Alan wrote
(Michael Black) wrote
(Alan ) writes

Planned obsolescence has been a tenet of the automobile
industry since the '30s. General Motors, in particular
used styling to make a 2 or 3 year-old-car look "old"
and in need of replacement with a newly styled model.

A bigger engine, prettier colors, new styles, all those
things are at the heart of 'planned obsolescence.'

"Improving" the features on your cell phone every
year is the result of planned obsolescence.

No, that's fashion. If the old still works, then it's not obsolete.

He's right.

People who follow fashion trends are in the same boat.
Their clothes aren't obsolete, they simply don't want to
wear them anymore because they want the latest.

"Fashion" allows companies to sell the same thing to the same people.

But the notion of "planned obsolescence" is that
it's designed from the beginner to not last long.

I'm not arguing that fashion causes people to buy new things.

Well, you may think that. But the term "planned obsolescence"
has been used for decades in exactly the way I described

Only by those who dont know what it means.

Packard who popularised the term didnt use it like that.

-- a way to make people feel their "old" thing is no
longer desirable and must be replaced with a "new" thing.

That isnt PLANNED obsolescence,
because there is no PLANNING involved.

You're applying the term to something that isn't
repairable, or to something that won't last a long time.

Yep, one that has been PLANNED to fail before it needs to.

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

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of years.

Engineering data is the heart of a business.

Not data thats a handful of years old.

Management often forgets that.

Then a competitor eats them alive.

Bet you cant list any examples of that with data thats older than a handful of years old.

I sure can.

Nope, you couldnt.

I milwright designs a feed mill. Back in 1966. He rebuilds that mill in 1981.
He builds 5 more mills between those dates, and onother 12 since.
His office burns down and he loses all his engineering drawings.

You cant use a single design over all that time.

or the drawings get soaked when a pipe breaks. How much
were those engineering drawings from 1965 worth today?
Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Fantasy. You cant use a single fixed design over all that time.

Another firm with current engineering drawings
will eat him alive when a new mill is up for tender.
That's why he invests in a large format scanner and enters ALL the old
drawings into cad, at very high cost, and keeps 2 offsite backups.

Or take a land surveyor's office.
ALL the surveys done in the past 35+ years are kept onsite, and many are
referred to daily to tie in new surveys etc. What would it cost to regenerate
even a small fraction of those survey plans? What is their current value???
Significantly higher than the original cost to produce the survey.

Adequately covered by his original MOST.


Anthony Matonak wrote:
John Husvar wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:
Archival storage of data is a BIG deal that the industry doesn't
like to talk about.

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of
years.

Well, I suppose one could print and store all all the data records
on acid-free paper and then physically go find the ones they
wanted. Shouldn't take more than a medium-sized army of clerks
and only a small hollowed mountain range for the storage.

The absolute best storage is microfilm or some variant of it.
You're pretty much assured that no matter what happens with
technology that you'll still be able to read it, even decades
later. You can buy computer microfilm printers. Direct print
to microfilm, no developing required.

Anthony

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

There's been various attempts over the years at marketing
easily upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you
were ready to upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was
a sizable portion of the cost of a whole new PC, as well as
the rest of the major components were showing their age.

The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the true
cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

Fantasy. And the cost is ALWAYS borne by the public, regardless of how
the company may be slugged by hare brained penalty schemes anyway.

We keep hearing how the economy of electronics lowers the
cost of a product but one of the greatest costs to society is the
cost of production, distribution and disposal of electronic items.

They are a tiny part of the total production
distribution and disposal costs of everything else.

Even just food alone leaves it for dead.

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.


James Sweet wrote:

And I want to add something about "planned obsolescence" because it
is often misused. If people are choosing to buy cheap, it's hardly
that the manufacturers are making things so they will break. The
consumer often wants that cheaper tv set or VCR.



Rather than planned obsolescence, it's normally more a case of how
many cost reducing corners can they cut and still have it last "long
enough". It's hard to blame the manufactures, they're supplying what
the average consumer is demanding.



If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever, it would
have been way out of range in terms of price. Because they'd have
to anticipate how much things would change, and build in enough so
upgrading would be doable. So you'd spend money on potential,
rather than spending money later on a new computer that would beat
out what they could imagine in 1979. And in recent years, it is
the consumer who is deciding to buy a new computer every few years
(whether a deliberate decision or they simply let the manufacturer
lead, must vary from person to person.)



There's been various attempts over the years at marketing easily
upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you were ready to
upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was a sizable portion of the
cost of a whole new PC, as well as the rest of the major components
were showing their age.

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart.
Look for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will
find plenty. Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

How odd that I have never found a single example of that.

And I repair most things when its feasible.

Everett M. Greene wrote
Rod Speed writes
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?

Its harder to design something as compact
as that with standard replaceable batterys.

What's smaller and more compact than present-day cell phones?

ipods, USB keys, ear buds, etc etc etc.

ipods too.

You have to toss a $60-$120 device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Indeed.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I am surprised that others have not responded
to Ig's idea...it is an excellent one.

Nope, a complete dud.

All I have ever found is examples of bad design.

Like an archaeologist, one can study the decline and
fall of manufacturing by studying discarded goods.

There is no 'decline and fall' there has in fact been
a tremendous SURGE in manufacturing instead.

