Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

While I respect your opinion, it sounds like you are reading straight
from a textbook.

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you that I have never seen
it work that way.

Reality is much different than the academic BS model....see Dilbert
for a real life reference.

Nothing like real life.

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.


dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their
research indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and
the design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a
mandate to meet that price point by top level management, but
there are no "accountants" telling anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore
the fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants.
They are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired
profit margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end lifes
and without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs who have
dictated what the product life and quality will be.
...

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

The point is, the manner in which it is made manifest is, in most
organizations, not a draconion "order from above" as you would imply
with an express goal to extract the pound of flesh a la a historical
vision of a Carnegie or a Vanderbilt, but an overall coordinated
approach to how to make the best corporate decisions in a competitive
economy. All information in this environment is imprecise and all
individuals making these decisions are not infallible so there are
always decisions made that aren't, in retrospect, optimal, but that
doesn't mean these decisions were made a priori to fulfill some grand
over-arching scheme. On the far extreme one _might_ be able to find
a company that tried to operate as you suggest, but I would submit it
would be an aberration in general and highly likely to not succeed in
the long run.

Epictitus wrote:

Is that why my dishwasher died after 8 years and it was cheaper to
buy a new one than to repair the old? Our previous one lasted 22
years without hiccup. Was still running but the tub rusted out and
started leaking...

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'


"Ecnerwal" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

Perhaps you've not been adequately involved with your appliances to
see that there is not a contradiction, even "apparently".

The old ones were, for the most part, designed to be repairable.
"This part always breaks eventually, we'll isolate it and make it
easy to replace".

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. "This part will (by design) break
about 1 year after the warranty runs out - let's put in in a
monolithic module containing all the most expensive parts of the
machine." The appliance industry would much rather sell you a new
one than have you fix the old one, and they have taken steps to
ensure that only the maddest of mad hatters will stubbornly stick to
repair; and when they do, the industry will still profit mightily
due to inflated pricing. But not making the parts at all will knock
even the mad hatters into line soon enough, so long as they keep all
the parts adequately non-standard that it's not economic for anyone
to second-source them. The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies
in 8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair),
clearing the way for more new car sales.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Rick Brandt wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Yes, my mother used her first clothes dryer for over 30 years. We
replaced the belt three times. A new dryer might last five years,
total.

On what do you base this statement? To claim that (on average) a new dryer will
only last five years is absurd. What, you once knew "a guy" who replaced a five
year old dryer? The dryer has to be one of the simplest and most reliable
things in the home. There just isn't that much to go wrong.


From dozens of relatives and friends who had major problems from 4 to 6
years. My stepmother replaced a GE washer and dryer pair that was less
than two years old because they were crap. Not much to go wrong? cheap
parts, poor designs and sloppy assembly work. Something is making noise
and you find a broken weld, sheared off bolt or bad bearing that SHOULD
NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

7 percent of dryers purchased between 2002 and 2006 needed repair,
according to a survey of Consumer Reports subscribers and their 109,000
dryers.

Not sure how much it would cost to repair a dryer, however. I've seen
good performers from reliable brands selling in the $450 range.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Terrence Briggs using a coin-op machine for now. Bachelors don't have
that much laundry
Peace to you...

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.


Using the battery to enforce product obscelence is standard practice in
the industry.

TMT

Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Rod Speed" writes:
terry wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

In terms of energy efficiency, many new electronics are
more energy gluttons than the old ones they replace.

And plenty aint too.

Many electronics today have "always on" features where
they continuously draw current even when shut off.

And plenty take bugger all power in that mode now.

Couple this with others who use wall
transformers that continuously draw current.

Plenty use switch mode plug packs now too.

If one wishes to reduce your energy bill, the first thing
you need to do is remove all these parasitic power users.

Wrong again. I use electric for all heating and cooling
and that completely swamps any effect those have.

The irony is those of us who are serious about cutting our power bills seek
out the older electronics because they do not siphon power when not used.

Anyone with a clue, which obviously counts you out, has enough of a
clue to continue to use the current products and chooses those which
use switch mode plug packs and have minimal standby power use.

It is true that some refrigerators, freezers
and air conditioners are more efficient

All of them are, actually.

but you also need to consider the depreciation
cost of your money when replacing the unit.

Yes, but that usually pays for itself quite quickly because the improvements
are significant, particularly with the dinosaur stuff from the 50s etc.

The push to replace older appliances is a push to sell new ones and for power
companies not to have to build new power plants....it is not about you saving money.

Wrong again. Its actually about doing both.


Tracey wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
In my opinon...no.

I intentionally try to have older appliances, vehicles, machines to
lower repair costs and keep overall ownership cost to a minimum.

Your thoughts?

One thing that you might not have considered is Energy Efficiency.
Sure, your refrigerator from 1950 might appear to be working
fabulously. However, it probably costs an awful lot more in
electricity to operate it than a newer model would cost. Likewise
with your hot water heater, oven, diswasher, washing machine, etc.

Its just something else to keep in mind...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their research
indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and the
design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a mandate to meet
that price point by top level management, but there are no "accountants" telling
anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore the
fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants. They
are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired profit
margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end lifes and
without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs who have
dictated what the product life and quality will be.

It is done to extract as much of your cash as possible.

TMT

And what if the consumer tires of your company's product and moves on
to another brand?

As this thread proves, people take anecdotal evidence of a product's
failure and avoid all of that company's products in the future.

Poster A refuses to by a GE dryer because a family member had to repair
hers in less than 5 years.

Poster B avoids anything made by Panasonic because a vaccuum broke in
less than a year.

It would seem to work AGAINST a company's bottom line to make products
that **** off your customers. They'll move on to another company.

