In my opinon...no.

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

Your thoughts?

TMT

Irreparable damageBy Bryce Baschuk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2007
Bill Jones, after 42 years, is finally closing the Procter Appliance
Service shop in Silver Spring.
"You can't make a good salary to survive on the way you could years
ago," said the 61-year-old owner of the oven, refrigerator and
washer-dryer repair shop. "Everything has changed in the appliance
business."
Mr. Jones recently sold his home in Laurel and is in the process of
moving to Bluffton, S.C., with his wife, Jeannette.
Mr. Jones is one of the many Washington-area repairmen who have
struggled to stay afloat as residents replace, not repair, old
appliances.
"It's a dying trade," said Scott Brown, Webmaster of
www.fixitnow.com and self-proclaimed "Samurai Appliance Repairman."
The reason for this is twofold, Mr. Brown said: The cost of
appliances is coming down because of cheap overseas labor and improved
manufacturing techniques, and repairmen are literally dying off.
The average age of appliance technicians is 42, and there are few
young repairmen to take their place, said Mr. Brown, 47. He has been
repairing appliances in New Hampshire for the past 13 years.
In the next seven years, the number of veteran appliance repairmen
will decrease nationwide as current workers retire or transfer to other
occupations, the Department of Labor said in its 2007 Occupational
Outlook Handbook.
The federal agency said many prospective repairmen prefer work that
is less strenuous and want more comfortable working conditions.
Local repairmen said it is simply a question of economics.
"Nowadays appliances are cheap, so people are just getting new
ones," said Paul Singh, a manager at the Appliance Service Depot, a
repair shop in Northwest. "As a result, business has slowed down a
lot."
"The average repair cost for a household appliance is $50 to $350,"
said Shahid Rana, a service technician at Rana Refrigeration, a repair
shop in Capitol Heights. "If the repair is going to cost more than
that, we usually tell the customer to go out and buy a new one."
It's not uncommon for today's repairmen to condemn an appliance
instead of fixing it for the sake of their customers' wallets.
If they decide to repair an appliance that is likely to break down
again, repairmen are criticized by their customers and often lose
business because of a damaged reputation.
Mr. Jones said he based his repair decisions on the 50 percent
rule: "If the cost of service costs more than 50 percent of the price
of a new machine, I'll tell my customers to get a new one."
"A lot of customers want me to be honest with them, so I'll tell
them my opinion and leave the decision making up to them," he said.
In recent years, consumers have tended to buy new appliances when
existing warranties expire rather than repair old appliances, the
Department of Labor said.
Mr. Brown acknowledged this trend. "Lower-end appliances which you
can buy for $200 to $300 are basically throwaway appliances," he said.
"They are so inexpensive that you shouldn't pay to get them repaired."
"The quality of the materials that are being made aren't lasting,"
Mr. Jones said. "Nowadays you're seeing more plastic and more circuit
boards, and they aren't holding up."
Many home appliances sold in the United States are made in Taiwan,
Singapore, China and Mexico.
"Nothing is made [in the United States] anymore," Mr. Jones said.
"But then again, American parts are only better to a point, a lot of
U.S. companies are all about the dollar."
Fortunately for the next generation of repairmen, some of today's
high-end appliances make service repairs the most cost-effective
option.
The Department of Labor concurred. "Over the next decade, as more
consumers purchase higher-priced appliances designed to have much
longer lives, they will be more likely to use repair services than to
purchase new appliances," said the 2007 Occupational Outlook Handbook.
Modern, energy-efficient refrigerators can cost as much as $5,000
to $10,000, and with such a hefty price tag, throwing one away is not
an option.
In some cases, repairmen can help consumers reduce the amount of
aggravation that a broken appliance will cause.
Consider the time and effort it takes to shop for a new appliance,
wait for its delivery, remove the old one and get the new one
installed.
In addition, certain appliances such as ovens and washing machines
can be a bigger hassle to replace because they are connected to gas and
water lines.
"It takes your time, it takes your effort, and if you don't install
the new appliance, you'll have to hire a service technician to install
it anyways," Mr. Brown said.
Some consumers bond with their appliances like old pets, and for
loyalty or sentimental reasons, refuse to let them go.
Mr. Rana said some of his clients have appliances that are more
than 30 years old. It makes sense, he said. "A lot of old refrigerators
are worth fixing because they give people good service. They just don't
make things like they used to."

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.

Your thoughts?

TMT

Irreparable damageBy Bryce Baschuk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2007
Bill Jones, after 42 years, is finally closing the Procter Appliance
Service shop in Silver Spring.
"You can't make a good salary to survive on the way you could years
ago," said the 61-year-old owner of the oven, refrigerator and
washer-dryer repair shop. "Everything has changed in the appliance
business."

This raises an apparent contradiction. Most people believe that appliances were
built much better in the past than they are now and yet in the past a whole
industry survived on doing appliance repairs. Perhaps they only seemed to be
built better in the past because we kept them longer and the only reason we kept
them longer is because we repaired them instead of replacing them. The flipside
of that same coin is that perhaps today's appliances only seem to be inferior
because we replace them more often and the only reason we replace them more
often is because we don't repair them.

In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

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

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies in
8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair), clearing the
way for more new car sales.

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

Ecnerwal wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. [snip]

What you say speaks to the issue of why did we repair in the past and why don't
we repair now, but it says nothing about the comparable reliability. If
appliances in the past were "built to be repaired" that can be interpretted to
mean that failures were expected. If failures were expected and people could
make a living performing those repairs then that suggests that the appliances
were not that reliable.