It is very apparent when one does this as to how many
goods have turned from good implementations to crap.

Mindlessly silly if you actually analyse the reliability of even
the most trivial stuff like moulded power cords and plug packs.

The end result forces the consumer to spend more
money on goods that would not need to be purchased.

You can keep repeating that mindless line till you
are blue in the face if you like, changes nothing.

And it is intentional.

The only intention is to produce cheap product in very high
volume and that inevitably sees some crap product aimed at
those who concentrate on JUST the price when buying stuff.

Even you cant seriously believe that the lousy reliability
of US cars compared with the best of the Jap imports
is due to deliberately designing the cars to fail early.

Or maybe you actually are that silly.


Ignoramus16071 wrote:
TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.


LOL...you mean an industry that has so far been able to dump long term
costs on the public.

When you see electronics being dumped in Africa to avoid the cost of
disposal, I think we are seeing the responsibility coming home to roost
soon.

And when the cost of disposal is finally taken into account, the true
cost of electronics will be adjusted for that disposal.

It can't come soon enough....

TMT
Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

There's been various attempts over the years at marketing
easily upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you
were ready to upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was
a sizable portion of the cost of a whole new PC, as well as
the rest of the major components were showing their age.

The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the true
cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

Fantasy. And the cost is ALWAYS borne by the public, regardless of how
the company may be slugged by hare brained penalty schemes anyway.

We keep hearing how the economy of electronics lowers the
cost of a product but one of the greatest costs to society is the
cost of production, distribution and disposal of electronic items.

They are a tiny part of the total production
distribution and disposal costs of everything else.

Even just food alone leaves it for dead.

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.


James Sweet wrote:

And I want to add something about "planned obsolescence" because it
is often misused. If people are choosing to buy cheap, it's hardly
that the manufacturers are making things so they will break. The
consumer often wants that cheaper tv set or VCR.



Rather than planned obsolescence, it's normally more a case of how
many cost reducing corners can they cut and still have it last "long
enough". It's hard to blame the manufactures, they're supplying what
the average consumer is demanding.



If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever, it would
have been way out of range in terms of price. Because they'd have
to anticipate how much things would change, and build in enough so
upgrading would be doable. So you'd spend money on potential,
rather than spending money later on a new computer that would beat
out what they could imagine in 1979. And in recent years, it is
the consumer who is deciding to buy a new computer every few years
(whether a deliberate decision or they simply let the manufacturer
lead, must vary from person to person.)



There's been various attempts over the years at marketing easily
upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you were ready to
upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was a sizable portion of the
cost of a whole new PC, as well as the rest of the major components
were showing their age.

Too_Many_Tools wrote

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.

LOL...you mean an industry that has so far been
able to dump long term costs on the public.

There is no practical alternative, like I said.

The public certainly isnt going to wear 'environmental'
fools proclaiming that they cant have modern electronic
devices because of some purported long term costs.

And what long term costs there are are completely trivial
compared with the long term costs of the food industry
alone, let alone the car industry, etc etc etc anyway.

When you see electronics being dumped in Africa
to avoid the cost of disposal, I think we are seeing
the responsibility coming home to roost soon.

Nope, all you are actually seeing is the inevitable
result of terminally silly 'environmental' legislation.

And when the cost of disposal is finally taken into account,
the true cost of electronics will be adjusted for that disposal.

Just utterly silly pointless paper shuffling.

It can't come soon enough....

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

Its only the europeans that are actually stupid enough to
even attempt something like that. And even they arent
actually stupid enough to do much in that area anyway.
Because even the stupidest politician realises what the
electoral consequences of that would inevitably be.

They'd be out on their arses so fast their feet wouldnt even touch the ground.


Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

There's been various attempts over the years at marketing
easily upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you
were ready to upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was
a sizable portion of the cost of a whole new PC, as well as
the rest of the major components were showing their age.

The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the
true cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

Fantasy. And the cost is ALWAYS borne by the public, regardless of
how the company may be slugged by hare brained penalty schemes
anyway.

We keep hearing how the economy of electronics lowers the
cost of a product but one of the greatest costs to society is the
cost of production, distribution and disposal of electronic items.

They are a tiny part of the total production
distribution and disposal costs of everything else.

Even just food alone leaves it for dead.

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.


James Sweet wrote:

And I want to add something about "planned obsolescence" because
it is often misused. If people are choosing to buy cheap, it's
hardly that the manufacturers are making things so they will
break. The consumer often wants that cheaper tv set or VCR.



Rather than planned obsolescence, it's normally more a case of how
many cost reducing corners can they cut and still have it last
"long enough". It's hard to blame the manufactures, they're
supplying what the average consumer is demanding.



If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever, it
would have been way out of range in terms of price. Because
they'd have to anticipate how much things would change, and build
in enough so upgrading would be doable. So you'd spend money on
potential, rather than spending money later on a new computer
that would beat out what they could imagine in 1979. And in
recent years, it is the consumer who is deciding to buy a new
computer every few years (whether a deliberate decision or they
simply let the manufacturer lead, must vary from person to
person.)



There's been various attempts over the years at marketing easily
upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you were ready to
upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was a sizable portion of the
cost of a whole new PC, as well as the rest of the major components
were showing their age.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:12:19 -0500, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:16:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


How many people who owned Chevy Vegas
bought a second one? THOUSANDS.