Terrence Briggs
Peace to you...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.


Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Rod Speed" writes:
terry wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard
batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

(Actually, the following is what I wrote earlier but the attribution
seems to have been snipped...)

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering ...
....

While I respect your opinion, ...

Maybe so, but the rest of your post certainly doesn't make it sound
that way...

But, then again, it wasn't opinion but experience...

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you that I have never seen
it work that way....

All I can say is you obviously were with the wrong organizations or
missed the signs of how things _really_ were...if the former is
actually the case, sorry.

In the 30-yrs mentioned previously, the only really bad blunder
enforced by a large corporation ethic I experienced was in one of the
aforementioned purchases of a successful startup by a behemoth. Their
plan was to integrate the new product line into an existing one with
its third-part sales reps and distributors rather than retain the
smaller company's dedicated sales force. This, unfortunately for both,
turned out to be a blunder for both.

But, it had nothing to to w/ MBA's deciding to cut or pare the bottom
line, it was just the business model that had been quite successful for
the new owner that they assumed would be successful for this product
line as well. Similar sorts of "not so black-and-white" scenarios are
almost surely in play as Rod points out in the situations you've
encountered as well.

In article ,
says...
[...]

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

Isn't "what really happens" the same as "true"? What am I missing
here? Perhaps "true" is not accurate since they don't deal with
actual events. "True to life" is probably a better characterization
of 'The Office' and 'Dilbert'.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

Caricatures make reality entertaining. But they still reflect
reality. They wouldn't be funny if they didn't. 'The Office' is a
caricature - that's why it's funny on the particular level that it is
funny. I find that people who have never worked in an office are
less likely to 'get it'. 'Scrubs', on the other hand, is farce. You
don't have to work in a hospital to enjoy it.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

Typically, it is. Particularly when the target price is
'impossible'.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Are you suggesting that Apple did not try to minimize the production
cost of the iPod? Perhaps you could explain why they are made in
China?

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

Actually, you're both wrong. The objective is to sell a product NOW.
Given the rate of change, particularly with technology products,
repeat sales are no longer an objective. Build them as cheaply as
possible TODAY. This year's bottom line is what the CEO's bonus is
based on.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

That's pure BS. Consumers are motivated, first and foremost, by
purchase price. That's the reason so many products have a 'Made in
China' label. Apple and a few other American companies have
successfully marketed a perception of quality (actually, hipness),
but still import the products.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.

Actually, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It's simply using
a business model that works.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:11:43 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree. No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium
Polymer battery pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into
a device. That would look after all the ipods and ipodlikes,as well as
all kinds of PDAs etc. On the ipod nano it's just the simplicity of
assembly that counts - it's crimped together, but not sealed, so if it
gets wet it's finished, and it IS possible to take it apart - but the
battery is soldered on, rather than plug-in, because it's
simpler/cheaper. Could still replace the battery - but they are NOT
AVAILABLE. And if you get the beggars wet, the battery goes south.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Rod Speed" writes:
terry wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard
batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Everett M. Greene ha escrito:

"Rod Speed" writes:
terry wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

....and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables to
the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000€ tv!
they should hang the designers of that one! Crimes against the
environment.
-B.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:28:15 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

While I respect your opinion, it sounds like you are reading straight
from a textbook.

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you that I have never seen
it work that way.

Reality is much different than the academic BS model....see Dilbert
for a real life reference.

Nothing like real life.

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Not stupid. It IS the bean counters - and for the pricepoint DICTATED
it is impossible to make a QUALITY product with any kind of
consistency. So the customer becomes the QC department.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Nobody said inexpensive. Cheap ain't the same. It is CHEAP OVERPRICED
JUNK.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

No, it is an EXCELLENT way, because you add more "Gee Whizz" and
"gotta have it" in the next iteration (which comes out JUST BEFORE the
majority of the last version come off warranty). This way, a large
percentage of owners are salivating over the new product, and either
throw the cheap one in a corner to buy the new one, or, more often,
just figure when the old one fails it's a good excuse to buy the new
one.
Lots of us want to keep using the simple old unit - and cannot because
it fails.
and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.


dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their
research indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and
the design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a
mandate to meet that price point by top level management, but
there are no "accountants" telling anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore
the fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants.
They are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired
profit margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end lifes
and without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs who have
dictated what the product life and quality will be.
...

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

The point is, the manner in which it is made manifest is, in most
organizations, not a draconion "order from above" as you would imply
with an express goal to extract the pound of flesh a la a historical
vision of a Carnegie or a Vanderbilt, but an overall coordinated
approach to how to make the best corporate decisions in a competitive
economy. All information in this environment is imprecise and all
individuals making these decisions are not infallible so there are
always decisions made that aren't, in retrospect, optimal, but that
doesn't mean these decisions were made a priori to fulfill some grand
over-arching scheme. On the far extreme one _might_ be able to find
a company that tried to operate as you suggest, but I would submit it
would be an aberration in general and highly likely to not succeed in
the long run.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

That would look after all the ipods and
ipodlikes, as well as all kinds of PDAs etc.

There's a reason cellphones dont all use the same standard battery.

On the ipod nano it's just the simplicity of assembly that counts

Nope.

- it's crimped together, but not sealed, so if it gets wet it's finished,

It would be anyway even if the case was sealed, just like with cellphones.

and it IS possible to take it apart - but the battery is soldered
on, rather than plug-in, because it's simpler/cheaper.

Its obviously still possible to replace the battery.

Could still replace the battery - but they are NOT AVAILABLE.

NOT YET.

And if you get the beggars wet, the battery goes south.

Same with cellphones. There is no evil conspiracy,
its about producing a cost effective product.