Rick Brandt wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. [snip]

What you say speaks to the issue of why did we repair in the past and why don't
we repair now, but it says nothing about the comparable reliability. If
appliances in the past were "built to be repaired" that can be interpretted to
mean that failures were expected. If failures were expected and people could
make a living performing those repairs then that suggests that the appliances
were not that reliable.


Yes, my mother used her first clothes dryer for over 30 years. We
replaced the belt three times. A new dryer might last five years,
total. The washer lasted 18 years before the hard water ruined it, and
it had a timer replaced when it was 12 years Old. You think that the
new designs are an improvement?


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

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

The washer lasted 18 years before the hard water ruined it,
and it had a timer replaced when it was 12 years Old. You think that
the new designs are an improvement?

How can anyone make a claim either way based on personal experience? He would
have to have personal experience on *multiple* old appliances that lasted a long
time (a mathematical impossibilty) and *multiple* newer ones that did not.
Anything else boils down to "I once knew a guy... or Joe down at the appliance
store once told me...".

It is an absolute certainty that all of appliances that lasted a long time were
manufactured a long time ago. That does not equate to "All of the appliances
made a long time ago lasted a long time". Nobody knows how long the appliance
they bought last month is going to last so how can a valid comparison be made?

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Yes, my mother used her first clothes dryer for over 30 years. We
replaced the belt three times. A new dryer might last five years,
total. The washer lasted 18 years before the hard water ruined it,
and it had a timer replaced when it was 12 years Old. You think that
the new designs are an improvement?

My mom is using the following:

gas range, Magic Chef 1977- coppertone
refrigerator, Kennmore 1984- almond
washer Maytag 1986- white
dryer (electric) Whirlpool 1981- white
microwave Panasonic 1998 ( city blew out the 1987 microwave with a power
surge)

the dryer has had belts, drum rollers, and heating elements replaced.

washer... broken pushbutton (18 cents), and the timer

refrigerator- arm that dispenses ice through the door broke

thats all the repairs

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:19:24 GMT, "Rick Brandt"
wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. [snip]

What you say speaks to the issue of why did we repair in the past and why don't
we repair now, but it says nothing about the comparable reliability. If
appliances in the past were "built to be repaired" that can be interpretted to
mean that failures were expected. If failures were expected and people could
make a living performing those repairs then that suggests that the appliances
were not that reliable.



The main reason we don't repair modern electronic appliances is that
the cost of parts and labour to carry out the repairs is often nearly
as much (or more) than the appliance cost new. Why would anyone pay
for a repair on an item, which may be as good as new when repaired,
when a brand new item may only cost a little more. The new item also
comes with a new warranty.

This will only change when the standard of living in countries
producing the majority of appliances goes up considerably thus making
the cost of producing items more expensive.

However, along with that, in order to make them economical to repair,
they must also be designed for accessibility to components such that
they can physically be repaired. Designing in repairability also adds
a bit to the cost of production.

Personally, I am all in favour of repairability if for no other reason
than it saves energy and resources across the board.

Ross Herbert wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:19:24 GMT, "Rick Brandt"
wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. [snip]

What you say speaks to the issue of why did we repair in the past
and why don't we repair now, but it says nothing about the
comparable reliability. If appliances in the past were "built to be
repaired" that can be interpretted to mean that failures were
expected. If failures were expected and people could make a living
performing those repairs then that suggests that the appliances were
not that reliable.



The main reason we don't repair modern electronic appliances is that
the cost of parts and labour to carry out the repairs is often nearly
as much (or more) than the appliance cost new. Why would anyone pay
for a repair on an item, which may be as good as new when repaired,
when a brand new item may only cost a little more. The new item also
comes with a new warranty.

This will only change when the standard of living in countries
producing the majority of appliances goes up considerably
thus making the cost of producing items more expensive.

It wont change even then, the manufacture
will just move on to new low cost countrys.

That has already happened a number of times now.

However, along with that, in order to make them economical
to repair, they must also be designed for accessibility to
components such that they can physically be repaired.

Not necessarily. You can replace components, like
you do with cell phone batterys most obviously.

Designing in repairability also adds a bit to the cost of production.

Not much tho, again most obviously with cellphones.

Personally, I am all in favour of repairability if for no other
reason than it saves energy and resources across the board.

Its a tiny part of world energy consumption.

The main reason we don't repair modern electronic appliances is that
the cost of parts and labour to carry out the repairs is often nearly
as much (or more) than the appliance cost new. Why would anyone pay
for a repair on an item, which may be as good as new when repaired,
when a brand new item may only cost a little more. The new item also
comes with a new warranty.

YET despite that, there is still some favorable economics for
reclaiming and repairing stuff, even if it's sold as "refurbished".
I occasionally buy refurbished stuff since that means
"the parts that break first have already been replaced".
--

-- mejeep deMeep ferret!

Ecnerwal wrote: In part ..................

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. "This part will (by design) break
about 1 year after the warranty runs out - let's put in in a monolithic
module containing all the most expensive parts of the machine."
..
Maybe that's stating it rather strongly?