Bugger all that had one blow up their face.

How about under their ass?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Before I
stasrted innthe computer business I had 25 years under my belt in the
automotive service industry. Ten of those years as a service manager.
I was in the industry when the Vega was produced and sold. I saw them
fail. I saw the owners buying new vegas. I saw them buying no Chevies
after the vega was no longer made. They bought Chevy Cavaliers ten and
15 years later. They bought new ones when the head gaskets blew and
the heads cracked. Man, it takes a lot of bad Ju-Ju to get a died in
the wool Chevy man to switch brand loyalty!!!!!!

There's Chevy men and then there's Chevy men.
People who were ignorant enough to buy Vegas didn't know squat about
cars. I personally knew one victim.
They are now most likely Toyota and Honda men, which is good for them.
Some Vega "facts:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Vega
Keep in mind that *all* cars of that era were junk compared to most of
today's offerings. Toyotas, Datsuns and Hondas were also junk.
The only solid plus-100k engines were 350's and GM and Chryco straight
sixes, and the 350's heads weren't the best. I'll add the 318 as a
good one but I never had one. Besides, the cars usually rusted out
before the engine could test the 100k range.
You can still find junk in recent American car offerings. Can't point
them out as I'm not in the market now. But I've heard mentions.
Since I'm reading this in the "frugal" group I'll note that as a value
proposition (cost vs use) I recognize Chevy as Champion, but others
may see from a different perspective.
I do know how to buy cars, and have my own discriminations.
BTW, I only buy used cars which have a model/engine record.
I "pay" for that in my own way, which is where " Planned Obsolescence"
or MTBF may be relevant.
For instance, I plan to replace my Delco Chevy alternator long before
a Nippo/Denso would fail. Same with the GM water pump versus Jap.
This can be done very cheaply, whether I turn the wrench or hire it,
but you have know "stuff" about cars, wrenches and hiring.
Understandably, most people find it best for them to just get a
Toyota/Honda and pay a higher cost for less maintenance.
Too bad for the American car companies they kenned to that too late.
But I have confidence that current Chevys will serve me well when it's
time to buy them.
This is all outside of "handling" and "driving the twisties" issues,
which I have no interest in since the roads are easy wherever I drive
and I am a mundane driver with no need for speed or compulsions to
spastically jerk the steering wheel.

Now there ARE lots of people who will buy anything - don't mater who
made it - but in North America there are Ford people who will never
own anything BUT a Ford. There are Chevy people who would never buy a
Pontiac or a Buick. Make any sense? Nope.

You're right if the person is a "brand loyalist." And you're right
there are plenty of them still around,
But it makes perfect sense if they specialize in the marque with open
eyes and the marque provides models that suit their needs.
In terms of cost/reliabilty knowing a brand intimately makes used car
selection pretty easy on those terms.

Even people who quit buying Chrysler products when they could no
longer buy a Plymouth. Buy a Dodge? Not on your life.Old habits die
hard - particularly with old guys and cars.

Yep. Strange. Sometimes these guys seem to value their
"relationship" with the dealer service department. They're
"good guys" and "take care of me." "Excellent coffee."
Go figure.
I think the Chryco fans are the worst, then maybe the Caddy
guys. It could be argued that Chevy never had the same kind of
fanaticism. Since it's the "low-end" marque and sold more
cars, it just exposed more people to its "charms ".
Nobody much brags about Chevy except in terms like "hey, my Chevy
goes where your Lexus goes at 5% of the cost."

And how many who bought Vega bought another Chevy?
Thousands and thousands and tens of thousands.

A larger amount by far never bought a Chevy again.
I'd guess that most people (Honda-heads and Toyota-Hindus being
notable exceptions) aren't "brand loyalists."
Most of those who brag that what they have is the "best brand"
will turn on a dime, then brag about the new brand.
And many just like the looks of their car and care about little else
unless or until it proves a lemon.

--Vic

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?

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

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of years.

Engineering data is the heart of a business.

Not data thats a handful of years old.

Management often forgets that.

Then a competitor eats them alive.

Bet you cant list any examples of that with data thats older than a handful of years old.

I sure can.

Nope, you couldnt.

I'm sure he could, and I can add a few more, both of own and from other
references as well--

From own experience, it's a regulatory requirement of NRC to keep _all_
safety-related design documentation and calculations for 40 years of
"life of the plant". That's simply one instance of on need for
longterm records-keeping.

There's a whole industry dedicated to preserving data for companies
from finanical to manufacturing and everything in between. It's a
major use of the excavated areas of the salt mines in central KS as
they're fantastically dry, constant temperature, fire and vermin-free
and of humongous size.

For a couple of stories you might check out Jack Ganssle's columns that
he writes for Embedded System magazine -- a mostly unheard of by very
important niche of the microprocessor world. In fact, there are far
more processors used in such applications than in PCs though they don't
have the glamour of the "lastest and fastest" whatever of the day...

http://www.embedded.com/columns/bp/s...cleID=22103292

Jack also distributes a monthly newsletter that has had as one of its
subjects recently reconstructing "legacy" systems. I myself have had
requests for modifications of some systems I had previously worked on
that I would have thought long since "dead and buried" having moved on
to other projects and even other companies, but was tracked down as the
only individual they could find that had any recollection of the actual
system.