Everett M. Greene wrote
Rod Speed writes
terry wrote

Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

b wrote
Everett M. Greene wrote
Rod Speed writes
terry wrote

Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables
to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000? tv!

Just lousy design, no evil conspiracy.

they should hang the designers of that one!
Crimes against the environment.

It would **** the environment much more to have every
low level component easily unpluggable and replaceable.

Mike Hartigan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

Isn't "what really happens" the same as "true"?

Nope, Dilbert ain 'what really happens'

What am I missing here?

The exaggeration, stupid.

Perhaps "true" is not accurate since they don't deal with actual events.

Or because its exaggerated.

"True to life" is probably a better characterization of 'The Office' and 'Dilbert'.

Nope, its an exaggeration of reality.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

Caricatures make reality entertaining.

So can Dilbert and The Office.

But they still reflect reality.

Nope, they exaggerate reality.

They wouldn't be funny if they didn't. 'The Office' is a caricature
- that's why it's funny on the particular level that it is funny.

And its not true to life, its a caricature/exaggeration of life.

I find that people who have never worked
in an office are less likely to 'get it'.

Sure, but thats not surprising.

'Scrubs', on the other hand, is farce. You
don't have to work in a hospital to enjoy it.

I dont work in a hospital and dont enjoy it either.

Its slapstick, nothing like reality.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

Typically, it is.

Nope.

Particularly when the target price is 'impossible'.

Fantasy.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Are you suggesting that Apple did not try
to minimize the production cost of the iPod?

Nope, that its clearly nothing like the cheapest junk that they can sell.

Perhaps you could explain why they are made in China?

Irrelevant to whether its actually the cheapest junk that they can sell.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

Actually, you're both wrong.

Nope. He is.

The objective is to sell a product NOW.

Its much more complicated than that too.

Given the rate of change, particularly with technology
products, repeat sales are no longer an objective.

Bull****, most obviously with Apple.

Build them as cheaply as possible TODAY.

Have fun explaining the ipods and countless
other products that are nothing like that.

This year's bottom line is what the CEO's bonus is based on.

Nothing like the original claim about the CEO's bonus.

And it aint necessarily true of quite a few CEOs either.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

That's pure BS.

Nope. Even you should be able to find countless
examples of individuals doing that using groups.google.

Consumers are motivated, first and foremost, by purchase price.

Not all of them are. If they were, you wouldnt see so many ipods sold.

Or those stupid expensive brand name shoes in spades.

Or SUVs either.

That's the reason so many products have a 'Made in China' label.

Nope, the real reason is because it costs less to manufacture there.

Apple and a few other American companies have
successfully marketed a perception of quality
(actually, hipness), but still import the products.

Irrelevant to that silly claim that consumers buy on price.

If they did, they wouldnt be buying ipods.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.

Actually, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
It's simply using a business model that works.

It isnt even possible to use planned obsolescence as a business model,
essentially because it isnt possible to design a product to fail just after
the warranty has expired, even if some operation was actually that stupid.

On 15 Jan 2007 12:02:03 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

In terms of energy efficiency, many new electronics are more energy
gluttons than the old ones they replace.
Bullcrap.The devices themselves are more power efficient (draw less
power to do the same job)and switch mode power warts draw VERY LITTLE
power. The power pack for my portable DVD shows no measurable draw on
my UPM E100 energy meter. Charging the battery, it draws about .02amp,
and running about .09 to .10 amps. The switchmode supply on my USP hub
draws .01 amp idle and the port draws another .03 for a total of .04
amps. My 20 year old TV draws.06 amps turned off, my daughter's new
one all of .02 and her 5 year old VCR draws .03. The old "instant on"
tube TV I used to have was over 20 watts when turned off, and it was
made 35? years ago. Not to mention it drew a WHOLE LOT more when
running than anything made today.

Many electronics today have "always on" features where they
continuously draw current even when shut off. Couple this with others
who use wall transformers that continuously draw current.

Cheap crap uses transformers. Cheap transformers dissipate about 4
watts. Virtually no QUALITY stuff uses transformers any more.
New Switchers dissipate significantly less than 1 watt idle. (my DVD)
Old switchers dissipate about 4 watts (old laptop) and 3 watts (cheap
chinese laptop supply and 2 watts for a better chinese laptop supply.
If one wishes
to reduce your energy bill, the first thing you need to do is remove
all these parasitic power users. The irony is those of us who are
serious about cutting our power bills seek out the older electronics
because they do not siphon power when not used.
Depends how much you use them. If they are used a lot, buy new quality
stuff - it uses a lot less power when in use. If it sits most of the
time, use the old stuff or disconnect when not in use.

It is true that some refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners are
more efficient but you also need to consider the depreciation cost of
your money when replacing the unit.

The difference in operating cost between a 25 year old fridge and a
new one will pay the depreciation cost and the financing charges at
today's rates.
The push to replace older
appliances is a push to sell new ones and for power companies not to
have to build new power plants....it is not about you saving money.

If power companies don't need to build new power plants, it saves YOU
money.

TMT

Tracey wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
In my opinon...no.

I intentionally try to have older appliances, vehicles, machines to
lower repair costs and keep overall ownership cost to a minimum.

Your thoughts?

One thing that you might not have considered is Energy Efficiency. Sure,
your refrigerator from 1950 might appear to be working fabulously. However,
it probably costs an awful lot more in electricity to operate it than a
newer model would cost. Likewise with your hot water heater, oven,
diswasher, washing machine, etc.

Its just something else to keep in mind...

And I drive older vehicles and fix them myself. I don't put on a lot
of miles. If I did, I'd buy a newer more efficient vehicle - but for
me, at this point, it would never get close to paying for itself.

