superficial things to justify some kind of premium. This means you’ll break down just as often spending thousands more. The companies themselves are becoming lousier, it is not that they are taking your extra money to make a good product.
If these observations are correct, it seems like all the other issues are just fallout from the first, "not enough competition."
Because everything else -- the push for higher efficiency, more bells and whistles, a proliferation of models that change all the time, lighter metal parts -- applies to automobiles too, and today's automobiles are significantly more durable and low-maintenance than those of my parents' and grandparents' generations.
My anecdotal experience (and my parents and grandparents) tells me that:
a) devices back them broke about the same and had similar lifespans. Yes, some devices lasted for a long time but I suspect that it is just a survivor bias.
b) there were less devices overall (no dishwashers for example), they were harder to get and more valuable.
c) they didn't have any modern electronics. All failures were mechanical, while today they are electronic (and usually non-reparable, only replaceable).
d) some of the devices were built using post-war production lines, e.g. ex-military electric motors, heavy metal bodies etc.
e) those devices were not even closely comparable to today's. Vacuum cleaners that were a metal body and a motor basically. Washing machine for <6kg that was twice as big. Fridges that couldn't keep temperature, had no proper ventilation, multi-zones or sound proofing. Rubber elements that degraded faster than now. The list is endless really.
tl;dr
Article paints old tech as better overall which is maybe applicable to top models in some countries and still not even close. But he is right of course and we do need to strive for more durable devices.
HP recently started a new program where you can buy a printer subscription. You no longer have to pay for any ink -- the printer phones homes and orders new ink whenever it gets low.
Instead you pay by the page.
Apple did a similar thing last year with their phone rental program.
If appliance makers are really worried about recurring revenue, maybe they should explore the subscription program. It would then be in their best interest to make things that last longer, since they would have to replace broken equipment sooner, but at the same time, if they make it last long enough, they can get more revenue out of that with a subscription than without it, and it's much smoother revenue.
Adding my experience to the chorus, my 'fridge is a GE TA-12S that I have owned for 34 years. It was 'old' when I bought the place, so my guess is that it is approaching 40 years of age.
Not a single problem in all that time, though I suspect it could use a new door seal. It is a manual-defrost model, which gives me the opportunity every few months (or when the door no longer closes :) to thoroughly clean it out.
The only other issue is that I have had to raise the temperature setting (rotate the 'wheel' away from "Coldest") from time to time over the years. It started at about 6 and is now past 3. If the trend continues, have a good 10 years left before it ices up completely.
Although it is true that it is not very efficient. A rough guess, based on having left it unplugged for over a month while traveling earlier this year, would be that it uses $0.65 (ConEd rates in NY) per day.
[+] [-] mrbill|9 years ago|reply
Haven't had a single problem other than the light inside the dryer eventually burned out when a housemate left the door open.
I know that when one of them eventually fails, it will hopefully be a cheap and simple mechanical fix.
I have no desire to own a "major appliance" (W/D, dishwasher, fridge) that has LCD screens, Internet connectivity, or any of those features that you don't really need and are just another point of failure. I manage computers all day at work, I don't want to come home and have to apply a firmware update to my washing machine.
[+] [-] foobarian|9 years ago|reply
Sadly my strategy has been to buy the cheapest possible appliances, understanding that they will fail within 2-3 years no matter what we buy, and then just replace them with less hard feelings. Disposable appliances indeed.
Did this with a display model Whirlpool dishwasher from Home Depot which we bought for $200. Had some dings on the stainless surface, and I was sure it was going to have a short life given it was a display unit. But ironically at this point it's made it twice as long as the fancy Samsung unit it replaced.
[+] [-] Keverw|9 years ago|reply
Also Blu-ray players don't get updates after a long while too I've heard as YouTube and Netflix changes their APIs - the devs of these devices don't keep them up to date.
I would prefer a dumb TV, and just buy a replaceable box with the computer part. The only way I could see embedded software lasting is if the company made the firmware/OS across all their devices and made it more generalized to work with all their devices of that class.
[+] [-] ryanmarsh|9 years ago|reply
That dishwasher or washing machine with extra modes for $1,000 more? It's the same as the cheapest model, they just didn't put the extra controls on the panel.
[+] [-] WalterBright|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foxylad|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bnolsen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prodmerc|9 years ago|reply
Newer ones from any manufacturer are indeed failing more often, and are designed worse.
The only explanation is that this is on purpose - just like cars or laptops or smartphones, they are designed to fail faster so you buy new ones. Planned obsolescence, plain and simple.