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

But it's the same reason that I continue to accept and use old
appliances that I can repair myself.
For example I refuse to buy a stove that incorporates a digital
timer/clock; they are virtually unrepairable! Eventually can see
myself, however, ending up with one of those and deliberately
disconnecting the digital timer clock or modifying the stove to use one
my older (saved) clock/timers or just dong away with the timer
altogether.

terry wrote:
Maybe that's stating it rather strongly?

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

But it's the same reason that I continue to accept and use old
appliances that I can repair myself.
For example I refuse to buy a stove that incorporates a digital
timer/clock; they are virtually unrepairable! Eventually can see
myself, however, ending up with one of those and deliberately
disconnecting the digital timer clock or modifying the stove to use
one my older (saved) clock/timers or just dong away with the timer
altogether.

I think another big factor is the ratio of cost on parts versus labor. In the
"old days" you might have a repair that was 70% parts and 30% labor cost-wise.
Nowdays those percentages would be reversed and that just irks people who just
don't see the value of anyone's labor (other than their own of course).

You see posts about this all the time. "Called a guy to come out and do foo and
couldn't believe what he wanted to charge me!" Labor really induces a lot of
sticker shock these days.

Rick Brandt wrote:
terry wrote:
Maybe that's stating it rather strongly?

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

But it's the same reason that I continue to accept and use old
appliances that I can repair myself.
For example I refuse to buy a stove that incorporates a digital
timer/clock; they are virtually unrepairable! Eventually can see
myself, however, ending up with one of those and deliberately
disconnecting the digital timer clock or modifying the stove to use
one my older (saved) clock/timers or just dong away with the timer
altogether.

I think another big factor is the ratio of cost on parts versus
labor. In the "old days" you might have a repair that was 70% parts
and 30% labor cost-wise. Nowdays those percentages would be reversed
and that just irks people who just don't see the value of anyone's
labor (other than their own of course).
You see posts about this all the time. "Called a guy to come out and
do foo and couldn't believe what he wanted to charge me!" Labor
really induces a lot of sticker shock these days.

Yep, and thats inevitable when first world wages are involved with
repair and the alternative is some microwage monkey in an asian
factory minimally involved in stamping out a new one hours wise.

Even just the travel time for the repair is vastly more
than any asian ever puts into making you a new one.

In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:


I think another big factor is the ratio of cost on parts versus labor. In
the
"old days" you might have a repair that was 70% parts and 30% labor
cost-wise.
Nowdays those percentages would be reversed and that just irks people who
just
don't see the value of anyone's labor (other than their own of course).

You see posts about this all the time. "Called a guy to come out and do foo
and
couldn't believe what he wanted to charge me!" Labor really induces a lot of
sticker shock these days.

Except in my game, power wheelchair repair, and maybe a rare few others,
where parts cost far more than labor, that is probably true.

A new joystick for a programmable wheelchair controller can cost ~$800 -
$1000 and take less than an hour to swap.

A wheelchair controller is basically a 24 Volt, two-channel, variable DC
Motor Control.

A new motor/gearbox runs ~$1000. (and you couldn't until recently buy
only one or the other, but it's an aftermarket company specializing in
old chairs and they're higher than new) It takes about an hour to two
for R&R.

A main power/control module may cost upwards of $2000. The simplest
programmable, integrated joystick control/power module is routinely
~$1200.

Oh, about that motor/gearbox ass'y: Power wheelchairs have two.

Scooters mostly have just one motor/transaxle. Replacement is only ~$900
+ labor

Our shop charges $40/hour labor with one hour minimum and we're by far
the cheapest in the area. Average is ~$75.

When there's a captive market and nearly guaranteed funding of a
purchase, (Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance, Charity) prices can do some
craaaaazy things.

--
Bring back, Oh bring back
Oh, bring back that old continuity.
Bring back, oh, bring back
Oh, bring back Clerk Maxwell to me.

terry wrote
Ecnerwal wrote:

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. "This part will (by design) break
about 1 year after the warranty runs out - let's put in in a monolithic
module containing all the most expensive parts of the machine."

Maybe that's stating it rather strongly?

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.

But it's the same reason that I continue to accept
and use old appliances that I can repair myself.

That can mean that you have to do without
some of the most elegantly usable appliances tho.

For example I refuse to buy a stove that incorporates
a digital timer/clock; they are virtually unrepairable!

Mindlessly silly. My microwave is still going fine 30 years later.

Eventually can see myself, however, ending up with one of those and
deliberately disconnecting the digital timer clock or modifying the stove to use
one my older (saved) clock/timers or just dong away with the timer altogether.

Or get a clue and only bother with that if it actually does fail.
And get the benefit of a decent modern design when it doesnt.

I've never actually had a single digital clock in any system
ever fail and I've got heaps of them, plenty 30+ years old.

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:08:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

terry wrote
Ecnerwal wrote:

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. "This part will (by design) break
about 1 year after the warranty runs out - let's put in in a monolithic
module containing all the most expensive parts of the machine."

Maybe that's stating it rather strongly?

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.

Except you can buy much better batteries than the crap that comes with
the chinese built phone from the factory. Likely cost as much as the
phone, but often worth it.

But it's the same reason that I continue to accept
and use old appliances that I can repair myself.

I repair all my own stuff too, but accept that sometimes I need to buy
parts.

That can mean that you have to do without
some of the most elegantly usable appliances tho.

For example I refuse to buy a stove that incorporates
a digital timer/clock; they are virtually unrepairable!