As for appliances, when I can no longer fix what I have, I buy the
best quality I can get for my money - knowing I will likely spend more
time and money fixing it over it's (shorter) lifespan than I spent on
what it is replacing, but less than if I buy the cheapest I can find.

My water heater is about 20 years old now. My friend is on his 4th in
15 years. Mine cost almost twice what his did.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rod Speed ha escrito:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.


Sorry but you are missinformed. Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Rod Speed ha escrito:


It would **** the environment much more to have every
low level component easily unpluggable and replaceable.

Please explain why.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing
firms from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by
very large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of
these places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers
are under the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the
cost-accounting enters the design phase is in trying to make a
price-point which is a function of market niche, competition,
timing, comparative product advantage vis a vis competitors',
etc., etc., etc., ... After that, it then becomes an engineering
problem of how to design, fabricate and distribute (and support)
the product. As one moves from more complex, costly products to
less expensive, the compromises to accomplish the goal become more
severe. If your product is a plastic toy to try to sell millions,
the margin per item has to be miniscule. If, otoh, you're
building a high-end anything, that is a different set of
constraints. Either way, unless the product can be designed and
manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there won't be any
more company so the cost point is as important as anything else.

While I respect your opinion, it sounds like you are reading
straight from a textbook.

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you
that I have never seen it work that way.

Reality is much different than the academic BS model....
see Dilbert for a real life reference.

Nothing like real life.

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Not stupid. It IS the bean counters - and for the
pricepoint DICTATED it is impossible to make a
QUALITY product with any kind of consistency.

Utterly mangled all over again. Its actually the engineers that
choose to make things in a way that minimises the cost of
manufacturer, and maximises the reliability, even if that does
produce a product that is difficult or impractical to repair if it fails.

Most obviously with plugpacks which cant be opened without
physically breaking them, and molded power cords etc.

So the customer becomes the QC department.

No they dont. And thats got nothing to do with his stupid claim
about who gets to decide how things are constructed anyway.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Nobody said inexpensive.

Some did just that.

Cheap ain't the same. It is CHEAP OVERPRICED JUNK.

Easy to claim. Much harder to substantiate the claim that its junk.

ipods certainly arent either cheap or junk.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

No, it is an EXCELLENT way, because you add more "Gee Whizz"
and "gotta have it" in the next iteration (which comes out JUST
BEFORE the majority of the last version come off warranty).

And most consumers will avoid brands that didnt last long previously.

Its actually an excellent way of getting them
to try the competitor's product instead.

And that claim about JUST BEFORE isnt even possible either.

This way, a large percentage of owners are salivating over the new product,

Few do, only a small percentage at most.

and either throw the cheap one in a corner to buy the new one, or, more often,
just figure when the old one fails it's a good excuse to buy the new one.

But wont be buying the same brand again if it just managed to last for the warranty.

Lots of us want to keep using the simple old unit - and cannot because it fails.

Bugger all modern electronic devices fail anymore.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.


dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut
costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have
you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their
research indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and
the design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a
mandate to meet that price point by top level management, but
there are no "accountants" telling anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore
the fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants.
They are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired
profit margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end
lifes and without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs
who have dictated what the product life and quality will be.
...

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing
firms from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by
very large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of
these places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers
are under the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the
cost-accounting enters the design phase is in trying to make a
price-point which is a function of market niche, competition,
timing, comparative product advantage vis a vis competitors',
etc., etc., etc., ... After that, it then becomes an engineering
problem of how to design, fabricate and distribute (and support)
the product. As one moves from more complex, costly products to
less expensive, the compromises to accomplish the goal become more
severe. If your product is a plastic toy to try to sell millions,
the margin per item has to be miniscule. If, otoh, you're
building a high-end anything, that is a different set of
constraints. Either way, unless the product can be designed and
manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there won't be any
more company so the cost point is as important as anything else.

The point is, the manner in which it is made manifest is, in most
organizations, not a draconion "order from above" as you would
imply with an express goal to extract the pound of flesh a la a
historical vision of a Carnegie or a Vanderbilt, but an overall
coordinated approach to how to make the best corporate decisions
in a competitive economy. All information in this environment is
imprecise and all individuals making these decisions are not
infallible so there are always decisions made that aren't, in
retrospect, optimal, but that doesn't mean these decisions were
made a priori to fulfill some grand over-arching scheme. On the
far extreme one _might_ be able to find a company that tried to
operate as you suggest, but I would submit it would be an
aberration in general and highly likely to not succeed in the long
run.

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Sorry but you are missinformed.

Nope.

Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Pity they wont fit in an ipod. And arent practical with electric toothbrushes either.

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It would **** the environment much more to have every
low level component easily unpluggable and replaceable.

Please explain why.

It should be obvious. Try counting the cost of all those sockets for
all the ics, let alone what that would do to the size of the device etc.

You couldnt even use surface mount anymore either.

Rod Speed ha escrito:

Michael Kennedy wrote:

Separate matter entirely to the mindlessly silly claim that
its even possible to design an appliance to break about a
year after the warranty runs out, with most appliances.

Why do you say it is impossible?

Because it is impossible ? Novel concept I realise.


Please explain how the manufacturer of a light bulb, fluorescent lamp
or CFL can provide an estimate of the lifetime of the lamp. Don´t say
"They can´t because it´s impossible". Explain exactly why it´s
impossible.


When designing the product the engineers figure the average useage of the appliance every day and
then calculate about how long it will take before a failure.

Nice theory. The reality is that that isnt even
possible with most domestic appliances.

It isnt even feasible with stuff as basic as an incandescent light bulb.
A CFL in spades. A moulded power cord or plug pack in spades.

