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

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:21:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

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.

Oil change every 1500 miles
Adjust valves every 6000 miles.
Decarbonize every 25000 miles OR
Valve job every 30,000 miles.
Rings and bearings at about 50,000 miles.
Spark plugs and points every 12000 miles.
Adjust timing and carb about the same time.
rebuild the carb every 30,000 miles or 3 years.
Adjust the choke twice a year (if in cold winter areas)
replace generator brushes every 12000 miles.
Replace engine main seals every 50,000 miles
Replace ball joints and shocks every 2 years
rebuild brake cyls every 3 years.
replace exhaust aprox every 18 months.
replace rad hoses and fan belts roughly every 2 years.

If the body lasted five years without rust-through you were doing well
indeed. (here in the salty great white north)
A paint job was good for about 5 years, and a ten year old car was
JUNK.
A car with 100,000 miles on it was a rarity (160,000 km) Today 240,000
km is "nicely broken in" and 350,000km is not out of the ordinary. -
and that's without even opening the engine - all the original factory
gaskes/sealant still in place in many cases.
Of course, there are MANY that never make it, due to abuse, neglect,
poor design - but a VERY FEW back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s made
100,000 miles without some MAJOR repair, and a LOT of maintenance.

Leaded fuel was a large part of the cause, engine-wise.

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

"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. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

TMT

Rod Speed wrote:
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.

No one would actually be that stupid.


You haven't dealt with the finance people I have....they are.

Cost point is EVERYTHING (it determines the CEO's bonus) so any and all
decisions revolve around it.

Companies will gladly produce junk if the consumer will buy it...and
they do.

Again, reference Walmart and their success selling crap.

Oh...did I mention that Walmart is the nation's largest seller of
electronics.

TMT

Rod Speed wrote:
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.

Sorry to disappoint you Rod but I do just as Ig does....Walmart gets as
little of my money as I can make happen.

Our opinion is shared by many others....been paying attention to the
decline of Walmart's profits lately?

Be sure to look when you walk by Walmart headquarters....I wouldn't
want you to get hit by a falling executive.

TMT

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.

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

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:50:15 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
PS...if anyone has the answer about why one of my Sunbeam self-lowering
toasters doesn't want to stop toasting without pulling the plug (aka
which part is the thermostat?)...let me know It's not my primary
Sunbeam...just one I might need to use some day.

There's a way to adjust them which differs depending on the model. If
it has the darkness knob on the side, you can pull off the knob and
rotate the shaft until it has the correct darkness. If it has a
slider on the front, there is a small hole in the right side where the
sub-darkness screw adjustment is located.

Andy Cuffe

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

The trouble is that there is no easy to way get a real handle on what
products on offer will last significantly longer with most appliances.

And its arguable how many really care that much about that sort of
thing now with the appliances so cheap and so trivially affordable.

When all stores sell the same items and no salesperson can convince the
consumer that any given product is better than all of the rest people will
choose the cheapest.







--

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.

Wrong approach.

Pay the consumer $10 for proper disposal and the roadside dumping will
disappear over night.

As I said, the disposal is being charged against the consumer at the
end of life of the product...in time the politicians will get it right
and charge for it at the beginning of the product sale.

TMT

clare wrote:
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

Sorry but I did not mention what education background I have....none of
your business. ;)

The cost of handling a product would be factored into the original sale
price...and the company producing it would be liable for disposal.

And yeah...I know you don't like that answer...no one including
Corporate America likes being held accountable for their actions.

TMT

dpb wrote:
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.

On 16 Jan 2007 18:00:52 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

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.

Wrong approach.

Pay the consumer $10 for proper disposal and the roadside dumping will
disappear over night.
Correct. Definitely.

As I said, the disposal is being charged against the consumer at the
end of life of the product...in time the politicians will get it right
and charge for it at the beginning of the product sale.

TMT

clare wrote:
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


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

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.


I agree...I see it all the time.

The funny thing is people in the know are looking for the old CD drives
because of their reliability.

Unfortunately that means a company will not sell a new unit. sob..sob

TMT
clare wrote:
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

Rod Speed wrote:

('bull****'s and other similarly intellectual retorts snipped)

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.

you have missed the real point here. You are also very rude.