If a digital timer makes it through the first 90 days, and then
through warranty, it may very well outlive YOU. Infant mortality is
the biggest issue with electronis. Mechanical timers simply wear out
or burn out, and although SOMETIMES repairable, they ARE more likely
to fail after the first year or so than electronics. Particularly as
the mechanics were cheapened and electronics become more integrated
and solid.

Mindlessly silly. My microwave is still going fine 30 years later.

Eventually can see myself, however, ending up with one of those and
deliberately disconnecting the digital timer clock or modifying the stove to use
one my older (saved) clock/timers or just dong away with the timer altogether.

Or get a clue and only bother with that if it actually does fail.
And get the benefit of a decent modern design when it doesnt.

I've never actually had a single digital clock in any system
ever fail and I've got heaps of them, plenty 30+ years old.

My experience as well. Electromechanical timers have failed on just
about everything I've ever owned with them except for the old
Frigidaire range (50 years old and still working fine when the oven
element let go and "plasma cut" a big hole in the bottom of the oven)
Several wires had burned off 30 years ago - I repaired them 26 or 27
years ago - otherwise it worked fine. Not so the timer on the water
softener that pumped several hundred gallons of water and350 lbs of
salt all over the basement floor when the timer died--------.



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

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

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

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

But it's the same reason that I continue to accept and use old
appliances that I can repair myself.
For example I refuse to buy a stove that incorporates a digital
timer/clock; they are virtually unrepairable! Eventually can see
myself, however, ending up with one of those and deliberately
disconnecting the digital timer clock or modifying the stove to use one
my older (saved) clock/timers or just dong away with the timer
altogether.


Why are they virtually unrepairable? The timer/clock modules have only a
handful of parts, and most of them are pretty standard. On top of that,
it's very rare in my experience for them to fail. The one microwave I've
fixed that had a problem with the timer board, it was a cracked solder
joint at a relay and was easy to fix. I've never seen a bad custom IC on
one, not saying it can't happen but it's certainly rare.

I have however seen quite a few of the synchronous motors that used to
drive the mechanical clock/timer assemblies fail.

Ecnerwal wrote
Rick Brandt wrote

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

Or perhaps you havent.

The old ones were, for the most part, designed to be repairable.

Yes. And so are the current ones too with the exception of plug packs etc.

"This part always breaks eventually, we'll
isolate it and make it easy to replace".

That is just plain silly with domestic appliances. There is bugger
all except light bulbs that cant be designed to last indefinitely.

And even that has changed just recently too.

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,

Oh bull****.

and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated
to render them effectively non-economic to repair.

More bull****. I've done just that fine with a modern electric chainsaw.

"This part will (by design) break about 1 year after the warranty runs out -

Not even possible.

let's put in in a monolithic module containing
all the most expensive parts of the machine."

That in spades.

The appliance industry would much rather
sell you a new one than have you fix the old one,

Sure, but what they would rather and what is possible
design wise are two entirely different animals.

and they have taken steps to ensure that only the
maddest of mad hatters will stubbornly stick to repair;

Utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

and when they do, the industry will still
profit mightily due to inflated pricing.

Completely off with the fairys now.

But not making the parts at all will knock even the mad hatters
into line soon enough, so long as they keep all the parts adequately
non-standard that it's not economic for anyone to second-source them.

Thats always been the case with domestic appliances.

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars
that are less fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars.

Nope, that isnt due to any conspiracy, thats just the usual design stupidity.

When the battery pack dies in 8-10 years,
the car will be junk (non-economic to repair),

Another fantasy.

clearing the way for more new car sales.

That happens even when the cars are economic to repair.
Just because new cars are cheap enough to allow that.

Domestic appliances in spades.

"Rod Speed" wrote in
:


Dude,
I hate to be the one to break this news to you, but *everything*
manufactured has a pre-determined design life. Be it 30 nanoseconds or
300 years, it _does_ have a design life. This design life is set in the
initial concept phase of design work, it is one of the parameters that
_must_ be determined before any actual design work takes place. Without
that parameter, you cannot design. So, yes, appliances have a design
life, and that life is, due to economics, going to be the warranty period
plus some safety factor (to help ensure that the product doesn't cause
expensive warranty claims).
Appliances are a commodity product, just like about every other mass
produced product on the market. The population is not expanding enough
to for it to be economically feasable for a company to produce a product
that will last 30 years with minimal upkeep, except in special
circumstances. The product has to 'wear out' or fail within some time
period so as to generate repeat sales for the market.


--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:02:25 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote
Rick Brandt wrote

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

Or perhaps you havent.

The old ones were, for the most part, designed to be repairable.

Yes. And so are the current ones too with the exception of plug packs etc.

"This part always breaks eventually, we'll
isolate it and make it easy to replace".

That is just plain silly with domestic appliances. There is bugger
all except light bulbs that cant be designed to last indefinitely.

And even that has changed just recently too.

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,

Oh bull****.

and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated
to render them effectively non-economic to repair.

More bull****. I've done just that fine with a modern electric chainsaw.

"This part will (by design) break about 1 year after the warranty runs out -

Not even possible.