The best appliances today, by the way, are made by Bosch/Siemens and Miele. None of the other manufacturers come close, period.
Interestingly, the high-end machines from Bosch/Siemens made in Germany are higher quality than the ones made in Poland, China, Spain or Turkey.
Same design, but it seems they use lower quality electronics and metals, as the most common failures are with the motors, control boards and bearings.
[+] [-] expnsv_hdphns|9 years ago|reply
One of the early class sessions was a lecture from a guy at a power tool company, making some kind of jigsaw or handheld cutting tool.
He explicitly told us, paraphrasing, "You don't want to make your product too reliable, because people won't buy more of them, and you won't make as much money". I was horrified, literally looked around at my classmates to see how horrified they would be, none of them were. I ended up majoring in philosophy.
Of course this site is dedicated to the idea he expressed, so I am not looking for agreement here, just relaying what I consider an interesting historical fact.
[+] [-] lordnacho|9 years ago|reply
It's a failure of feedback that makes this happen.
If people can't get reliable information about quality, quality will not determine what they buy. Price will, and price is readily available. To get price down, you need costs down. To do that, you replace the parts with crappy parts.
If feedback worked, people would know they were paying less for a less good appliance that will have more downtime, and they would act accordingly.
Part of it is statistical noise: you only get to use so many washing machines in your life, and you may or may not have big problems with them. Your only direct evidence on quality then depends on this roll of the dice.
Part of it is lack of competition: only 4 competitors. You only need to be in the ballpark of "OK" to sell. You're not scratching around for every customer, there's definitely going to be some. So why spend a lot of money making your machine more reliable?
Part of it is cost of information: how much time are you going to spend finding this information? You'll need to learn a bunch of technical terms. And how do you find trustworthy reviews? Most likely reviews are another source of noise, for the same reason as mentioned. So information is expensive to get and anyway if you're right about the manufacturers being the same it's also worthless!
[+] [-] crazygringo|9 years ago|reply
For people who move every few years, whose requirements change (from solo to 4-person family), and so on, the current situation is pretty ideal.
Spend less money, change models more frequently to fit your changing needs, and often it's even cheaper to buy a new one than to get it fixed -- which for consumers is amazing! (Because repair costs certainly aren't getting cheaper.)
Of course, the negative externalities on the environment are pretty clear and potentially horrific. As well as what it means for cultural values where more and more things are disposable.
But that's the answer, that's why they don't last 50 years -- because consumers actually prefer something that lasts only a few years at 25% of the price.
[1] http://www.aei.org/publication/the-good-old-days-are-now-tod...
[+] [-] tomlock|9 years ago|reply
The prices of appliances has dropped dramatically in the last few decades.
Building a long-lasting appliance often requires even marginally more expensive materials - many of which are highlighted in this article.
If consumers are primarily price sensitive at the time of purchase, they may choose the $50 cheaper appliance even if it lasts 40 years less. What I mean to suggest is that price sensitivity at time of purchase often trumps long term gains - which is why you often see things like payday loans being used. When a person is paycheck-to-paycheck they probably aren't thinking about their financial position in 50 years, simply out of necessity.
Another reason might be that the Nokia 3310's of the world have been basically prototypical products - they are overdesigned. When the user has a perception that a phone is fragile, what's the threshold? We might not need a phone that can be run over by a truck to think a phone is tough. If the split of material cost -> price point and consumer perception is optimal at a certain point - companies will try and design to that point.
[+] [-] MichaelBurge|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/02/the-rise-of-renting-i...
[+] [-] vvanders|9 years ago|reply
Sure there's planned obsolescence but there's also the cost factor as well.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] harperlee|9 years ago|reply
But outside these niches, it is a race to the bottom.
[+] [-] autokad|9 years ago|reply
when i bought my speed queen washer and dryer, the person selling it said they only had mechanical, which some consider an advantage. I tend to agree.
[+] [-] ta4567|9 years ago|reply
Isn't there an element of survivorship bias to these statements? What about all the 1950's fridges that didn't last until today?
[+] [-] torgoguys|9 years ago|reply
Right. If fridges made in the 50s routinely lasted 50 years I should have seen lots of 50s style models growing up. I didn't. Anecdotal, so take it FWIW.
He may have good points about declining quality, but I suspect it is demonstrably true that such appliances didn't typically last 50 years. In fact, it is the rarity of seeing such old appliances that make people really pay attention when they see one.
Perhaps also of interest, Consumer Reports regularly reports that modern cars are much MORE reliable than cars of old. (They have lots of data on the issue.) This despite being much more complicated machines than they used to be.