Another reader of Jack's newsletter sent an interesting tale of his
experience --

....
"I was brought in as a consultant for one of the downstream users of
an early video-on-demand companies, who supplied complete systems and
programming to hotels and hospitals, even providing a broadband network
infrastructure for free to sell their services.

"There was a need to add new educational programming services for a
client market, or be displaced by a competitor.

"The company had not built their code from scratch in more than 10
years. In fact, they had decided to move to cross compilation rather
than self hosting for a while, had bought a commuter and new tools,
never tried the tools, and had subsequently sold the cross host machine
for scrap.

"Our first task was to put together a development environment hosted
on a "dead" OS, including compilers, linkers, and build control files,
gather known source, and attempt to rebuild the shipping object from
known source.

"This took several months, and was a real adventure. A year and a
half down the road, job complete, ..."

He goes on to describe the system and other technical details probably
of little if any interest here, but needless to say, that little
misadventure of not preserving nor updating their ability to rebuild
their product's software undoubtedly cost that company a pretty penny
and without that effort likely could indeed have put them out of at
least that particular business.

Undoubtedly, these few instances given here are far from the only
occurrences of such in industry. And, for every one that did manage to
recover, how many were there who were unable to?

Your thoughts?

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance. (Why was there a "Service
Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)
- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

Lately, having gone over 80k miles on tires, and no service in 150k miles,
it's true:

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

-- Mark

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

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

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of years.

Engineering data is the heart of a business.

Not data thats a handful of years old.

Management often forgets that.

Then a competitor eats them alive.

Bet you cant list any examples of that with data thats older than
a handful of years old.

I sure can.

Nope, you couldnt.

I'm sure he could,

Unlikely given that he clearly didnt.

and I can add a few more, both of own and from other references as well--

Adequately covered by the original MOST.

From own experience, it's a regulatory requirement of
NRC to keep _all_ safety-related design documentation and
calculations for 40 years of "life of the plant". That's simply
one instance of on need for longterm records-keeping.

Different matter entirely to the original point.

WORTH isnt the same thing as a legal REQUIREMENT.

There's a whole industry dedicated to preserving data for
companies from finanical to manufacturing and everything
in between. It's a major use of the excavated areas of the
salt mines in central KS as they're fantastically dry, constant
temperature, fire and vermin-free and of humongous size.

Irrelevant to whether that data is engineering data that is WORTH much.

Of course there is plenty of data that needs to be kept long term,
most obviously with birth marraige and death records etc etc etc.

For a couple of stories you might check out Jack Ganssle's columns
that he writes for Embedded System magazine -- a mostly unheard of
by very important niche of the microprocessor world. In fact, there are
far more processors used in such applications than in PCs though they
don't have the glamour of the "lastest and fastest" whatever of the day...

http://www.embedded.com/columns/bp/s...cleID=22103292

Adequately covered by the original MOST qualification.

Jack also distributes a monthly newsletter that has had as one of its
subjects recently reconstructing "legacy" systems. I myself have had
requests for modifications of some systems I had previously worked on
that I would have thought long since "dead and buried" having moved on
to other projects and even other companies, but was tracked down as the
only individual they could find that had any recollection of the actual system.

Adequately covered by the original MOST qualification.

Another reader of Jack's newsletter sent an interesting tale of his experience --

"I was brought in as a consultant for one of the downstream users of
an early video-on-demand companies, who supplied complete systems
and programming to hotels and hospitals, even providing a broadband
network infrastructure for free to sell their services.

"There was a need to add new educational programming
services for a client market, or be displaced by a competitor.

"The company had not built their code from scratch in more than 10
years. In fact, they had decided to move to cross compilation rather
than self hosting for a while, had bought a commuter and new tools,
never tried the tools, and had subsequently sold the cross host
machine for scrap.

"Our first task was to put together a development environment hosted
on a "dead" OS, including compilers, linkers, and build control files,
gather known source, and attempt to rebuild the shipping object from
known source.

"This took several months, and was a real adventure. A year and a
half down the road, job complete, ..."

He goes on to describe the system and other technical details probably
of little if any interest here, but needless to say, that little
misadventure of not preserving nor updating their ability to rebuild
their product's software undoubtedly cost that company a pretty penny
and without that effort likely could indeed have put them out of at
least that particular business.

Adequately covered by the original MOST qualification.

Undoubtedly, these few instances given here are far from the
only occurrences of such in industry. And, for every one that did
manage to recover, how many were there who were unable to?

Adequately covered by the original MOST qualification.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

....
The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the true
cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

You said somewhere else you had an education in economics, but it
certainly doesn't seem to show.

Even if you could somehow come up with this mystical "true cost of a
computer" to tax the manufacturer for, where but from the eventual
customer would "the company" have to generate this revenue? And,
having done so, what else could happen but to raise the cost to "the
public"?

Of course, the employer pays that 6.25% FICA tax, too.

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.
Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these
"designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be
made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good
three section leather wallet, I will appreciate.

Mark Jerde wrote:

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance.

No they didnt.