They also do product reliability testing to see how long on average it is before a product fails.

No they dont with domestic appliances.

They dont even do that with mass market hard drives anymore.


Yes they do. The quote the useful lifetime of a hardrive in MTBF hours.
Don´t answer "it´s impossible" if you are not prepared to give a real
explanation. Samsung, Seagate, WD... any decent hard drive manufactures
gives an estimate lifetime of their products. These estimates are
provided in the datasheet of each harddrive.

Rod Speed ha escrito:

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Sorry but you are missinformed.

Nope.

Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Pity they wont fit in an ipod. And arent practical with electric toothbrushes either.

The point is that consumer AA an AAA lithium batteries are available.
That´s the point, not if these batteries can be fitted to an IPOD or a
Thootbrush. You said that Lithium batteries weren´t available in
standard sizes and I proved you that you were wrong. Also, there are
smaller lithium batteries available for watches and calculators. Even
there are *user replaceable lithium batteries* for cellphones and
laptops, which further demonstrates the concept that rechargeable
lithium batteries can, and in fact are produced, in a variety of
formats.

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables to
the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000‚¬ tv!
they should hang the designers of that one!


Just sit back and watch the screams when HD is phased into the USA in a
couple of years...and hundreds of millions of televisions go obselete
at once.

FYI....plasma televisions have a dismal repair record.....throwaway
electronics at several thousand dollars a toss.

TMT

b wrote:
Everett M. Greene ha escrito:

"Rod Speed" writes:
terry wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables to
the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000‚¬ tv!
they should hang the designers of that one! Crimes against the
environment.
-B.

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Michael Kennedy wrote

Separate matter entirely to the mindlessly silly claim that
its even possible to design an appliance to break about a
year after the warranty runs out, with most appliances.

Why do you say it is impossible?

Because it is impossible ? Novel concept I realise.

Please explain how the manufacturer of a light bulb, fluorescent
lamp or CFL can provide an estimate of the lifetime of the lamp.

That is trivial to do by running an adequate sized batch of
incandescent light bulbs under appropriate test conditions etc.

Don´t say "They can´t because it´s impossible".
Explain exactly why it´s impossible.

Its up to those who claim that its possible to design a device
to die one year after the warrant expires how that can be done.

When designing the product the engineers figure the
average useage of the appliance every day and then
calculate about how long it will take before a failure.

Nice theory. The reality is that that isnt even
possible with most domestic appliances.

It isnt even feasible with stuff as basic as an incandescent light
bulb. A CFL in spades. A moulded power cord or plug pack in spades.

They also do product reliability testing to see
how long on average it is before a product fails.

No they dont with domestic appliances.

They dont even do that with mass market hard drives anymore.

Yes they do.

No they dont.

The quote the useful lifetime of a hardrive in MTBF hours.

That is calculated, not measured. Convert that MTBF
to years and you will discover why they cant possibility
have tested them to get those numbers.

Don´t answer "it´s impossible" if you are not prepared to give
a real explanation. Samsung, Seagate, WD... any decent hard
drive manufactures gives an estimate lifetime of their products.
These estimates are provided in the datasheet of each harddrive.

And they are ESTIMATES, not measured results.

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Sorry but you are missinformed.

Nope.

Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Those arent the RECHARGEABLE batterys being discussed.

Pity they wont fit in an ipod. And arent practical with electric
toothbrushes either.

The point is that consumer AA an AAA lithium batteries are available.

Nope, not the RECHARGEABLE batterys being discussed.

That´s the point, not if these batteries can be fitted to an IPOD or a Thootbrush.

Wrong, see the top of the quoting.

You said that Lithium batteries weren´t available in standard sizes

Yes, and it should have been obvious that what was being discussed was RECHARGEABLE batterys.

and I proved you that you were wrong.

No you didnt.

Also, there are smaller lithium batteries available for watches and calculators.

Those arent RECHARGEABLE either.

Even there are *user replaceable lithium batteries* for cellphones and laptops,

Yes, I said that.

which further demonstrates the concept that rechargeable lithium
batteries can, and in fact are produced, in a variety of formats.

Pity they arent practical with external chargers because of the
real problem with RECHARGEABLE lithium batterys in that format.

There's a reason they go bang if not RECHARGED properly.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables
to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000?
tv! they should hang the designers of that one!

Just sit back and watch the screams when HD is phased into the USA in a
couple of years...and hundreds of millions of televisions go obselete at once.

No they dont, you just get a set top box.

FYI....plasma televisions have a dismal repair record.....
throwaway electronics at several thousand dollars a toss.


b wrote:
Everett M. Greene ha escrito:

"Rod Speed" writes:
terry wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard
batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables
to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000?
tv! they should hang the designers of that one! Crimes against the
environment.
-B.

Rod Speed ha escrito:

..

Pity they arent practical with external chargers because of the
real problem with RECHARGEABLE lithium batterys in that format.

There's a reason they go bang if not RECHARGED properly.

That´s why the manufacturer puts the charging circuit *inside* the
cellphone or the laptop, to avoid charging problems. Also, the IPOD
battery is a lithium rechargeable one, so a lithium battery charging
circuit can be made as small as needed. Put simply: if the manufacturer
*wants* to design a product with batteries that can be replaced or
recharged the manufacturer *can* do it. The technollogy exists, and in
fact it´s in use actually. Even there are different chemistries
available, so if an applicattion works best with a NiMh battery, or a
NiCad one, that battery can be used.

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Sorry but you are missinformed.

Nope.

Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Those arent the RECHARGEABLE batterys being discussed.

Pity they wont fit in an ipod. And arent practical with electric
toothbrushes either.