Homer J Simpson wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I'm calling you out on that one. Perhaps if all the brands and
manufacturers of appliances were consolidated so much that they had
to be in cahoots, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but your
appliances are built all over the world now, by a variety of
companies competing hard for your business, not just once, but again
and again, and that means that one company with a good product will
never say a word to a competitor about how they do a better job. I
certainly wouldn't, and the way to make money in appliances is to
build a better product that gives the customer the value for the
dollar they are willing to pay. Folks that want a top of the line
appliance will pay extra for the appearance of better quality, and if
it can be proved they're getting their money's worth, they'll spend
even more. What it costs me when a product fails, wastes my time, and
the hassle and frustration of resolving the situation, means far more
to me than the initial cost of a product. I've paid that price too
many times, as I'm sure we all have at one time or another, so back
to the point of the most bang for my buck is why companies competing
for my precious dollar will not conspire with each other. All it
takes is for one of them to refuse to conspire and the conspirators
lose, leaving that one to earn my money.

The trouble is that there is no easy to way get a real handle on what
products on offer will last significantly longer with most appliances.

And its arguable how many really care that much about that sort of
thing now with the appliances so cheap and so trivially affordable.

When all stores sell the same items

That doesnt happen with the cheapest crap.

and no salesperson can convince the consumer that any given product is better than all of the rest
people will choose the cheapest.

Plenty have better sources of info than just the sales monkey.

clare at snyder.on.ca 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 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.

Pity about the rest 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.

There is more involved than just the pipe transitions etc.

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.

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.

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....

hear, hear.

see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1839997.stm

and

http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC12678.htm

and

http://lowendmac.com/archive/02/0503.html

and the photos here

http://www.greencitizen.com/electronics_recycler.php

and he
www.chrisjordan.com

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

"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. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

Pigs arse it is.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

Nope, nothing will change, you watch.


Rod Speed wrote:
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.

Homer J Simpson wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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!

Just another example of pathetic quality control.

John Husvar wrote:

DC/DVD storage life can be measured in just a few years.

Ach, so? I'll have to look farther into this. I'd heard some mumblings
about CD and DVD not being as lasting a storage method as they were
first thought to be.

I have many cd-rs, burned in 2000 from old Lps and tapes, which are now
unreadable. Good thing I kept the originals....not a single cassette or
record, even those from the 60s, has deteriorated. The only problems I
have ever had with any media were with some reel to reels which
degraded, appartenly with a binder made from whale oil, roughly vintage
1975-1980 .
-B.

Too_Many_Tools wrote

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.

You haven't dealt with the finance people I have....they are.

No they arent.

Cost point is EVERYTHING

You aint established that making the card pockets too
small to take cards does a damned thing to the cost point.

In fact it ****s it completely because the vast bulk of purchasers
of that wallet would just return it for a full refund.

(it determines the CEO's bonus)

No it doesnt when the vast bulk of purchasers
of that wallet would just return it for a full refund.

And chinese manufacturing operations dont work like that anyway.

so any and all decisions revolve around it.

Pity that such pathetic quality control will just see operations
that are considering buying their products tell them to shove
their products where the sun dont shine.

Companies will gladly produce junk if the consumer will buy it...and they do.

No they dont with wallets where the cards dont fit the card slots.

Again, reference Walmart and their success selling crap.

They dont sell wallets where the cards wont fit the card slots for long.

Oh...did I mention that Walmart is the nation's largest seller of electronics.

Pity we happened to be discussing wallets which wont accept cards or notes either.


Rod Speed wrote:
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.

clare at snyder.on.ca 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.

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.

Credit cards are the same size world wide.

Would likely hold the currency of half the world
with no problem. Ditto for the cards?? Mabee.

Nope, just plain wrong when the card pockets are just a little too tight.

Got to be yet another example of pathetic chinese quality control.

Part of the "global economy".

Nope.

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.

You can still buy plenty that will take credit cards and american currency fine.

Too_Many_Tools wrote

Sorry to disappoint you Rod

You never dissappoint me, you can be relied
on to never be able to get a damned thing right.

but I do just as Ig does....Walmart gets as
little of my money as I can make happen.

Our opinion is shared by many others....