(Why was there a "Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)

And you dont need one on every corner even if they did.
Even you should have noticed that they did manage to
get further than the next corner the vast bulk of the time.

- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

And that is a lot more than to the next corner.

Lately, having gone over 80k miles on tires, and no service in 150k miles, it's true:

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:57:15 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.
Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these
"designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be
made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it
was designed to fail. How can you say that that design was not
deliberate?

i

If anyone has suggestions for a really good
three section leather wallet, I will appreciate.

Ignoramus16071 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote
James Sweet wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Mark Jerde wrote:

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance.

No they didnt.

Rod -- Please realize newsgroup messages about "The Good Old Days" (we
weren't good, we weren't old, and we're talking about the nights --
(someone)) have certain artistic license. ;-) Of course most vehicles
could make it more than from one corner to the next. But there is also no
denying the fact I froze my buns & fingertips off many a South Dakota winter
evening working on "Timing" and "Points" and "Condenser" in the 1970s.

(Why was there a "Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed
*constant* service.)

And you dont need one on every corner even if they did.
Even you should have noticed that they did manage to
get further than the next corner the vast bulk of the time.

Sigh Of course I was exaggerating. These are newsgroups. ;-)

But the essense of my post is true. My dad's cars (when I was a kid) needed
*constant* servicing compared to mine (as a grown up).

- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

And that is a lot more than to the next corner.

Maybe knot -- ;-) -- I know people that live more than 6 miles from
their next door neighbor.

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

I stand by this. I have three TVs in my house and their _combined_ _cost_
is less than IMO an inflation-adusted *repair* of a 1960's B&W console TV.

I recall $600.00 CD players, and it wasn't that long ago. I also know
modern portable CD players: one chip and a bunch of membrane switches.
If/when something goes wrong, toss the $35 player & get a new one. You
can't repair a single-chip device.

-- Mark

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:24:22 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote
James Sweet wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

Except that I have it as a gift without a receipt.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.


Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

Rod Speed ha escrito:

B
Electronic CRT chassis are so flimsy that if you take the chassis out the plastic wont support the
CRT.

Doesnt need to, the CRT is the guts of the system everything is attached to.

.....You haven't repaired many of the later CRT sets then have you?

So progress is both good and bad.
Not much bad with electronics.

Rubbish. Take a look at a repair shop dealing with any mass produced,
mid- to low- priced electronic item (which seem to make up the bulk of
sales) and you'll typically see : electrolytics failed in TVs and set
top boxes/decoders due to proximity to heat, (or just poor or poorly
rated components), transistors failing due to skimping on metal heat
sinks, vcrs with plastic parts breaking, mobile phones and mp3 players
with defective jacks and buttons etc etc.
What we have are many more features than before. and at cheaper price,
and often in smaller machines so there is progress in that sense, but
build quality and longevity are WELL down, coincidentally along with
parts support and repairability, which means more failure, more
landfill material.
As I mentioned earlier , I don't think it is planned obsolescence, just
a desire for increased sales and profits (which any business aspires
to) and a lack of regard for the environment, playing on the ignorance
of consumers about the REAL cost of all this replace not repair
mentality.

-B.

b wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Electronic CRT chassis are so flimsy that if you take
the chassis out the plastic wont support the CRT.

Doesnt need to, the CRT is the guts of the system everything is attached to.

....You haven't repaired many of the later CRT sets then have you?

Guess who has just got egg all over its face, as always ?

So progress is both good and bad.

Not much bad with electronics.

Rubbish.

Nope.

Take a look at a repair shop dealing with any mass produced,
mid- to low- priced electronic item (which seem to make up the
bulk of sales) and you'll typically see : electrolytics failed in TVs

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, PROGRESS.

Failed electros have been around ever since they were invented.

and set top boxes/decoders due to proximity to heat,
(or just poor or poorly rated components),

**** all of those fail. No point in looking in repair shops, they only see the
failures. What matters is the percentage of failures. And that is very low.

PCs in spades.

transistors failing due to skimping on metal heat sinks,

You dont see much of that either.

vcrs with plastic parts breaking,

They always did.

mobile phones and mp3 players with defective jacks and buttons etc etc.

**** all of those too.

What we have are many more features than before. and at
cheaper price, and often in smaller machines so there is progress
in that sense, but build quality and longevity are WELL down,

Bull****.

coincidentally along with parts support

Because they dont fail much anymore.

and repairability,

Because they dont fail much anymore.

which means more failure,

No it doesnt. The lack of repairability often means increased reliability
most obviously with sealed plugpacks and moulded power cords.

more landfill material.

Thats mostly due to changed tastes like with CRT
monitors that work fine being replaced with LCDs etc.

As I mentioned earlier , I don't think it is planned
obsolescence, just a desire for increased sales and profits

Its actually a desire for competitive pricing which does sometimes
see the designer getting too carried away doing that.

(which any business aspires to) and a lack of regard for the environment,

The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded electronic
devices are a trivial part of the total waste and manufacturing
stream and the environmental downsides are back in china
with the manufacturing anyway.

playing on the ignorance of consumers about the
REAL cost of all this replace not repair mentality.

There is no 'playing on', its the consumers who have decided that
with new stuff so cheap, it makes absolutely no sense whatever
to pay an expensive first world tech to repair something like a
VCR when a new one would cost less and have a full warranty.

