Anyone else fed up of mass-produced, disposable carp?

I remember seeing something about this, technology manufacturers used to make schematics available which made diagnosis/repair much more easy. Now they don't and will probably actively put out scare stories about how getting your device fixed will lead to it blowing up and destroying your house.

It's like Doobedoo says everything today is designed to be obsolete 1-3 years down the line, for example mobile phone manufacturers stop releasing security updates or cripple performance under the guise of saving battery, printer manufacturers force people to buy new cartridges constantly even to the extent of artificially limiting the number of pages you can print, you can have a cartridge with half a tank of ink still left but it will report as empty.

It's safe to say we live in a world where corporations set the rules and the problem is they will crush any competition that might try to challenge the way they do things and have a more consumer orientated policy, so it's not exactly capitalism that we have more corporatism. Look at how independent news is being censored online by the big media corporations in alliance with social media corporations. It's all a big club and the small business/little guy isn't in it. What do you do if corporations collude to fix prices or in the case of corporate media push propaganda and crush any competition who try to challenge them?
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
I remember seeing something about this, technology manufacturers used to make schematics available which made diagnosis/repair much more easy. Now they don't and will probably actively put out scare stories about how getting your device fixed will lead to it blowing up and destroying your house.

It's like Doobedoo says everything today is designed to be obsolete 1-3 years down the line, for example mobile phone manufacturers stop releasing security updates or cripple performance under the guise of saving battery, printer manufacturers force people to buy new cartridges constantly even to the extent of artificially limiting the number of pages you can print, you can have a cartridge with half a tank of ink still left but it will report as empty.

It's safe to say we live in a world where corporations set the rules and the problem is they will crush any competition that might try to challenge the way they do things and have a more consumer orientated policy, so it's not exactly capitalism that we have more corporatism. Look at how independent news is being censored online by the big media corporations in alliance with social media corporations. It's all a big club and the small business/little guy isn't in it. What do you do if corporations collude to fix prices or push propaganda and crush any competition?
Click to expand...
Yep nice to see you referencing George Carlin at the end :).

I always thought that the pcp/car finance craze that we know see is part of planned obsolescence. Most finance deals are structured for about 3 years and that is all the manufacturers need to worry about. No proof or anything it’s what I would expect to be the case. Money rules above all else.

If anyone is genuinely Interested then I highly recommend another documentary based on the legacy of the little known but extremely influential Edward Bernaise called The century of the self.
 
Last edited:
A lot of products are just value engineered, there's probably no conspiracy. The stuff won't last because designers/manufacturers have shaved as many pennies off the cost of production as possible.
 
a lot of it is done at the design phase, especially for things like white goods.

part of it is planned obsolescence, ie not wanting to be competing against your own goods, i can only assume that the disposable economy is more profitable than selling spares.

the other part of it is liability, companies don't want the pr disaster that would result if someone repaired one of their products and injured themselves in the process, the easy solution is to simply not provide spares or lock them down within approved repairers.

combine that with a philosophy of designing things for ease and rapidity of manufacture rather than ease of service. the best example of this is the prevalence of plastic snap-clips as opposed to screws, much faster to assemble and much harder to disassemble for repair. it also doesn't help that a lot of modern electronics can't be diagnosed without specialist equipment and a lot of knowledge in how the system works, at least compared to the simpler mechanical control systems things used to have where chances are you could at least see the problem.
 
mmj_uk said:
I remember seeing something about this, technology manufacturers used to make schematics available which made diagnosis/repair much more easy. Now they don't and will probably actively put out scare stories about how getting your device fixed will lead to it blowing up and destroying your house.

It's like @Doobedoo says everything today is designed to be obsolete 1-3 years down the line, for example mobile phone manufacturers stop releasing security updates or cripple performance under the guise of saving battery, printer manufacturers force people to buy new cartridges constantly even to the extent of artificially limiting the number of pages you can print, you can have a cartridge with half a tank of ink still left but it will report as empty.

It's safe to say we live in a world where corporations set the rules and the problem is they will crush any competition that might try to challenge the way they do things and have a more consumer orientated policy, so it's not exactly capitalism that we have more corporatism. Look at how independent news is being censored online by the big media corporations in alliance with social media corporations. It's all a big club and the small business/little guy isn't in it. What do you do if corporations collude to fix prices or in the case of corporate media push propaganda and crush any competition who try to challenge them?
Click to expand...

Your friendly EU politicians are working towards reducing this, see step 1:

Household appliances will become easier to repair thanks to new standards being adopted across the European Union.

From 2021, firms will have to make appliances longer-lasting, and they will have to supply spare parts for machines for up to 10 years.

The rules apply to lighting, washing machines, dishwashers and fridges.
Click to expand...
 