It is NOT a conspiracy - it is the result of accountants over-ruling
engineers. The demand is to lower costs, at any cost. The engineers
then have to decide where to cut costs. Sometimes they win, sometimes
you loose.
Cost to assemble dictates design more than sevicability. If they can
save a dollar in total per machine by making assembly easier (or by
cutting out a procedure, like de-burring drilled or stamped holes)
without increasing their warranty exposure, they do it.
This could all change OVERNIGHT if all the cheap B@$7@rds in North
America wouldn't insist on buying the cheapest whatever possible. If
there was a market for quality products at a price that companys could
afford to build them and sell them for, quality goods would still be
available. That market just does not exist any more. If it did,
Wallmarts would be closing all over North America, instead of
continuing to displace the established specialty shops that used to
sell the "good stuff".

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

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ecnerwal wrote
Rick Brandt wrote

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

Or perhaps you havent.

The old ones were, for the most part, designed to be repairable.

Yes. And so are the current ones too with the exception of plug packs etc.

"This part always breaks eventually, we'll
isolate it and make it easy to replace".

That is just plain silly with domestic appliances. There is bugger
all except light bulbs that cant be designed to last indefinitely.

And even that has changed just recently too.

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,

Oh bull****.

and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated
to render them effectively non-economic to repair.

More bull****. I've done just that fine with a modern electric chainsaw.

"This part will (by design) break about 1 year after the warranty runs out -

Not even possible.

It is NOT a conspiracy - it is the result of accountants over-ruling
engineers. The demand is to lower costs, at any cost.

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

And even the stuff which can be designed to do that like
the stuff with microprocessor control that can certainly
be programmed to do that, no one is actually THAT stupid.

Or even stupid enough to try it with a random component added either.

The engineers then have to decide where to cut costs.
Sometimes they win, sometimes you loose.

And with much of the chinese manufactured product now, they dont even bother.

Cost to assemble dictates design more than sevicability.

Yes, but that can produce much better reliability too,
most obviously with modern molded appliance cords.

If they can save a dollar in total per machine by making assembly
easier (or by cutting out a procedure, like de-burring drilled or
stamped holes) without increasing their warranty exposure, they do it.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what is being discussed,
the mindlessly silly claim about PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE.

This could all change OVERNIGHT if all the cheap B@$7@rds in North
America wouldn't insist on buying the cheapest whatever possible.

Nope, because so few of them have a clue about even
the most basic stuff that determines what will last longer.

If there was a market for quality products at a price that companys could
afford to build them and sell them for, quality goods would still be available.

There still is with tradesman's tools.

That market just does not exist any more.

Yes it does.

If it did, Wallmarts would be closing all over North America,

Nope, they'd just sell those products if thats what the customers wanted.

instead of continuing to displace the established
specialty shops that used to sell the "good stuff".

They have got displaced for other reasons,
essentially the cost of making the individual sales.

For the same reason the old style grocery stores where you
asked for the items you wanted and an individual got them
off the shelves behind him for you except with fresh food now.

It is NOT a conspiracy - it is the result of accountants over-ruling
engineers. The demand is to lower costs, at any cost. The engineers
then have to decide where to cut costs.


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

Good designs are allowed to turn to bad designs to cut a fraction of a
penny.

The sooner the product dies after warranty, the sooner the customer
will be buying another NEW item.

As has been pointed out, the repair inventory is considered a "profit
center" which is code for gouge the customer if he wants to repair the
item.

And yes it IS a conspiracy....to get more of the public's money.

TMT


clare wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:02:25 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote
Rick Brandt wrote

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

Or perhaps you havent.

The old ones were, for the most part, designed to be repairable.

Yes. And so are the current ones too with the exception of plug packs etc.

"This part always breaks eventually, we'll
isolate it and make it easy to replace".

That is just plain silly with domestic appliances. There is bugger
all except light bulbs that cant be designed to last indefinitely.

And even that has changed just recently too.

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,

Oh bull****.

and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated
to render them effectively non-economic to repair.

More bull****. I've done just that fine with a modern electric chainsaw.

"This part will (by design) break about 1 year after the warranty runs out -

Not even possible.

It is NOT a conspiracy - it is the result of accountants over-ruling
engineers. The demand is to lower costs, at any cost. The engineers
then have to decide where to cut costs. Sometimes they win, sometimes
you loose.
Cost to assemble dictates design more than sevicability. If they can
save a dollar in total per machine by making assembly easier (or by
cutting out a procedure, like de-burring drilled or stamped holes)
without increasing their warranty exposure, they do it.
This could all change OVERNIGHT if all the cheap B@$7@rds in North
America wouldn't insist on buying the cheapest whatever possible. If
there was a market for quality products at a price that companys could
afford to build them and sell them for, quality goods would still be
available. That market just does not exist any more. If it did,
Wallmarts would be closing all over North America, instead of
continuing to displace the established specialty shops that used to
sell the "good stuff".

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

Ecnerwal wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

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

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies in
8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair), clearing the
way for more new car sales.

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

Your comments make a lot of sense to me. My dad built our first color
TV (and repaired it...usually running down to Thrifty Drug to use their
bulb tester); he would also rebuild cars (and was self-taught). The
appliances of the past were "simpler" as were our cars. Now that most
are running via circuit boards there's no more of the replace defective
fuse or plug thing (sometimes it is though...should still try that).
I'm also one of those who prefers the non-hybrid high MPG cars (in
order: 1 Fiesta, 2 Festiva's and currently 1 Yaris) for the specific
reasons you mention.

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.

On 15 Jan 2007 10:37:27 -0800, "Seerialmom"
wrote:


Ecnerwal wrote:
In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

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

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies in
8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair), clearing the
way for more new car sales.