Ignoramus16071 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote
James Sweet wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking,
that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

Except that I have it as a gift without a receipt.

Irrelevant to the vast bulk of their sales.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.

Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets that wont
take cards. Thats always going to be a design ****up or manufacturing ****up.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.

Mark Jerde wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Mark Jerde wrote

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance.

No they didnt.

Rod -- Please realize newsgroup messages about "The Good Old Days" (we weren't good, we weren't
old, and we're talking about the nights
-- (someone)) have certain artistic license. ;-)

Pathetic, really.

Of course most vehicles could make it more than from one corner to the next. But there is also no
denying the fact I froze my buns & fingertips off many a South Dakota winter evening working on
"Timing" and "Points" and "Condenser" in the 1970s.

Irrelevant to the silly claim about why there
was a service station on every corner.

And I didnt spend much time on my points and timing in the 60s.

Condensers in spades.

(Why was there a "Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)

And you dont need one on every corner even if they did.
Even you should have noticed that they did manage to
get further than the next corner the vast bulk of the time.

Sigh Of course I was exaggerating. These are newsgroups. ;-)

But the essense of my post is true.

Nope, there was one on every corner and often more
than one on many corners, for a completely different
reason. Nothing to do with the servicing at all.

My dad's cars (when I was a kid) needed *constant* servicing compared to mine (as a grown up).

Nothing like constant and I was grown up in the 60s too.

Yes, modern cars need a lot less routine maintenance, but its silly
to claim that those in the 60s needed CONSTANT maintenance.

- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

And that is a lot more than to the next corner.

Maybe knot -- ;-) -- I know people that live more than 6 miles from their next door
neighbor.

Irrelevant to the silly claim about corners.

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

I stand by this.

Sure, and I didnt even comment on that bit, just the other silly stuff.

I have three TVs in my house and their _combined_ _cost_ is less than IMO an inflation-adusted
*repair* of a 1960's B&W console TV.

And need a lot less maintenance too, like none.

I recall $600.00 CD players, and it wasn't that long ago. I also know modern portable CD players:
one chip and a bunch of membrane switches. If/when something goes wrong, toss the $35 player & get
a new one. You can't repair a single-chip device.

Depends on what broke. Whether there is any
point in bothering is another matter entirely.

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles and
you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing millions of
things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that cost an extra 10
cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10 bucks to buy and the
average consumer not knowing the difference will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit per
sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just don't
care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

clare ha escrito:

On 15 Jan 2007 19:53:30 -0800, "lsmartino"
wrote:

A lithium cell WILL produce 3V regardless of it´s type. A rechargeable
lithium battery or a non rechargeable one will have the same voltage
output. That´s what the chemistry produces, and you can´t reduce that
voltage chemically, so they must have some built in electronic method
to reduce the voltage to the standard 1.5 V a AA cell should produce.

You need to learn to do your research before you make statements you
cannot support. You've proven yourself to be a blowhard.

I was mistaken and I admit it, but that doesn´t make me a "blowhard".
Show me in which part of my posts I presented myself as an specialist
in anything. Your post was accurate, but this part was completely
unnecessary.
Wasn't responding to you with that comment (at least knowingly).

I understand you. It happened to be just a miss quoted reply. :-)

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:13:34 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote
Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets that wont
take cards. Thats always going to be a design ****up or manufacturing ****up.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.


You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent"
or "intentional". An act is intentional if its outcome is known. So if
tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards, or a tea kettle
with obviously inadequate hinges -- the outcome is known and that is,
therefore, an intentional outcome.

i

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:04:59 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles and
you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing millions of
things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that cost an extra 10
cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10 bucks to buy and the
average consumer not knowing the difference will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit per
sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just don't
care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

If they know what happens with their product -- and they do -- then it
IS intentional.

If I set a fire on my kitchen floor, hoping to cook a pig that would
not fit in a stove, knowing that my house would burn down, and the
house burns down, the result is intentional -- even though the fire
was started to cook a pig. Same here -- if they try to save 2 cents
and make products that they KNOW do not perform their intended
purpose, then making substandard products is intentional on their
part.

That's why I do not patronize cutthroat retailers such as Walmart.
Because they are looking to screw ME by selling products that do not
perform their intended purpose (and by forcing manufacturers to make
such via abusive methods). I do not like such capitalists and to not
want to give them any of my business. I would rather pay 3x more to
businesses such as McMaster-Carr, or Bosch, etc, to get a product that
actually works.

My experience with Harbor Freight has been spotty, but most of the
products that I bought from them, do work as advertised.

i

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:13:34 +1100, Rod Speed
wrote:

You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent"
or "intentional". An act is intentional if its outcome is known. So if
tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards, or a tea kettle
with obviously inadequate hinges -- the outcome is known and that is,
therefore, an intentional outcome.

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence".

(or something similar)

Ignoramus16071 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets
that wont take cards. Thats always going to be a design ****up or
manufacturing ****up.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.

You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent" or "intentional".

You dont.

An act is intentional if its outcome is known.

Wrong. That act was intentional if they were intending
to make the card pockets too small to take cards.

No one would actually be that stupid.

The problem must have been with the manufacturing process
that was used after the intention to produce a usable wallet.