Another anecdote. Watching an 80s TV show with my not-yet-tween daughter, we came upon a part where a character hopped in a car and found it turned over but wouldn't start. My daughter asked me why it wouldn't start. She has to this point in life never seen a car not start! That was a weird thought to me, someone growing up in the 80s. (My daughter has heard of dead batteries possibly being a problem with cars from time to time).
[+] [-] Klathmon|9 years ago|reply
I tend to be a more optimistic person (feel free to call it naive!). While i'm sure there are brands/companies out there plotting to make a dishwasher that breaks 6 months outside the warranty, I have a feeling its much more likely that it's due to other reasons.
As someone else in this thread brought up, quality costs money. People are getting used to paying less up-front for their appliances, and in order to stay competitive these companies need to also drop their prices, which means cutting corners in some areas. If they make it look nicer "at purchase time" (like with fancy exteriors, easier install due to lighter weight, more features, etc...) and skimp on the reliability, they will sell more now and stay competitive (with a possibly intended, but also possibly unintended side effect of causing more to be sold in the long run due to failures).
Elsewhere in this thread, people are comparing prices of 1950's appliances to todays, and I'm noticing that in the 1950's they cost around 4x more than they do today about across the board! That right there could account for a fairly significant amount of the difference in quality.
[+] [-] kw71|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wobbleblob|9 years ago|reply
The observations from the article can be explained by simple attrition. Old fridges that were crap have been thrown away. Old buildings that were crap have been demolished. Old cars that were crap have been scrapped. What you're left with is the tiny percentage of buildings, appliances and cars that were designed and built a little better and cared for a little bette than the rest, making it look like old things are of a higher quality than new things.
Half a century from now, there will be people who, looking at the few surviving buildings, cars and appliances from today, will lament that they don't build things like they used to in the early 21st century.
[+] [-] skywhopper|9 years ago|reply
In any case, I also guarantee that most of the junked appliances people throw out either still work fine, or are repairable. But there are other factors at work. A new kitchen remodel will often include new appliances. Is it wasteful? Sure. But it doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of older appliances.
As for repairs, labor costs have increased far faster than the cost of new appliances, so repairs are not always the better economic decision. Then add in large gains in efficiency of newer appliances, and utility savings _alone_ often make it worthwhile to junk a working appliance in favor or something newer.
I'm not trying to defend reliability of modern appliances, but this article way overstates the reliability and manufacturing quality of older ones, while ignoring a lot of other factors at play.
[+] [-] lsaferite|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
[+] [-] ainiriand|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threepipeproblm|9 years ago|reply
No one would ever, for economic reasons, plan (or just allow) for the lifespan of their products to decrease. http://resource.co/article/lifetimes-household-appliances-be... Technology is always getting better!
The old timers who almost universally report this phenomenon just don't know enough arm chair statistics. Delusional, basically.
If a study were done, or a set of studies, say between changes in average appliance lifespan between 1993 and 2007, these could never show a dramatic decrease in the average lifespan of most appliance categories.
1993 NAHB results http://www.metrohome.us/information_kit_files/life.pdf
2007 NAHB results https://www.interstatebrick.com/sites/default/files/library/...
[+] [-] paulajohnson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|9 years ago|reply
I do tend to notice the common theme with modern appliances, especially counter top, is that people just don't treat the equipment nicely. put it away as clean as the day you bought it!
large appliances, especially refrigerators just are never going to be as efficient as modern ones.
[+] [-] jaytaylor|9 years ago|reply
By far the most helpful resource out there for learning about available types and characteristics of each so you can make an informed decision.
EDIT: Unclear on why this is getting downvoted; explanation would be appreciated. I posted this hoping others might find it useful.
[+] [-] sanderjd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickdale|9 years ago|reply
I bought a GE refrigerator last year. Just a few weeks after having it, I woke up one morning to the thing not getting cold. GE insisted they come to look at it, while I insisted they replace the refrigerator. Repair guy comes on the first visit 2 weeks later, tries some different parts, tells me, "I'll be back next Friday.", which was 7 days away. He comes back the next Friday and determines the refrigerator is unrepairable. It had heated up and completely warped the inside. The repair guy had to take photos and video for corporate. That means a brand new refrigerator went straight to the dump. It's upsetting. And note how much time it took before this poor guy could get to me. He was booked with appointments.
This was a month long fiasco. I had spent time researching and purchasing the refrigerator before hand, which was even more frustrating. During the month without a refrigerator my only option as I saw it was to bite the bullet and buy another refrigerator. That refrigerator has been great, albeit my standards for a 'great' refrigerator have lowered.