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

Your comments make a lot of sense to me. My dad built our first color
TV (and repaired it...usually running down to Thrifty Drug to use their
bulb tester); he would also rebuild cars (and was self-taught). The
appliances of the past were "simpler" as were our cars. Now that most
are running via circuit boards there's no more of the replace defective
fuse or plug thing (sometimes it is though...should still try that).
I'm also one of those who prefers the non-hybrid high MPG cars (in
order: 1 Fiesta, 2 Festiva's and currently 1 Yaris) for the specific
reasons you mention.

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.


Simple bi-metal switch as part of the trigger mechanism of the popper
upper.

Which reminds me.. my lady friend bought me a Hot Dog toaster for
Christmas. You put the buns in each end vertically, and two hot dogs in
the center vertically and push down on the handle. Just like a real
toaster.

Works like a champ too. Nuking em is still easier..but this was a very
nice thought. I eat a lot of hot dogs..

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

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

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


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

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

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

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies in
8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair), clearing the
way for more new car sales.

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

Epictitus wrote:

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

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'


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

This raises an apparent contradiction.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. 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 forgot to mention, it's not just government policies that drive hybrid
sales, some employers also give credits to employees. I was wondering
why I saw so many Priuses over by Google in Mountain View, then a friend
that works there told me that Google was giving $5000 to employees that
bought a Prius. I think that it's now $3000, as it proved to be so popular.

There is an article about the public and private promotion of hybrids at
"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202067,00.html"

Few people would buy hybrids without the perks of single-HOV use, or the
financial credits. The long-term cost of a hybrid is higher than
equivalent non-hybrid vehicles, given the added initial cost, and the
maintenance, though most people don't keep their cars long enough to
have to deal with the big-ticket hybrid maintenance items.

Ironically, the single-HOV use encourages hybrid use on freeways, where
there is no fuel efficiency advantage, plus the HOV lanes are often now
only marginally faster than the non-HOV lanes due to all the single
drivers in the HOV lanes.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:52:57 -0800, 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. 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.
In town traffic, a hybrid (toyota or honda design) DO polute less
because they never idle.

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

I found a website where you can report this "Planned Obselescence" at
http://www.designedtobreak.com. Apparently, you submit your report and
others can go there BEFORE they buy something to see what the track
record on that product is. Seems like a very young site, not many
posts, but a good idea.

I do believe that companies design products to fail, that's for sure!


On Jan 17, 11:08 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:52:57 -0800, 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. 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.In town traffic, a hybrid (toyota or honda design) DO polute less
because they never idle.

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

Rick Brandt wrote:

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.

Your thoughts?

TMT

Irreparable damageBy Bryce Baschuk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 9, 2007
Bill Jones, after 42 years, is finally closing the Procter Appliance
Service shop in Silver Spring.
"You can't make a good salary to survive on the way you could years
ago," said the 61-year-old owner of the oven, refrigerator and
washer-dryer repair shop. "Everything has changed in the appliance
business."

This raises an apparent contradiction. Most people believe that appliances were
built much better in the past than they are now and yet in the past a whole
industry survived on doing appliance repairs. Perhaps they only seemed to be
built better in the past because we kept them longer and the only reason we kept
them longer is because we repaired them instead of replacing them. The flipside
of that same coin is that perhaps today's appliances only seem to be inferior
because we replace them more often and the only reason we replace them more
often is because we don't repair them.

Yes.

"Rick Brandt" ) writes:

This raises an apparent contradiction. Most people believe that appliances were
built much better in the past than they are now and yet in the past a whole
industry survived on doing appliance repairs. Perhaps they only seemed to be
built better in the past because we kept them longer and the only reason we kept
them longer is because we repaired them instead of replacing them. The flipside
of that same coin is that perhaps today's appliances only seem to be inferior
because we replace them more often and the only reason we replace them more
often is because we don't repair them.

But what you had was a relative handful of items, that people took great
care in deciding about before purchasing, and cost quite a bit, and of
course when they needed repair the parts were generally generic, because
the items were generic.

No, the whole household is loaded with things. INstead of buying a few
things that you expected to last pretty much forever, and you'd want
to get the most out of, you buy something cheap because it might
be nice to have that sandwich maker or that $15 rotary tool. The things
have become cheap in part because demand has lowered costs (design costs
and profit can be spread over far more units), but also by cutting out
the expensive stuff.

So a tv set forty years ago was handwired (I have no clue whether that
was a good or bad thing, but it was costly) on a heavy metal chassis, and
was a significant purchase for most households. But when something
broke, the cost of repair was low compare to the cost of replacement, to
that tv set would be taken to the local repair shop. But, pretty much
all the parts in that tv set were generic, so that repair shop did not
have to be in some relationship with the manufacturer, and the parts could
be had at the local electronics store (and since those stores were selling
to all kinds of people, the same general parts to repair that tv set were
also used by they hobbyist and even the professional, the stores could
survive with a relatively small stock that was bought by many), so the
repair shop often didn't need to keep a lot of stock, especially not
a lot of specialized stock.

But in order to increase the market, manufacturers had to lower prices
so those who couldn't afford before could now. So they shifted to printed
circuit boards, and when ICs came along they started using them, which
allowed for higher integration (ie fewer overall parts). The smaller
parts meant no heavy chassis, which would have gone anyway because
that cost money, not just to buy the metal but you had to ship it
to the store near the consumer.