Clearly not most given that its by far
the biggest retailler in the entire world.

been paying attention to the decline of Walmart's profits lately?

What matters is their turnover. And its STILL
by far the biggest retailler in the entire world.

Be sure to look when you walk by Walmart headquarters....
I wouldn't want you to get hit by a falling executive.

Wont happen either. You cant open the windows.


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.

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

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
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.

We'll see...

When we're finished with food it is "totally recycled"

Pity about the packaging, the processing, the
transport of the food, the wastage, etc etc etc.

Yes, there is the transportation, but disposal of the
end of life product is not a terribly serious issue.

Pity about the packaging which is.

With cars, they are over 95% recycleable - and they ARE recycled.

Pity about the environmental effect of their use before they are discarded.

Tires are aproblem, but advances are being made there.

With electronics, it all ends up in landfill.

Its a tiny part of any 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.

Just another terminal stupidity that only 'environmentalist' could come up with.

The clowns that decide policy at our landfill have been stupid
enough to charge fees for everything dumped there, and then
whine about those who dump it outside their landfill.

Overall, significantly less than FIVE PERCENT of all consumer
electronics devices are recycled, or properly disposed of.

Depends entirely on how you define 'properly disposed of'

It does no harm in landfill, particularly if you exclude CRTs
which are mostly disappearing from the market now anyway.

Less than ONE PERCENT of replaceable, non
rechargeable batteries are responsibly disposed of.

And landfills work fine anyway.

Well over NINETY PERCENT of automotive
batteries are recycles and responsibly disposed of.

Only part of them is ever recycled.

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.

Too_Many_Tools wrote

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.

Wrong approach.

Yep.

Pay the consumer $10 for proper disposal and
the roadside dumping will disappear over night.

Yep, there will always be some collecting what gets dumped for the $10.

As I said, the disposal is being charged against the consumer
at the end of life of the product...in time the politicians will get
it right and charge for it at the beginning of the product sale.

Wont change a damned thing, they'll just pay that charge and they
lose it up front instead of when it should be slugged, on disposal.


clare wrote:
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

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Sorry but I did not mention what education
background I have....none of your business. ;)

The cost of handling a product would be factored into the original
sale price...and the company producing it would be liable for disposal.

And they would just add that to the price of the item.

And yeah...I know you don't like that answer...

No one with a clue does.

The most that can make sense is to charge the consumer at the time
they buy a new tire for the cost of disposal of the one it replaces.

no one including Corporate America likes being held accountable for their actions.

Just another of your silly little fantasys.


dpb wrote:
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.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
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.)

Bull****. Have fun explaining mine that have.

I'm replacing 2 year old "brand name" CD drives quite regularly.

Happened 25 years ago too.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
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.


I agree...I see it all the time.

The funny thing is people in the know are looking for the old CD
drives because of their reliability.

Wrong again, few of them will read CDRWs for starters.

Unfortunately that means a company will not sell a new unit. sob..sob

Another silly fantasy when all new PCs come with one.


clare wrote:
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

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

Oil change every 1500 miles
Adjust valves every 6000 miles.

That aint constant maintenance, just a higher frequency periodic maintenance.

Decarbonize every 25000 miles OR
Valve job every 30,000 miles.
Rings and bearings at about 50,000 miles.

How odd that I never needed to do any
of that in any car I had of that vintage.

Spark plugs and points every 12000 miles.
Adjust timing and carb about the same time.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like 'constant maintenance'

rebuild the carb every 30,000 miles or 3 years.

How odd that I never needed to do any
of that in any car I had of that vintage.

Adjust the choke twice a year (if in cold winter areas)

How odd that I never needed to do any
of that in any car I had of that vintage.

replace generator brushes every 12000 miles.
Replace engine main seals every 50,000 miles
Replace ball joints and shocks every 2 years

How odd that I never needed to do any
of that in any car I had of that vintage.

rebuild brake cyls every 3 years.

How odd that I never needed to do any
of that in any car I had of that vintage.

replace exhaust aprox every 18 months.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like 'constant maintenance'

replace rad hoses and fan belts roughly every 2 years.

How odd that I never needed to do any of that in any
car I had of that vintage at anything like that rate.