The point is that consumer AA an AAA lithium batteries are available.

Nope, not the RECHARGEABLE batterys being discussed.

That´s the point, not if these batteries can be fitted to an IPOD or a Thootbrush.

Wrong, see the top of the quoting.

You said that Lithium batteries weren´t available in standard sizes

Yes, and it should have been obvious that what was being discussed was RECHARGEABLE batterys.

and I proved you that you were wrong.

No you didnt.

Also, there are smaller lithium batteries available for watches and calculators.

Those arent RECHARGEABLE either.

Even there are user replaceable lithium batteries for cellphones and laptops,

Yes, I said that.

which further demonstrates the concept that rechargeable lithium
batteries can, and in fact are produced, in a variety of formats.

Pity they arent practical with external chargers because of the
real problem with RECHARGEABLE lithium batterys in that format.

There's a reason they go bang if not RECHARGED properly.

That´s why the manufacturer puts the charging circuit *inside*
the cellphone or the laptop, to avoid charging problems.

Yes, and why you dont see rechargeable lithium AA and AAA
batterys, because some fool will inevitably put them in an inappropriate
charger and they will go bang very spectacularly indeed.

Also, the IPOD battery is a lithium rechargeable one, so a
lithium battery charging circuit can be made as small as needed.

Yes, but we were discussing why the battery
cant be a STANDARD AA OR AAA FORMAT.

Put simply: if the manufacturer *wants* to design a product with batteries
that can be replaced or recharged the manufacturer *can* do it.

Not with a standard battery format they cant, because that
would inevitably see some put them on inappropriate chargers
that would produce spectacular results when they did that.

The technollogy exists, and in fact it´s in use actually.

No it isnt with STANDARD BATTERY FORMATS.

Even there are different chemistries available, so if an applicattion works
best with a NiMh battery, or a NiCad one, that battery can be used.

Pity about the problem with putting a lithium battery in a charger
thats designed to charge NiMh and NiCad standard format betterys.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:34:36 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Nobody said anything about separate chargers. ANd you DO see lithium
AA and AAA batteries - they are just not rechargable lithium (and in
fact, there ARE rechargeable Lithiums in the AA format.)

That would look after all the ipods and
ipodlikes, as well as all kinds of PDAs etc.

There's a reason cellphones dont all use the same standard battery.
Yes, there is. It's called "marketing" and "catch'em while you can"

On the ipod nano it's just the simplicity of assembly that counts

Nope.
Please explain.

- it's crimped together, but not sealed, so if it gets wet it's finished,

It would be anyway even if the case was sealed, just like with cellphones.

and it IS possible to take it apart - but the battery is soldered
on, rather than plug-in, because it's simpler/cheaper.

Its obviously still possible to replace the battery.
Not if you can't get them, it isn't.

Could still replace the battery - but they are NOT AVAILABLE.

NOT YET.
And by the time they are, the units will be obsolete.

And if you get the beggars wet, the battery goes south.

Same with cellphones. There is no evil conspiracy,
its about producing a cost effective product.

I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I said it was building as cheaply
as possible (and often cheaper).
It's the bean-counters running the shop. I've worked for a company
(computer industry) that was quite successful until a harvard MBA type
started "managing" the company. It went from profitable to 1.5 million
dollars a year loss in 18 months. Was gone in 22.





Everett M. Greene wrote
Rod Speed writes
terry wrote

Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:04:01 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Sorry but you are missinformed.

Nope.

Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Pity they wont fit in an ipod. And arent practical with electric toothbrushes either.

Fantastic for digital cameras though.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:36:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

b wrote
Everett M. Greene wrote
Rod Speed writes
terry wrote

Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables
to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000? tv!

Just lousy design, no evil conspiracy.

Conspiracy of idiocy

they should hang the designers of that one!
Crimes against the environment.

It would **** the environment much more to have every
low level component easily unpluggable and replaceable.

Explain that one. I'd love to hear the spin you can put on THIS!!!!!!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rod Speed ha escrito:


Please explain how the manufacturer of a light bulb, fluorescent
lamp or CFL can provide an estimate of the lifetime of the lamp.

That is trivial to do by running an adequate sized batch of
incandescent light bulbs under appropriate test conditions etc.

Don´t say "They can´t because it´s impossible".
Explain exactly why it´s impossible.

Its up to those who claim that its possible to design a device
to die one year after the warrant expires how that can be done.


Well, it can be estimated how long will a power semiconductor run if
you leave it without a proper heatsink. Open any Samsung TV, for
instance, to see for yourself how important transistors are left bare,
dissipatting heat to the air. I don´t see why it should be difficult
for the manufacturer to know that these particular transistors left
overheating will fail within a finite number of hours. Also, you will
notice that the same circuit will have electrolytic capacitors near
heat sources, when it´s a well known fact that heat shortens
dramatically the life of electrolytics caps. The manufacturer know how
to properly design an electronic circuit in order to provide a long
life, but it also it knows how to design it to fail within a short term
under certain conditions, and accordingly they estimate a warranty just
long enough to cover the product for a safe term, a safe term for the
manufacturer, not the user.

Of course it´s impossible to predict exactly how many years the TV
will last, but the manufacturer count with statistical data which says,
for instance, that a TV set is turned on 10 hours per day for instance,
and taking that into account, and estimating how long the weakest part
of the TV will last under these conditions, they can determine the
warranty lapse.


The quote the useful lifetime of a hardrive in MTBF hours.

That is calculated, not measured. Convert that MTBF
to years and you will discover why they cant possibility
have tested them to get those numbers.