Could make it better and just put a mandatory 5-10 year warranty on all those white goods. You’ll be surprised how quickly they can make their products reliable when it threatens their bottom line.

They should be graded on how reliable their products are and those not up to the standard should face financial penalties for the damage caused to the environment.
 
Doobedoo said:
Could make it better and just put a mandatory 5-10 year warranty on all those white goods. You’ll be surprised how quickly they can make their products reliable when it threatens their bottom line.

They should be graded on how reliable their products are and those not up to the standard should face financial penalties for the damage caused to the environment.
Click to expand...

But that's likely to drive the price of goods up higher - should lower end items not be allowed?
 
Sudden said:
But that's likely to drive the price of goods up higher - should lower end items not be allowed?
Click to expand...
Lower end items shouldn’t really mean poorly made and unreliable though. Your not really saving money if a you buy a washing machine for £200 that last a year or two, a £200 washing machine ends up costing £400 and more energy to produce and more in raw materials dug up and mined from the earth.

firms will have to make appliances longer-lasting
Click to expand...

Reliability should really be a manufactures ultimate aim and number one priority, not silly little gimmicks like wi-fi controllable hair tongs.
 
Doobedoo said:
Could make it better and just put a mandatory 5-10 year warranty on all those white goods. You’ll be surprised how quickly they can make their products reliable when it threatens their bottom line.

They should be graded on how reliable their products are and those not up to the standard should face financial penalties for the damage caused to the environment.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a step in the right direction, no?

I suspect things will start changing as the younger generations get older as they seem to be more aware of the world they'll inherit.
 
I think reusable/modular flat pack furniture also needs to be more commonplace. Well, why limit it to just flat pack?
 
Doobedoo said:
Lower end items shouldn’t really mean poorly made and unreliable though. Your not really saving money if a you buy a washing machine for £200 that last a year or two, a £200 washing machine ends up costing £400 and more energy to produce and more in raw materials dug up and mined from the earth.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you're a consumer who needs a washing machine and can only afford one for £200, you're effectively stopping them from being able to purhcase one.

The current law is around 'fit for purpose' and gives leeway. Yes it means there's a grey area and it's less clearcut, but also means that you have a right to expect something expensive to last you for a proportionate amount of time. It isn't really possible to say if it costs 'x' it should last 'y' and give figures for x and y in law, but the concept is there in law.
 
Sudden said:
Yes, but if you're a consumer who needs a washing machine and can only afford one for £200, you're effectively stopping them from being able to purhcase one.

The current law is around 'fit for purpose' and gives leeway. Yes it means there's a grey area and it's less clearcut, but also means that you have a right to expect something expensive to last you for a proportionate amount of time. It isn't really possible to say if it costs 'x' it should last 'y' and give figures for x and y in law, but the concept is there in law.
Click to expand...
Are you assuming that's it's not possible to build a £200 washing machine that lasts 10 years? I would question that, tbh.

But as others have said, spending £400 on a washing machine that lasts 10 years is better than buying a £200 washing machine every 2 years..

And, frankly, we have to look at the environmental cost and start weighing that more heavily than simple convenience or ultra-affordability.

After all where do you draw the line? What about consumers that can only afford a £150 washing machine? What about consumers that can only afford a £120 washing machine.. What about..

If we don't start seriously trying to reverse our disposable, throw-away culture we will be the losers in the long run. It's not sustainable and just about everybody can see that now.

Sod "I want cheap", let's start seeing the bigger picture, and what it costs the planet to buy (and throw away) endless quantities of cheap, disposable carp.

(e: In case anybody is wondering.. I've had the same phone since 2012, the same TV since 2012, mostly the same computer since 2012.. I don't go on holiday (since about 2009?), and I try incredibly hard to re-use everything and throw nothing away.

I genuinely feel depressed when I look at the people rushing out to buy new this, new that, for the sake of it.. because they can, because that's what they earn the big bucks for, to have a new sofa every year, new this, new that, and chuck the old stuff away..

Not saying I'm a martyr or anything, it's just consumerism really does not impress me much)
 
Last edited:
Washing machines are pretty trivial - I've got one in my flat that is about 10 years old now, I don't fancy replacing it as it is a built in one that has a cupboard door on the front (ditto to the dishwasher - which also has the additional complication that it's a non standard sized one, slim model to fit in a flat etc..).

Washing machine broke a couple of years ago but it was just a quick fix needed with the brushes - those are replaced now and no further problems with it so far...

It's Bosch like all the other stuff in the kitchen and they seem to be pretty well made.
 
FoxEye said:
Are you assuming that's it's not possible to build a £200 washing machine that lasts 10 years? I would question that, tbh.