So if tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards,
or a tea kettle with obviously inadequate hinges -- the
outcome is known and that is, therefore, an intentional outcome.

Wrong. No one would be stupid enough to deliberately make
the wallet with card pockets that couldnt have cards put in them.

You dont know that anyone intended the tea kettle hinge to break either.

Its MUCH more likely that they decided that the amount of plastic
used was adequate and that it wouldnt break, and that they got that
wrong, or a weaker plastic was used without realising that it would break.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:13:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


You arent cooling them properly.

BS. They have NEVER gone over 40 degrees C. They live year round
between 65 and 72 degrees F (talking about my own systems)

Then there is some other problem with the system
they are used in, most likely the power supply.
Nope - the particular units in question are running on dual conversion
UPS power - a perfectly clean and seperately derived power source.
Also running high end SMPS power supplies.

They start losing sectors after about a year, and
reach the undependable stage after 2 or three.

Have fun explaining how come others dont get that effect with those drives.

They do.



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

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:04:59 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to
fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.
Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these
"designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be
made to last much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash
etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles
and you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big
company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing
millions of things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that
cost an extra 10 cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10
bucks to buy and the average consumer not knowing the difference
will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit
per sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just
don't care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

If they know what happens with their product -- and they do -- then it
IS intentional.

No one is stupid enough to design a wallet with card
pockets that they know arent big enough to take cards.

If I set a fire on my kitchen floor, hoping to cook a pig that would
not fit in a stove, knowing that my house would burn down, and the
house burns down, the result is intentional -- even though the fire
was started to cook a pig. Same here

Nope.

-- if they try to save 2 cents and make products that
they KNOW do not perform their intended purpose,

You dont know that they did KNOW that. The much more
likely possibility is that they decided that the amount of
plastic used was adequate and it turned out that it isnt.

then making substandard products is intentional on their part.

You dont dont know that they did know its substandard.

That's why I do not patronize cutthroat retailers such as Walmart.

More fool you.

Because they are looking to screw ME by selling
products that do not perform their intended purpose

Corse the bulk of them do.

(and by forcing manufacturers to make such via abusive methods).

Walmart isnt stupid enough to deliberately sell stuff
that will have to be exchanged under warranty.

I do not like such capitalists and to not want to give them any of my business.

Bet that will have the Walmart suits pouring from their
windows like lemmings as soon as they read your post.

I would rather pay 3x more to businesses such as McMaster-Carr,
or Bosch, etc, to get a product that actually works.

The products that Walmart sells work.

My experience with Harbor Freight has been spotty, but most
of the products that I bought from them, do work as advertised.

True in spades of what most buy in Walmart.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:21:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

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

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of years.

Engineering data is the heart of a business.

Not data thats a handful of years old.

Management often forgets that.

Then a competitor eats them alive.

Bet you cant list any examples of that with data thats older than a handful of years old.

I sure can.

Nope, you couldnt.

I milwright designs a feed mill. Back in 1966. He rebuilds that mill in 1981.
He builds 5 more mills between those dates, and onother 12 since.
His office burns down and he loses all his engineering drawings.

You cant use a single design over all that time.
Tell that to the guys that build the elevator portion of the mill. All
the pipe transitions etc. have been standardized for many years by
these guys. They designed something that works, that is relatively
simple to build, and they just keep right on using it.

or the drawings get soaked when a pipe breaks. How much
were those engineering drawings from 1965 worth today?
Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Fantasy. You cant use a single fixed design over all that time.

Another firm with current engineering drawings
will eat him alive when a new mill is up for tender.
That's why he invests in a large format scanner and enters ALL the old
drawings into cad, at very high cost, and keeps 2 offsite backups.

Or take a land surveyor's office.
ALL the surveys done in the past 35+ years are kept onsite, and many are
referred to daily to tie in new surveys etc. What would it cost to regenerate
even a small fraction of those survey plans? What is their current value???
Significantly higher than the original cost to produce the survey.

Adequately covered by his original MOST.


Anthony Matonak wrote:
John Husvar wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:
Archival storage of data is a BIG deal that the industry doesn't
like to talk about.

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of
years.

Well, I suppose one could print and store all all the data records
on acid-free paper and then physically go find the ones they
wanted. Shouldn't take more than a medium-sized army of clerks
and only a small hollowed mountain range for the storage.

The absolute best storage is microfilm or some variant of it.
You're pretty much assured that no matter what happens with
technology that you'll still be able to read it, even decades
later. You can buy computer microfilm printers. Direct print
to microfilm, no developing required.

Anthony



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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Wrong. No one would be stupid enough to deliberately make
the wallet with card pockets that couldnt have cards put in them.

I've seen Chinese made devices such as flashlights that won't take Chinese
made batteries as they are too long!






--

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:24:22 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote
James Sweet wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.

Just not designed for american sized money and cards. Would likely
hold the currency of half the world with no problem. Ditto for the
cards?? Mabee.
Part of the "global economy".
ANd you can't buy an american made leather wallet any more - at least
I haven't seen Canadian or American made ones in over 5 years.


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

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:07:08 -0600, Ignoramus16071
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:13:34 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote
Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets that wont
take cards. Thats always going to be a design ****up or manufacturing ****up.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.