The price goes down. But the cost of repair stays the same, or goes
up, because tracking down the problem is labor intensive. Manufacturers
often switch to replacing boards, which keeps labor costs down but
means you aren't paying for a fifty cent part but the whole board.

So if you paid a thousand dollars for that color tv set in 1966 (just
a figure I pulled out of the air), the repair cost was a small percentage
of the cost of buying a new one. Plus, it was easier to pay out a little
here and a little there than to come up with another thousand to buy a new
tv set.

But if you paid a hundred dollars for that tv set today, you'd be
paying a good percentage of that cost in having a repairman try to
find the problem. That tips things in favor of buying new. Plus,
in order to get that tv set price so low, the parts aren't generic,
and the repairman has to deal with the manufacturer to get the replacement
parts. That ends up being problematic, or requires some sort of
contract with the manufactuer (and added cost). The tv sets are
no longer as generic as they were forty years ago, so the repairman
finds it harder to figure out what is wrong, often requiring service
material from the manufacturer, again an extra cost.

The cheaper something is to manufacture, the less sturdy it will be
mechanically, since that is one way to cut cost. Hence things are
less likely to last as long, even if people were willing to spend
the money to repair them rather than buy new.

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.

And there is the issue of just plain obsolescence. Forty years
ago, there'd hardly be any electronic items around the house. A
tv set or two, some radios, maybe a stereo. But look around now,
and everything is electronic. It's either been invented in the past forty
years (not even that long in many cases), or at the very least could not
have been a consumer item until recently. Once you have consumers buying
the latest thing, things are bound to go obsolete. Buy early, and things
still have to develop, which means the things really may become obsolete
in a few years. It's not the manufacturer doing this to "screw the
consumer", it's a combination of new developments and consumer demand.

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.)

Michael

Michael Black wrote
Rick Brandt ) wrote

This raises an apparent contradiction. Most people believe that
appliances were built much better in the past than they are now and
yet in the past a whole industry survived on doing appliance
repairs. Perhaps they only seemed to be built better in the past
because we kept them longer and the only reason we kept them longer
is because we repaired them instead of replacing them. The flipside
of that same coin is that perhaps today's appliances only seem to be
inferior because we replace them more often and the only reason we
replace them more often is because we don't repair them.

But what you had was a relative handful of items, that
people took great care in deciding about before purchasing,

Most didnt.

and cost quite a bit,

Readily affordable.

and of course when they needed repair the parts were generally generic,

You clearly aint ever been involved in the repair industry.

because the items were generic.

No they werent.

No, the whole household is loaded with things. INstead of
buying a few things that you expected to last pretty much
forever, and you'd want to get the most out of, you buy
something cheap because it might be nice to have that
sandwich maker or that $15 rotary tool. The things have
become cheap in part because demand has lowered costs
(design costs and profit can be spread over far more units),

Nope, because they are churned out in low labor cost countrys.

but also by cutting out the expensive stuff.

Nope, in fact they have more expensive stuff than they used to, most
obviously with digital timers and clocks etc that are almost universal now.

So a tv set forty years ago was handwired

No it wasnt, that had stopped well before that.

(I have no clue whether that was a good or bad thing,

The use of tubes was the bad thing with those designs.

but it was costly) on a heavy metal chassis, and was a significant
purchase for most households. But when something broke, the
cost of repair was low compare to the cost of replacement, to
that tv set would be taken to the local repair shop.

Yes.

But, pretty much all the parts in that tv set were generic, so
that repair shop did not have to be in some relationship with the
manufacturer, and the parts could be had at the local electronics
store (and since those stores were selling to all kinds of people,
the same general parts to repair that tv set were also used by they
hobbyist and even the professional, the stores could survive with a
relatively small stock that was bought by many), so the repair shop often
didn't need to keep a lot of stock, especially not a lot of specialized stock.

But in order to increase the market, manufacturers had
to lower prices so those who couldn't afford before
could now. So they shifted to printed circuit boards,

That had happened well before that.

And the shift wasnt due to cost, it was due to the move to semiconductors.

and when ICs came along they started using them,
which allowed for higher integration (ie fewer overall parts).
The smaller parts meant no heavy chassis, which would have
gone anyway because that cost money, not just to buy the
metal but you had to ship it to the store near the consumer.

The shipping cost was a tiny part of the total retail price.

The price goes down. But the cost of repair stays the same,
or goes up, because tracking down the problem is labor intensive.

Wrong. The repair cost dropped dramatically because the fault rate
dropped dramatically with the change to semiconductors. ICs in spades.

Manufacturers often switch to replacing boards,
which keeps labor costs down but means you aren't
paying for a fifty cent part but the whole board.

You can always change the fifty cent part on the board.

The real reason for the change is because it was much
cheaper to stamp out a new board than to diagnose a
fault using expensive first world skilled labor.

Much cheaper to pay a much cheaper board stuffing monkey
even when that was still not automated and done in the first world.

So if you paid a thousand dollars for that color tv set in
1966 (just a figure I pulled out of the air), the repair cost
was a small percentage of the cost of buying a new one.

In fact by then they didnt need much repair.

Plus, it was easier to pay out a little here and a little there
than to come up with another thousand to buy a new tv set.

But if you paid a hundred dollars for that tv set
today, you'd be paying a good percentage of that
cost in having a repairman try to find the problem.