[+] [-] snotrockets|9 years ago|reply
But planned obsolescence isn't a conspiracy, it's a design requirement: there is a requirement to reduce costs, at a greater rate than reduce in production cost due to advancements in manufacturing and logistics. That reduction in cost can not come from thin air, so most balance it by designing products that are not designed to last as long as those that were made 70 years ago.
That reduced cost isn't driven as much by consumers no longer ready to pay the high costs that they used to. You can find a premium fridge for +$5,000, but would you be willing to pay that much for a fridge?
When adjusted for inflation, that isn't much more than a good refrigerator cost in the 1950s. Only today, a $5,000 would get you a top end fridge, while $495 in 1950's Dollars might allow you to buy an average one then. iow, you'd have to spend much more for premium products then. And because there is less market for $5,000 fridges, it only drives the price of those upwards.
Some make the argument that amortized the cost over the lifetime of the appliance, a $5K fridge would cost the same or less per year of service, than a $1,000 one. This discounts the cost to operate the refrigerator (newer ones are more efficient,) and that a dollar spent today is worth more than a dollar saved today. Assuming you can even spend $5,000 today. Most can't.
In 10 years, I'd throw that old fridge, and buy a new one, cheaper and better, more efficient, quieter (those 50's refrigerator are quite noisy), and that won't contain as many hazardous and poisonous materials. The problem this creates is one of disposal and recycling, which is one to solve; but arguing that things used to be give better bang for the buck. You get same bang/buck, at a difference balance of features.
[+] [-] MakeUsersWant|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emodendroket|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orless|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wodenokoto|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmageggy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lobster_johnson|9 years ago|reply
The article seems very US-centric, and doesn't mention European brands such as Miele, Bosch, Siemens and Jura (coffee machines), all of which are wholly owned and produce high-quality stuff.
[+] [-] jdonaldson|9 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/O8L9PIjYngk
[+] [-] joshu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mschuster91|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makecheck|9 years ago|reply
My own repair guy told me that often the insides of different brands are IDENTICAL, changing only the brand name, door chrome and other superficial things to justify some kind of premium. This means you’ll break down just as often spending thousands more. The companies themselves are becoming lousier, it is not that they are taking your extra money to make a good product.
[+] [-] philipkglass|9 years ago|reply
Because everything else -- the push for higher efficiency, more bells and whistles, a proliferation of models that change all the time, lighter metal parts -- applies to automobiles too, and today's automobiles are significantly more durable and low-maintenance than those of my parents' and grandparents' generations.
[+] [-] Yizahi|9 years ago|reply
a) devices back them broke about the same and had similar lifespans. Yes, some devices lasted for a long time but I suspect that it is just a survivor bias.
b) there were less devices overall (no dishwashers for example), they were harder to get and more valuable.
c) they didn't have any modern electronics. All failures were mechanical, while today they are electronic (and usually non-reparable, only replaceable).
d) some of the devices were built using post-war production lines, e.g. ex-military electric motors, heavy metal bodies etc.
e) those devices were not even closely comparable to today's. Vacuum cleaners that were a metal body and a motor basically. Washing machine for <6kg that was twice as big. Fridges that couldn't keep temperature, had no proper ventilation, multi-zones or sound proofing. Rubber elements that degraded faster than now. The list is endless really.
tl;dr Article paints old tech as better overall which is maybe applicable to top models in some countries and still not even close. But he is right of course and we do need to strive for more durable devices.
[+] [-] jedberg|9 years ago|reply
Instead you pay by the page.
Apple did a similar thing last year with their phone rental program.
If appliance makers are really worried about recurring revenue, maybe they should explore the subscription program. It would then be in their best interest to make things that last longer, since they would have to replace broken equipment sooner, but at the same time, if they make it last long enough, they can get more revenue out of that with a subscription than without it, and it's much smoother revenue.
[+] [-] MarkG509|9 years ago|reply
Not a single problem in all that time, though I suspect it could use a new door seal. It is a manual-defrost model, which gives me the opportunity every few months (or when the door no longer closes :) to thoroughly clean it out.
The only other issue is that I have had to raise the temperature setting (rotate the 'wheel' away from "Coldest") from time to time over the years. It started at about 6 and is now past 3. If the trend continues, have a good 10 years left before it ices up completely.
Although it is true that it is not very efficient. A rough guess, based on having left it unplugged for over a month while traveling earlier this year, would be that it uses $0.65 (ConEd rates in NY) per day.
Enjoyed and agreed with the article, thanks!