Don´t answer "it´s impossible" if you are not prepared to give
a real explanation. Samsung, Seagate, WD... any decent hard
drive manufactures gives an estimate lifetime of their products.
These estimates are provided in the datasheet of each harddrive.

And they are ESTIMATES, not measured results.

Exactly, these are estimates, and most of the time very accurate,
specially those concerning the maximum number of startups/stops the
drive can tolerate before the heads get completely worn.

I don´t want to imply that all manufacturers are dishonest per se, but
I can easily see how a given manufacturer can produce different items,
with differents level of quality of design and manufacture. And these
differences *will* impact the useful lifetime of the final product.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:07:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It would **** the environment much more to have every
low level component easily unpluggable and replaceable.

Please explain why.

It should be obvious. Try counting the cost of all those sockets for
all the ics, let alone what that would do to the size of the device etc.

You couldnt even use surface mount anymore either.
No reason subassemblies can not be replaceable. Connectors today can
be made extremely compact, and with LSI the active components can all
be put into one plug-in component worth a couple of dollars. SMT could
still be used on the "backbone" which could also be a low cost field
replaceable part. There is absolutely NOTHING that cannot be made
serviceable in the consumer electronics arena. Will it cost more?
Likely Does it have to? Not necessarily. Would people buy it? Smart
people would. I suspect some on this list would not.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rod Speed wrote:
Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
Andrew VK3BFA wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Andrew VK3BFA wrote
William Noble wrote

Just curious - what do you do for a living? - you seem to have an
amazing lack of knowledge across many fields - is it accountancy?.

Nope.

And how do you manage to translate crayon to ascii text?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that you got the bums rush, right out the door.

No, it wasnt a surprise - they paid me to go. Took ages to work it so
they did. Best move I ever made, out of the loony rat race and crazy
people. So I spend my time arguing with the brain dead and fixing stuff
that otherwise would go to landfill. Just my thing.

Whats yours - besides being a disagreeable little prick with too much
time on their hands? Do you actually DO ANYTHING or just talk crap?

Andrew VK3BFA.


Andrew VK3BFA.

Rod Speed ha escrito:


That´s why the manufacturer puts the charging circuit *inside*
the cellphone or the laptop, to avoid charging problems.

Yes, and why you dont see rechargeable lithium AA and AAA
batterys, because some fool will inevitably put them in an inappropriate
charger and they will go bang very spectacularly indeed.


Not necessarily. They can move the charging circuit to the cell in
itself. Of course that will steal space from the chemical part of the
cell with the resultant capacity loss, but it can be done. Thus the
charger used to recharge the battery becames inmaterial because any
proper voltage source will suffice. In fact, since lithium cells
produce 3V, and a AA battery shouldn´t produce more than 1.5V, I
suspect that these lithium cells have some form of voltage regulating
circuit inside. If that is true, then it´s possible that in several
years that circuit will be designed to allow a safe recharging of a
lithium AA or AAA battery.


Also, the IPOD battery is a lithium rechargeable one, so a
lithium battery charging circuit can be made as small as needed.

Yes, but we were discussing why the battery
cant be a STANDARD AA OR AAA FORMAT.

Put simply: if the manufacturer *wants* to design a product with batteries
that can be replaced or recharged the manufacturer *can* do it.

Not with a standard battery format they cant, because that
would inevitably see some put them on inappropriate chargers
that would produce spectacular results when they did that.

The technollogy exists, and in fact it´s in use actually.

No it isnt with STANDARD BATTERY FORMATS.


Take this cordless phone, for instance,

http://gigaset.siemens.com/shc/0,193... html#content

It´s designed to work with standard AAA rechargeable batteries. Also I
own a Siemens C4000 cordless phone and it works with standard AA
rechargeable batteries. It can take NiCd or NiMh batteries. So, *if*
the manufacturer wants to develop a product using standard rechageable
batteries, *it can do it*.



Even there are different chemistries available, so if an applicattion works
best with a NiMh battery, or a NiCad one, that battery can be used.

Pity about the problem with putting a lithium battery in a charger
thats designed to charge NiMh and NiCad standard format betterys.

On 15 Jan 2007 15:07:10 -0800, "lsmartino"
wrote:


Rod Speed ha escrito:

Michael Kennedy wrote:

Separate matter entirely to the mindlessly silly claim that
its even possible to design an appliance to break about a
year after the warranty runs out, with most appliances.

Why do you say it is impossible?

Because it is impossible ? Novel concept I realise.


Please explain how the manufacturer of a light bulb, fluorescent lamp
or CFL can provide an estimate of the lifetime of the lamp. Don´t say
"They can´t because it´s impossible". Explain exactly why it´s
impossible.

MTBF is a standard ENGINEERING concept. The fact it is not available
from many manufacturers for many products is due to the fact there is
NO ENGINEERING involved. A product is "copied" and "modified for
production".This is dictated by COST. As long as it works when it
leaves the factory, and a small sample lasts (at least a reasonable
percentage of the sample) longer than the 90 day warranty, they are
happy. As for brands and brand loyalty, who even has a clue WHO makes
90% of the consumer electronics products on the market today.
Previously quality brand names are now simply licenced and attatched
to product from unknown and unspecified offshore manufacturing
concerns. The typical North American consumer doesn't know or care who
made the product they buy, and will buy another made by the same
manufacturer, under a different name, and not have a clue. It's nice
looking, or has "gee whiz" factor, or brand cachet (they've seen it
advertized by a catchy, moronic TV ad) so they buy it.

When designing the product the engineers figure the average useage of the appliance every day and
then calculate about how long it will take before a failure.

Nice theory. The reality is that that isnt even
possible with most domestic appliances.

Domestic? What's domestic? Made in Mexico? Made in Peurto Rico? Made
in Guam? Or assembled in "north America" of imported parts?