You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent"
or "intentional". An act is intentional if its outcome is known. So if
tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards, or a tea kettle
with obviously inadequate hinges -- the outcome is known and that is,
therefore, an intentional outcome.

i
The definition of negligence.
doing something harmful when the outcome can reasonably be
anticipated.

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

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:04:59 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles and
you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing millions of
things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that cost an extra 10
cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10 bucks to buy and the
average consumer not knowing the difference will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit per
sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just don't
care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

Negligent design, penny driven.

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

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:12:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.

LOL...you mean an industry that has so far been
able to dump long term costs on the public.

There is no practical alternative, like I said.

The public certainly isnt going to wear 'environmental'
fools proclaiming that they cant have modern electronic
devices because of some purported long term costs.

And what long term costs there are are completely trivial
compared with the long term costs of the food industry
alone, let alone the car industry, etc etc etc anyway.

BS.
When we're finished with food it is "totally recycled"
Yes, there is the transportation, but disposal of the end of life
product is not a terribly serious issue.

With cars, they are over 95% recycleable - and they ARE recycled.
Tires are aproblem, but advances are being made there.
With electronics, it all ends up in landfill. There is SOME progress
being made - but the imposition of a $10 disposal fee at the consumer
level has ended up with all kinds of monitors etc being dumped beside
the road. Overall, significantly less than FIVE PERCENT of all
consumer electronics devices are recycled, or properly disposed of.
Less than ONE PERCENT of replaceable, non rechargeable batteries are
responsibly disposed of.
Well over NINETY PERCENT of automotive batteries are recycles and
responsibly disposed of.

When you see electronics being dumped in Africa
to avoid the cost of disposal, I think we are seeing
the responsibility coming home to roost soon.

Nope, all you are actually seeing is the inevitable
result of terminally silly 'environmental' legislation.

And when the cost of disposal is finally taken into account,
the true cost of electronics will be adjusted for that disposal.

Just utterly silly pointless paper shuffling.

It can't come soon enough....

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

Its only the europeans that are actually stupid enough to
even attempt something like that. And even they arent
actually stupid enough to do much in that area anyway.
Because even the stupidest politician realises what the
electoral consequences of that would inevitably be.

They'd be out on their arses so fast their feet wouldnt even touch the ground.


Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

There's been various attempts over the years at marketing
easily upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you
were ready to upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was
a sizable portion of the cost of a whole new PC, as well as
the rest of the major components were showing their age.

The upgrade of electronics would not be a significant cost if the
true cost of a computer was borne by the company and not the public.

Fantasy. And the cost is ALWAYS borne by the public, regardless of
how the company may be slugged by hare brained penalty schemes
anyway.

We keep hearing how the economy of electronics lowers the
cost of a product but one of the greatest costs to society is the
cost of production, distribution and disposal of electronic items.

They are a tiny part of the total production
distribution and disposal costs of everything else.

Even just food alone leaves it for dead.

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

It occurs because there is no practical alternative
with an industry as fast moving as electronics.


James Sweet wrote:

And I want to add something about "planned obsolescence" because
it is often misused. If people are choosing to buy cheap, it's
hardly that the manufacturers are making things so they will
break. The consumer often wants that cheaper tv set or VCR.



Rather than planned obsolescence, it's normally more a case of how
many cost reducing corners can they cut and still have it last
"long enough". It's hard to blame the manufactures, they're
supplying what the average consumer is demanding.



If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever, it
would have been way out of range in terms of price. Because
they'd have to anticipate how much things would change, and build
in enough so upgrading would be doable. So you'd spend money on
potential, rather than spending money later on a new computer
that would beat out what they could imagine in 1979. And in
recent years, it is the consumer who is deciding to buy a new
computer every few years (whether a deliberate decision or they
simply let the manufacturer lead, must vary from person to
person.)



There's been various attempts over the years at marketing easily
upgradeable computers, but invariably by the time you were ready to
upgrade, the cost of a new CPU module was a sizable portion of the
cost of a whole new PC, as well as the rest of the major components
were showing their age.



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

On 16 Jan 2007 10:47:07 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Logan, I respect your opinion but ...

That seems a pet phrase, doesn't it? It would ring a lot less
hollow if you would show some sign that you're paying any attention or
thinking before spouting your rhetoric back, however...


It would seem that you are a stranger to good manners...and would not
know the truth if it bit you on the butt.

The current DVD sales are a typical case of market dumping...happens
all the time.

Get back to me in a few years and let's talk about how many DVD sets
are being trashed because of failures.

Ask any repair person how the quality of VHS players have declined over
the years...the same goes with DVD units. I have some older DVD units
that cost serious money and their internal design is excellent. The
newer units are built with intended obselescene in mind...in other
words they are built like crap. Guess which ones will be running a few
years from now? You might want to check the numbers on returns of DOA
units also....many of the currently cheap units don't work out of the
box.

And oh...one more thing...are you posting from China?

Same thing with CD ROM drives.
I sold many of the first CD ROM drives sold in Canada. We are talking
1985 ish. That's TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO. Some of those drives are still
fully functional.
Today's crop don't last 5 years (actually, that's YESTERDAY's crop.)
I'm replacing 2 year old "brand name" CD drives quite regularly.

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