If the body lasted five years without rust-through you were
doing well indeed. (here in the salty great white north)

A paint job was good for about 5 years,

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like 'constant maintenance'

and a ten year old car was JUNK.

How odd that my last one lasted 35 years fine. And so
did the one before that too, and the one before that too.

A car with 100,000 miles on it was a rarity (160,000 km)

Only in the stupid north american market.

Today 240,000 km is "nicely broken in" and 350,000km is not
out of the ordinary. - and that's without even opening the engine
- all the original factory gaskes/sealant still in place in many cases.

That happened with the last two I had that lasted 35 years fine.
And the second last one wasnt owned by me for that 35 years obviously.

Of course, there are MANY that never make it, due to abuse, neglect,
poor design - but a VERY FEW back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s made
100,000 miles without some MAJOR repair, and a LOT of maintenance.

Have fun explaining mine which did that fine.

Leaded fuel was a large part of the cause, engine-wise.

Pity thats what mine used.

b wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

you have missed the real point here.

Nope.

You are also very rude.

You get to like that or lump it.

Rod Speed wrote:

Jeff Jonas wrote:
Companies are setting up the situation that you are forced to buy
new versus repair the used applicance ...

Only partly true. Do you want to keep your computer forever? Do
you think you'd be on line here if you still had that 286 processor?

That's opening up a can of worms:
some PCs were upgradeable, with socketed CPUs and even
daughterboards for the CPU, but with raised expectations of our
computers
and evolving motherboard chipsets and faster peripherals,
it's really hard to truly salvage much from a PC
other than disks and some peripherals.

BUT: some specialized applications require the "legacy" interfaces
that are being phased out, such as custom interface cards with the
ISA interface, or RS232 serial interfaced peripherals.
There are often items that have no equivalent in current production
so you can't just buy the PCI or USB version.

I still have some Z80 based single board computers
because they're now "old enough" to become embedded systems.
Many '486 systems /could be used again/ if anyone gave a damn
to find lightweight (NON-M$) operating systems to make them
dedicated devices, such as a digital answering machine, print server, etc.

And anyone with a clue just buys a dedicated hardware router etc.


How do you program a dedicated router to run a 30 year old industrial
process? How do you use it to control a communications system aboard
the ISS?


--
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

Michael A. Terrell wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeff Jonas wrote

Companies are setting up the situation that you are
forced to buy new versus repair the used applicance ...

Only partly true. Do you want to keep your computer forever?
Do you think you'd be on line here if you still had that 286 processor?

That's opening up a can of worms:
some PCs were upgradeable, with socketed CPUs and even
daughterboards for the CPU, but with raised expectations of
our computers and evolving motherboard chipsets and faster
peripherals, it's really hard to truly salvage much from a PC
other than disks and some peripherals.

BUT: some specialized applications require the "legacy" interfaces
that are being phased out, such as custom interface cards with the
ISA interface, or RS232 serial interfaced peripherals.
There are often items that have no equivalent in current production
so you can't just buy the PCI or USB version.

I still have some Z80 based single board computers because they're
now "old enough" to become embedded systems. Many '486 systems
/could be used again/ if anyone gave a damn to find lightweight (NON-M$)
operating systems to make them dedicated devices, such as a digital
answering machine, print server, etc.

And anyone with a clue just buys a dedicated hardware router etc.

How do you program a dedicated router to run a 30 year old industrial process?

That was a comment on the last bit, and those silly
enough to use one of those dinosaurs as a router etc.

Just as true of a print server.

In spades with a digital answering machine which is best
multitasked on something other than one of those dinosaurs.

If you want to run a 30 year old industrial process, you are
better off with something a lot better than one of those dinosaurs.

How do you use it to control a communications system aboard the ISS?

Only a fool would use one of those dinosaurs for that.

Ecnerwal wrote:

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.

What's driving the production of hybrid cars is government policy. Tax
credits, and allowing hybrids to use carpool lanes is a powerful
incentive. Some people buy them because of a belief that they pollute
less, though in reality this is not the case.

I don't think that anyone buys a hybrid thinking that they're going to
save money on fuel, versus the extra initial cost, and shorter service life.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
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.

You can still buy high quality, repairable appliances, but you have to
buy commercial models, which have a much higher initial cost, and cannot
be purchased at normal retail stores.