It isnt even feasible with stuff as basic as an incandescent light bulb.
A CFL in spades. A moulded power cord or plug pack in spades.

They also do product reliability testing to see how long on average it is before a product fails.

No they dont with domestic appliances.

When did you last work for a domestic appliance or electronics
manufacturer that you can say they do not with authority?

And are you an engineer that you can claim with impunity that it is
impossible????

I'll give you IMPRACTICAL at today's price-point, with today's
de-centralized offshore "manufacturing" and the lack of engineering
involved in the manufacture. Have you SEEN a chinese electronics
"factory" MANY of the parts are built/assembled by totally unskilled
workers (including children) in "cottage industries" and then
assembled either in a central facility or by another "cottage
industry", then packaged and collected to a central facility for
trans-shipment to the buyer or "north american manufacturer".

There is NO quality control. You CAN get chinese goods of exceptional
quality - and from the same "manufacturer", on the same day, get an
"identical" product of such abysmal quality you would not believe it
came from the same PLANET, muchless the same supplier.
This is why REPUTABLE distributors of chinese electronics test and
repackage ALL of their product before retailing. North american
quality control can sort the GOOD stuff, which can be sold under a
particular brand name, from the "also-rans" that are sold off to
lesser brand companies to sell at a lower cost and/or to a less
discriminating clientelle.

They dont even do that with mass market hard drives anymore.


Depends what you call "mass market" If a company puts their name and a
2 or 3 year warranty on a hard drive, they have either calculated or
empirically tested the product so they KNOW what their warranty
exposure is.
If they are "selling on cost" with a 90 day warranty, nothing has been
either tested or calculated.(beyond the fact they are making enough
that they can break even if a few more than they guessed fail, and 50%
of those get back for warranty within the alotted time, and are
returned according to the warranty requirement (in original
shipping/packageing).

Yes they do. The quote the useful lifetime of a hardrive in MTBF hours.
Don´t answer "it´s impossible" if you are not prepared to give a real
explanation. Samsung, Seagate, WD... any decent hard drive manufactures
gives an estimate lifetime of their products. These estimates are
provided in the datasheet of each harddrive.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
lsmartino wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Too_Many_Tools wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Sorry but you are missinformed.

Nope.

Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Pity they wont fit in an ipod. And arent practical with electric toothbrushes either.

Fantastic for digital cameras though.

Yep, but you cant get rechargable AA and AAA lithiums and so
you get better life when you dont use standard format batterys.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:51:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Mike Hartigan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

Isn't "what really happens" the same as "true"?

Nope, Dilbert ain 'what really happens'

What am I missing here?

The exaggeration, stupid.

It is BASED ON FACT.

Perhaps "true" is not accurate since they don't deal with actual events.

Or because its exaggerated.
It is BASED ON REALITY

"True to life" is probably a better characterization of 'The Office' and 'Dilbert'.

Nope, its an exaggeration of reality.
It is a Parody. This necessitates that there be recognisable truth.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

Caricatures make reality entertaining.

So can Dilbert and The Office.

But they still reflect reality.

Nope, they exaggerate reality.
Semantics.
I say pot-ate-oh, you say poh-taght-oh

They wouldn't be funny if they didn't. 'The Office' is a caricature
- that's why it's funny on the particular level that it is funny.

And its not true to life, its a caricature/exaggeration of life.

I find that people who have never worked
in an office are less likely to 'get it'.

Sure, but thats not surprising.
What's surprising with SOME that I see working in SOME offices (the
"dilbert types" )is that they get anything at all!

'Scrubs', on the other hand, is farce. You
don't have to work in a hospital to enjoy it.

I dont work in a hospital and dont enjoy it either.

Its slapstick, nothing like reality.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

Typically, it is.

Nope.

Particularly when the target price is 'impossible'.

Fantasy.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Are you suggesting that Apple did not try
to minimize the production cost of the iPod?

Nope, that its clearly nothing like the cheapest junk that they can sell.

Perhaps you could explain why they are made in China?

Irrelevant to whether its actually the cheapest junk that they can sell.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

Actually, you're both wrong.

Nope. He is.

The objective is to sell a product NOW.

Its much more complicated than that too.

Given the rate of change, particularly with technology
products, repeat sales are no longer an objective.

Bull****, most obviously with Apple.

Build them as cheaply as possible TODAY.

Have fun explaining the ipods and countless
other products that are nothing like that.

This year's bottom line is what the CEO's bonus is based on.

Nothing like the original claim about the CEO's bonus.

And it aint necessarily true of quite a few CEOs either.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

That's pure BS.

Nope. Even you should be able to find countless
examples of individuals doing that using groups.google.

Consumers are motivated, first and foremost, by purchase price.

Not all of them are. If they were, you wouldnt see so many ipods sold.

Or those stupid expensive brand name shoes in spades.

Or SUVs either.

That's the reason so many products have a 'Made in China' label.

Nope, the real reason is because it costs less to manufacture there.

Apple and a few other American companies have
successfully marketed a perception of quality
(actually, hipness), but still import the products.

Irrelevant to that silly claim that consumers buy on price.

If they did, they wouldnt be buying ipods.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.

Actually, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
It's simply using a business model that works.

It isnt even possible to use planned obsolescence as a business model,
essentially because it isnt possible to design a product to fail just after
the warranty has expired, even if some operation was actually that stupid.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 15:07:10 -0800, "lsmartino"
wrote:


Rod Speed ha escrito:



etc etc.

I thought this rod speed "person " was a bit too much, so did a Google
on [ "Rod Speed" troll.]

Pages of stuff.

This one is a good summary...

http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-42666.html

Andrew VK3BFA.