Yep, because it costs a lot less to pay a low wage asian
to make you a new one than to pay a skilled first world
tech to find what would mostly be a hard to find fault with
an adequately designed modern TV which hardly ever fails.

That tips things in favor of buying new. Plus, in order
to get that tv set price so low, the parts aren't generic,

The bulk of them still are.

and the repairman has to deal with the
manufacturer to get the replacement parts.

Hardly ever.

That ends up being problematic, or requires some
sort of contract with the manufactuer (and added cost).

Nope.

The tv sets are no longer as generic as they were forty years ago,

They also fail at a vastly lower rate too.

so the repairman finds it harder to figure out what is wrong,

Because a properly design modern TV doesnt fail due to routine faults anymore.

often requiring service material from the manufacturer,

That was always the case.

again an extra cost.

The cheaper something is to manufacture, the less sturdy
it will be mechanically, since that is one way to cut cost.

Wrong again, most obviously with modern
plug packs and molded power cords.

In spades with modern switch mode plug packs.

Hence things are less likely to last as long, even if people were
willing to spend the money to repair them rather than buy new.

Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with TVs.

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.

Sure, but thats not planned obsolescence which isnt even possible.

And there is the issue of just plain obsolescence. Forty years
ago, there'd hardly be any electronic items around the house.

Thats overstating it.

A tv set or two, some radios, maybe a stereo.

Hardly maybe on the stereo.

But look around now, and everything is electronic.

Not quite everything. And when the electronic stuff is much
more reliable than the mechanical stuff ever was, there
clearly aint any planned obsolescence involved.

While there is certainly some stuff that is guaranteed to fail first,
most obviously with rechargable batterys, those are used for the
convenience of those, not for any 'planned obsolescence' reason.

It's either been invented in the past forty years (not even that long in many
cases), or at the very least could not have been a consumer item until recently.
Once you have consumers buying the latest thing, things are bound to go obsolete.
Buy early, and things still have to develop, which means the things really may
become obsolete in a few years. It's not the manufacturer doing this to "screw
the consumer", it's a combination of new developments and consumer demand.

If my computer from 1979 had been intended to last forever,
it would have been way out of range in terms of price.

In practice most of them still work fine.

Because they'd have to anticipate how much things would
change, and build in enough so upgrading would be doable.

Upgrade was doable, just not sensible.

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 they did that anyway, most obviously with socketed
cpus that hardly ever got changed. They're still doing that.

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.)

And they're so cheap that is a perfectly sensible thing to do. In spades with laptops.

"Michael Black" wrote in message ...
So a tv set forty years ago was handwired (I have no clue whether that
was a good or bad thing, but it was costly) on a heavy metal chassis, and
was a significant purchase for most households. But when something
broke, the cost of repair was low compare to the cost of replacement, to
that tv set would be taken to the local repair shop. But, pretty much
all the parts in that tv set were generic, so that repair shop did not
have to be in some relationship with the manufacturer, and the parts could
be had at the local electronics store (and since those stores were selling
to all kinds of people, the same general parts to repair that tv set were
also used by they hobbyist and even the professional, the stores could
survive with a relatively small stock that was bought by many), so the
repair shop often didn't need to keep a lot of stock, especially not
a lot of specialized stock.


Also because the failure rate was so high, most failures would be
simply a burnt-out vacuum tube. These repairs were relatively easy
to fix and a TV repairman could make a living charging for simple
quick house calls. Most corner drugstores had a tube-tester for the
DIY repairman and a stock of common tubes 12AU7, etc.

Eventually and after replacing a lot of tubes the TV would need
realignment.

Modern TV's hardly ever need to be realigned. This is not the
result of planned obselescence. It is the result of phasing-in
new improvements in technology as it develops. For instance,
it is just-as-easy to manufacture a chip with 100,000 transistors
as with one or two. This means circuitry can be made extra-stable,
and to some extent, self-healing, and self-aligning.

Don

Don K wrote:

"Michael Black" wrote in message ...
So a tv set forty years ago was handwired (I have no clue whether that
was a good or bad thing, but it was costly) on a heavy metal chassis, and
was a significant purchase for most households. But when something
broke, the cost of repair was low compare to the cost of replacement, to
that tv set would be taken to the local repair shop. But, pretty much
all the parts in that tv set were generic, so that repair shop did not
have to be in some relationship with the manufacturer, and the parts could
be had at the local electronics store (and since those stores were selling
to all kinds of people, the same general parts to repair that tv set were
also used by they hobbyist and even the professional, the stores could
survive with a relatively small stock that was bought by many), so the
repair shop often didn't need to keep a lot of stock, especially not
a lot of specialized stock.

Also because the failure rate was so high, most failures would be
simply a burnt-out vacuum tube. These repairs were relatively easy
to fix and a TV repairman could make a living charging for simple
quick house calls. Most corner drugstores had a tube-tester for the
DIY repairman and a stock of common tubes 12AU7, etc.

Eventually and after replacing a lot of tubes the TV would need
realignment.

Modern TV's hardly ever need to be realigned. This is not the
result of planned obselescence. It is the result of phasing-in
new improvements in technology as it develops. For instance,
it is just-as-easy to manufacture a chip with 100,000 transistors
as with one or two. This means circuitry can be made extra-stable,
and to some extent, self-healing, and self-aligning.

Don


That doesn't stop you from having bad SAW filters, though.

--
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

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.

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.

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.

It occurs because it is allowed to occur.

TMT
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.