I've bought commercial laundry machines for a rental property, and later
for my own house, because they are built much, much better, and are very
repairable if they ever do break (but unlikely to ever break under
household use). They cost about twice as much as a low-end consumer
machine and most people would not know how to acquire them. Since
laundry-mat owners do their own repairs, there is no labor warranty, but
they have a three year parts warranty. Excellent repair manuals are
available from the manufacturer.

You can buy restaurant quality small appliances that will last forever
under household use, but most people don't want to spend $400 on a two
slice toaster, they'd rather buy a new $20 toaster ever few years.

Commercial vacuum cleaners are actually a good deal because the
consumer-grade vacuum cleaners are extremely poorly constructed. But too
many people select a vacuum based on how much current the motor draws,
and how many buttons and attachments it has, instead of how well it
cleans and how long it will last.

SMS wrote
Ecnerwal wrote

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.

What's driving the production of hybrid cars is government policy.

Nope.

Tax credits, and allowing hybrids to use carpool lanes is a powerful incentive.

Have fun explaining how they do just as well where those arent provided.

Some people buy them because of a belief that they pollute less, though in reality this is not the
case.

Most people do, actually.

I don't think that anyone buys a hybrid thinking that they're going to save money on fuel,

Plenty do.

versus the extra initial cost,

Plenty are too stupid to even consider that.

and shorter service life.

And dont care about that because they turn their cars over
at a rate that makes that completely irrelevant to them.

I was buying a vacuum cleaner from a local vacuum cleaner repair guy and while he was
complaining about quality of modern he showed me a vacuum cleaner that looked like it
was from from 50s or 60s that he was repairing(replacing a motor) He has a contract with
a airline to service vacuum cleaners that are used to vacuum airplane salons. These
vacuum cleaners work 24/7 for 50 years and all they need a minor service and motor
replaced every so many years.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:19:06 -0800, SMS wrote:
Commercial vacuum cleaners are actually a good deal because the
consumer-grade vacuum cleaners are extremely poorly constructed. But too
many people select a vacuum based on how much current the motor draws,
and how many buttons and attachments it has, instead of how well it
cleans and how long it will last.

Would you recommend a particular commercial vacuum cleaner?

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Sorry but I did not mention what education background I have....none of
your business. ;)

The cost of handling a product would be factored into the original sale
price...and the company producing it would be liable for disposal.

Yeah, that was Iggy, but maybe you should look into it...

How could you possibly even approximately compute a realistic future
cost of handling any given product a priori, what more actually make it
reflect some "true" cost?

Previously you spoke of transportation as some over-arching cost of
consumer electronics, but whatever cost there is for it is already
incorporated at the retail point, obviously. So, when costs are
lowered to the end user by the use of integration and other modern
manufacturing techniques and lower overhead costs even after costs of
transportation and distribution are included, it simply means the
actual manufacturing cost itself is even lower than it appears. Again,
there's the efficiency of numbers -- it doesn't cost much more
incrementally to ship a carload of an item than it does a single one.

As for the disposal, the consumer already pays for disposal of the
items he discards through a variety of mechanisms--taxes, user fees,
private collection fees, etc., etc., etc., ... As noted previously,
various locations have already begun accounting for large and or
otherwise difficult-to-dispose-of items. This trend will undoubtedly
continue and will be far more efficient than a "one size fits all"
attempt could ever be.

As (and/or if) materials become more valuable, there will certainly be
more recycling as it becomes economically viable. The only reason at
present it isn't more prevalent is that it is not cost-effective. When
there is economic incentive, it will happen--until then, despite all
well-intentioned pleas in the world, it just won't.

You may not like that answer, but it's more reflective of reality...

Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

"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. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

Pigs arse it is.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

Nope, nothing will change, you watch.


LOL...sure they will.

That must be why they are going from country to country dumping toxic
waste until they get chased out.

Or why they have been forced to go to lead free solder.

The free ride the electronics industry has been getting is coming to an
end.

And with it is the age of artificially cheap electronics...

TMT


Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

"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. "

Wrong...it is one of the worst.

Pigs arse it is.

As I said, the industry will need to deal with it.

Nope, nothing will change, you watch.


Rod Speed wrote:
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.