But as others have said, spending £400 on a washing machine that lasts 10 years is better than buying a £200 washing machine every 2 years..

And, frankly, we have to look at the environmental cost and start weighing that more heavily than simple convenience or ultra-affordability.

After all where do you draw the line? What about consumers that can only afford a £150 washing machine? What about consumers that can only afford a £120 washing machine.. What about..

If we don't start seriously trying to reverse our disposable, throw-away culture we will be the losers in the long run. It's not sustainable and just about everybody can see that now.

Sod "I want cheap", let's start seeing the bigger picture, and what it costs the planet to buy (and throw away) endless quantities of cheap, disposable carp.

(e: In case anybody is wondering.. I've had the same phone since 2012, the same TV since 2012, mostly the same computer since 2012.. I don't go on holiday (since about 2009?), and I try incredibly hard to re-use everything and throw nothing away.

I genuinely feel depressed when I look at the people rushing out to buy new this, new that, for the sake of it.. because they can, because that's what they earn the big bucks for, to have a new sofa every year, new this, new that, and chuck the old stuff away..

Not saying I'm a martyr or anything, it's just consumerism really does not impress me much)
Click to expand...

I used 200 as the figure since that's what the poster I was quoting used. Point was that no matter what the lower end is, forcing manufacturers to say 'it must last x years' will increase the cost at the lower end of the scale. It's likely not going to affect the higher end as much since people would already expect them to last longer (and rightly so, since that's part of what you pay for). Whilst some people are going low end in order to save cash and could afford to spend more, I'm sure there are some who can't (though perhaps I'm wrong?) so it seems wrong to force them to spend more or do without.

It's a fair point that we decide to favour environment over convenience. There has been a marked shift against single use plastics etc (at least my perception is that there has been) but that's where it's manageable. I don't think it is right (at the moment anyway) to do that with goods that some people would consider essential. Personally, I hate wasting money so I wouldn't replace something unless either I had to, or I really really wanted to. But I tend to think 10 times before spending on things, even though I could afford do easily enough. The amount is irrelevant to me and it's much more the idea of it. On the extreme end, took me a week to decide to buy the Commandos pack on Steam at 89p, because I already had them on CD and I wondered if it was really worth it :p
 
FoxEye said:
Are you assuming that's it's not possible to build a £200 washing machine that lasts 10 years? I would question that, tbh. [..]
Click to expand...

Even if it is possible to build stuff that lasts 10 years but which can still be sold at a profit for the same price as the cheapest stuff today that will probably only last 2 years, it can't be done with the current socio-economic-political systems.

You're almost certainly right to say that a disposible, throw-away culture isn't sustainable. But neither is long-lasting stuff sold cheaply. Not without radical changes to, well, everything. You'd need most things to be manufactured on a not-for-profit basis or even at a loss as a public service. Something close to working communism, which has never existed and quite possibly can't exist.

You say you've had the same TV since 2012, so I'll use TVs as an example. It applies to everything, though.

ACME makes TVs. They spend £30M a year on ongoing costs. Payroll, maintainence of buildings and equipment, accounting for replacement costs for things that won't last forever (e.g. the equipment), etc.

They sell a million TVs in a year. Very good quality, long-lasting TVs. Guaranteed for 5 years. On average, customers keep those TVs for 10 years because there isn't a disposible, throw-away culture any more and everyone keeps stuff for far longer. The TVs sell at retail for £250. ACME sells them to retailers for £200. It costs ACME £150 to manufacture each TV and get it to the retailers. So ACME make £50M from the sales, pay the £30M ongoing costs and have a profit of £20M.

The next year none of those million customers buy a new TV or any parts because the TV they bought is working fine and is still under guarantee anyway. ACME still has those £30M ongoing costs, so this year it has a loss of £30M. Total loss is now £10M.

The next year none of those million customers buy a new TV or any parts because the TV they bought is working fine and is still under guarantee anyway. ACME still has those £30M ongoing costs, so this year it has a loss of £30M. Total loss is now £40M.

The next year none of those million customers buy a new TV or any parts because the TV they bought is working fine and is still under guarantee anyway. ACME still has those £30M ongoing costs, so this year it has a loss of £30M. Total loss is now £70M.

You can see where this is going. Whatever the numbers are, the problem is the same. If a business sells a widget every 10 years, it must make 10 years worth of profit on each widget. The lower the current margin, the greater the required increase in price.
 
Eurofighter said:
Just make it law to have to offer a 10 year warrenty. Same for cars.
Click to expand...
Exactly no need to mess around let the manufacturers worry about how to make profit because it doesn’t interest me in the slightest.

I’m a man of modest means so I don’t want to pay over the odds but I guess some may have to prioritise a descent washing machine over a sky subscription or a night out. That’s what I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom