Hacker News Reader

Comment by Workaccount2 | Hacker News Reader

I am assuming you are an ee (like myself)...I have never designed a product with a built in expiration, nor have I ever seen any app notes or write ups on the engineering of it - something engineers love to do.

What I have seen done is cheaping out on parts in order to get the price as low as possible, because customers shop primarily on price.

Not to lash out, but it kind of hits a nerve for me, because people think we design products to purposely fail. Hell no, we try really hard to do the opposite, but everyone just loves to buy the cheapest shit.

The $25 LED bulb that will last for eternity will rot on the shelf next to the $3 bulb that will probably be dead in 6 months. And one more "they build these things to fail" complaint will be posted online.

View on HN

To be fair this is hardly limited to EE and is the issue with the race to the bottom in all product categories. Make long-lasting high-quality 100$ pants? People prefer spending 10$ on Shein.

Additionally, the issue is that as a consumer, it's not easy to differentiate between quality markup and greedy markup. I don't see the cap manufacturer on the box so the 25$ light bulb might last 10 years or it might last 6 months just like the 3$ one. At least with the 3$ one I can come back and buy another...

> Make long-lasting high-quality 100$ pants? People prefer spending 10$ on Shein.

This is just fashion, right? As something becomes commoditised, it starts to become subject to fashion, which means cheap and looks fashionable is more important than durability. So you can buy one every year and keep up, and throw away the old one.

> as a consumer, it's not easy to differentiate between quality markup and greedy markup

This is so true and insightful. Even plenty of so-called “luxury goods” are trash. And outside of luxury, it seems like most markets are dominated by roughly 90-99.9% products that are all identically garbage, just ranging from 1%, 2% up to 800% profit margins. So the person buying the high-end brand and the one buying from Aliexpress both have the same quality components (trash tier) and sometimes the same PCBs and designs. If you want a good quality refrigerator, you can buy a Viking or something for $9,000, or spend any amount of your choice from $800-5000 for something that will die in 2 years and be outside of warranty. It makes my blood boil, especially in areas like appliances, where the amount of waste, by tonnage, is super offensive.

it's also not like the Viking refrigerator will last appreciably longer than a cheaper make... their warranties can be noticeably shorter than their competitors even though they somehow charge 2x-10x the price.

I agree with what you said - engineers do the best they can with the budget but the budget is small because people won’t pay for things that last - but it’s worth saying that any boards with electrolytic capacitors have an inherent built in expiration. Any product with rubber has an expiration. Any product with permanent batteries, glued or sealed assemblies, or no spare parts. Much of that is with the customer’s budget, sure. But these days, even among expensive things, nearly nothing is built to last.

The problem is that consumers cannot tell whether the more more expensive one is high quality or whether it is just the same as the cheap one, just priced higher.

There have been plenty of discussions on HN about brands that used to produce durable products no longer doing so. I mostly buy cheap stuff because I assume that everything will be built as cheaply as possible, so I will get something that will not last anyway.

Yes, so tragic really. The few people out there not just churning out disposable crap, are not even getting the business of people like you and me, because we know so few can be trusted that we just buy the cheapest thing.

I seriously doubt it's ever a deliberate conspiracy in engineering apart from shenanigans like what happened at VW, but it's net effect of product managers, accountants, and contract manufacturers who modify PCBs and BOMs after it's passed off to them to save money on retail products. And so it's likely unintentional with negligence, but it benefits the company. Except for some Samsung appliances made ~ 2010-2014 which seemed to fail just after their warranties expired. I suspect highly-optimized designs for "consumables" like incandescent lightbulbs and parts for cars use data to tweak design life, more often than not, in their favor. And, with the pressures of multinational oligopolies and BlackRock/Vanguard/State Street.. there is little incentive to invest $100M into a moderately-superior incandescent lightbulb using yesterday's technology that lasts 100kh and 5k cycles and sells for $1 more than the next one. Maybe if we (perhaps a science/engineering nonprofit thinktank that spanned the world and gave away designs and manufacturing expertise) had quasi-communism for R&D, we could have very nice things.

It's not my fault if other people are too dumb to comprehend TCO because I would buy the $25 bulb if it had a 30 year warranty.

> Except for some Samsung appliances made ~ 2010-2014 which seemed to fail just after their warranties expired.

And? That just sounds like they have good engineers. If you are designing a machine, you have an target lifetime. You'd obviously want the product to last through the warranty period, because warranty claims are a cost to the company.

Every choice of a component affects lifetime. Designers of mass-market products can't just use premium components everywhere -- the mass market will not pay steep premiums for otherwise equivalent products.

Value engineering and planned obsolescence are not the same thing, but they are often confused.

That being said, Samsung appliances suck and I hate them. Mine failed within warranty several times.

> And, with the pressures of multinational oligopolies and BlackRock/Vanguard/State Street.. there is little incentive to invest $100M into a moderately-superior incandescent lightbulb using yesterday's technology that lasts 100kh and 5k cycles and sells for $1 more than the next one.

It isn't that. It's pressure at the shelf that does it. Consumers behavior simply does not reward equivalent-feature products with premium components that claim (true or not) to have a longer lifespan. Unfortunately, they will buy based on their uninformed sense of quality first.

If you release a light bulb that is identical to the best selling one on the shelf, but claims 10x lifespan, your competitor will do something like gluing a weight in theirs, putting some marketing BS on the box, and will put you out of business. Consumers just don't pick products based on actual quality.

You're making a pretty awkward value judgement about what a "good" engineer is, but you're describing an unethical one with a bizword like "value engineering". I realize ethics are no longer understood by much of Western society because the culture teaches transactionality, worships trickle-down economics and greed, and hyperindividualism.

> It isn't that. It's pressure at the shelf that does it. Consumers behavior simply does not reward equivalent-feature products with premium components that claim (true or not) to have a longer lifespan. Unfortunately, they will buy based on their uninformed sense of quality first.

This is a failure of marketing and buzz of the sales channel(s) and manufacturers to educate properly, not the failure of the customer.

A good engineer is one that has a job, doesn't put their employer out of business, and produces work that fulfills the requirements they're given.

Many people think there's some unethical conspiracy going on, and consumers actually want a product that lasts a long time, but companies are refusing to give it to them. But this is projection of individual preferences on to the market as a whole. Consumers want cheap shit that is in fashion, and their buying preferences prove this time and again. Maybe you want a 50 year old toaster in your kitchen, other people are buying products based on other factors.

If consumers really wanted to pay a premium for high duty-cycle equipment with premium lifespans, they can already do that by buying commercial grade equipment. But they don't.

If you are familiar with the history of home appliances, you'd probably come to appreciate the phrase 'value engineering'. Even poor people can afford basic electric appliances now because of the ingenuous ways that engineers have designed surprisingly usable appliances out of very minimal and efficient designs.

If you look at ads for electric toasters 100 years ago, you'd see they cost over $300 in today's money adjusted for inflation. Thank god for value engineering.

A good engineer provides value to society. If they fulfill requirements that are bad for others then they are not good engineers.

I seems to me that there is also a social dynamic to things. If consumer grade products become a race to the bottom then it is going to become more difficult for regular people to purchase products which aren't low quality. There's also a degree to which society (e.g. in the form of government policy, cost of living adjustments, etc.) factors in differences in prices.

The fact that poor people can now afford to own some household appliances isn't a huge value to society?

It completely changed the way our societies operate. I think it is a good thing that people have the option to buy crappy washing machines, rather than being forced to use the washboard and bucket my grandmother used. Yeah, they sometimes do develop a bad belt, or the timer mechanism might fail. But it beats being unwillingly forced into homemaking as a career.

The world only has so much wealth to go around, and that isn't the moral quandary of the engineer picking an item on a BOM on Tuesday morning to fix. If anything, squeezing a few more pennies out of that BOM is going to lift some people at the fringes out of poverty. At the opposite end of the product value equation, every unused and functional component in every product that is no longer in service, is wealth that is wasted that could have been spent elsewhere.

> If anything, squeezing a few more pennies out of that BOM is going to lift some people at the fringes out of poverty.

If it squeezes a small but solid chunk out of product lifetime too, then it's also likely to harm people on the fringes. If they can buy it with one less month of savings, but then it breaks a couple months earlier, they're probably worse off. (For actual pennies divide both of those numbers by some orders of magnitude.)

Yeah, walk up to someone in the hood and tell them that for 15% more they could have got [insert product] that last 2x as long. You're gonna get punched in the face, because they already know that. They're not dumb. What you're missing is the time-value of owning something now, which is greatly amplified when life is tough.

People don’t want to walk their clothes basket down to the laundromat for one more month while they save for the nicer washer that lasts a little bit longer. They want the cheap one now, because they just got off some shitty shift at work, and they’re sick and tired of lugging their laundry down the street. Having a quality washer [x] years from now is not a desired part of the equation. Immediacy is of higher value.

1. Immediacy doesn't help once it breaks and you can't buy a new one for years.

2. If everything lasts twice as long for 15% more, you can get a half-expired used one for even cheaper.

> they already know that. They're not dumb.

I think they're not dumb and they already know it's extremely difficult to figure out which brand fits that criteria, if any, so it's not worth it because it's such a gamble.

> it's not worth it because it's such a gamble.

That's also true. At the individual unit level, small differences in MTTF/MTBF are negligible because product failures are naturally distributed anyway. The mean time is just a mean, and nobody gives a shit about a good mean product failure rate when theirs happened to fail below the mean. That's true no matter how much you spent.

(Butting into your 2-person conversation to point out:)

> At the opposite end of the product value equation, every unused and functional component in every product that is no longer in service, is wealth that is wasted

This also is a counterpoint to your position though: of everything that goes into say, a fridge, it’s all wasted in 5 years now because Samsung chooses to put a PCB that is barely fit for purpose and will just fail with an error code, and because instead of putting such a failure-prone part behind a door and using an edge connector so it can be swapped in 5 minutes, they bury it God-knows-where in the chassis requiring an $800 labor charge, and charge $300 for the part. (As though that PCB is actually more complex than an iPad logic board, lol). So the whole 600 pounds of steel, refrigerant, insulation, glass, ice maker, and the compressor goes to the dump since who would invest $800 in a fridge that could have the same failure in a month and only the part is warrantied (you have to pay labor again). The poor people you’re worried about are buying these components over and over again because the appliance makers like this system. All this is done in bad faith. They’re morally bankrupt compared to their grandfathers who made appliances that lasted decades.

Engineers are to consider public safety first. This is not negotiable for real hardware engineering. Poor people could always purchase used appliances.

I agree that products shouldn't be unsafe. And value engineering does not mean making products unsafe.

> Poor people could always purchase used appliances.

The reality in mid 20th century US demonstrates this isn't the case. Most went without the modern appliances that are commonplace today.

> If consumers really wanted to pay a premium for high duty-cycle equipment with premium lifespans, they can already do that by buying commercial grade equipment. But they don't.

That costs a ton. I just want a better lifespan, I don't want to 20x the duty cycle and also pay B2B prices.

It's too hard to figure out which consumer products have a better lifespan, so companies do a bad job of catering to that need. This makes companies try too hard to be cheapest, and they often fall below the sweet spot of longevity versus price. Then everyone is worse off. That's not the fault of the engineer but it still means the engineer is participating in making things worse.

> That costs a ton. I just want a better lifespan, I don't want to 20x the duty cycle and also pay B2B prices.

Therein lies the problem. A more durable product exists, and yet, even you don't want to pay more for it. And you are likely much more privileged than the rest of the world. What do you expect the rest of the world to be doing? Most of the world isn't picky about whether their hand mixer has plastic bushings or ball bearings. They're are choosing between any appliance at all and mixing their food with a spoon.

> It's too hard to figure out which consumer products have a better lifespan, so companies do a bad job of catering to that need.

There are many companies that try to break this barrier over and over, with tons of marketing material proclaiming their superiority. Why do they all fail? Because their hypothesis is wrong. The majority of the mass market doesn't want appliances that last for tens of thousands of hours. Most people use their appliances very lightly and for short periods of time before replacing them.

I think a lot of people on this forum have points of view tainted by privilege. Poor people aren't dumb, they know that they are buying cheap stuff that doesn't last as long as more premium options. They're making these options intentionally because a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush to them.

> A more durable product exists, and yet, even you don't want to pay more for it.

This is disingenuous as hell.

I want to buy a version that cost 15% more to make. I don't want to buy a version that cost 3x as much to make (or is priced as if it does).

When I can't find the former, that is part of problem. When I don't buy the latter, that is not part of the problem.

> They're making these options intentionally because a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush to them.

The best way to have the most birds in hands on an ongoing basis is to optimize for both price and lifetime per dollar, not just price.

> I want to buy a version that cost 15% more to make. I don't want to buy a version that cost 3x as much to make (or is priced as if it does).

Well, it just doesn't work that way. Premium components that truly extend product life are multiplicatively more expensive than what you'll find in value engineered products, if not exponentially so. Furthermore, a product that is 15% more expensive than competitors won't sell 15% fewer units, it will sell significantly fewer units, and then your fixed costs will also be higher, on top of the higher BOM costs.

Quality products with measurably longer lifespans in pretty much any product category are significantly more expensive than lower quality equivalents. The entire global manufacturing industry isn't in on some conspiracy.

You are the one that came up with the 15% number. And you also said that the difference between a 5 year washing machine and a 30 year washing machine is probably "a matter of tens of dollars". Why is it suddenly multiplicatively or exponentially more expensive? There's a lot of low-hanging fruit, and I'm focused on consumer duty cycles.

It's not a conspiracy when a product that is somewhat more expensive but lasts much longer per dollar doesn't sell well, but it is a market failure.

I think it if was clear at a glance that such a product lasts much longer, there'd be enough buyers to avoid the low-volume costs. At least in many markets for many kinds of product.

The 15% number was in a different context in a different thread: "walking up to someone" in public, which presumably wouldn't be about an appliance because people keep those in their homes and don't walk around on the street with one. In that context I was thinking potentially a clothing accessory or something. Either way, the point in that thread didn't matter, because it wasn't about the number but about the socioeconomic impact of immediacy on quality of life. Doesn't matter if it was 10% or 1000%.

> And you also said that the difference between a 5 year washing machine and a 30 year washing machine is probably "a matter of tens of dollars". Why is it suddenly multiplicatively or exponentially more expensive?

You're conflating my statements about BOM costs and the final price of the product, which are two entirely different things. Demand is not a constant for your product at any price (because the market is likely elastic, and you have competitors). Demand will go down as price increases, often sharply. If you add tens of dollars in BOM cost, your product sells fewer units as a result, and now you have fewer units to spread the (potentially significant) fixed costs across. So, unfortunately the tens of dollars in BOM cost might mean hundreds in cost to the end consumer.

I think if there was a way to see the quality the sales would not drop like that.

But if you insist they would, then we can talk about a world where that level of quality is the minimum. Somehow. I don't really care how. It would be better, yeah?

If you really care, you can still get an excellently-engineered $300 toaster today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAbz9mfaj0

> I realize ethics are no longer understood by much of Western society because the culture teaches transactionality, worships trickle-down economics and greed, and hyperindividualism.

You realise incorrectly, I would say. It's very defensible to claim that Western society has the most - by a giant margin - social, economic and technological advances in history, and to boil it down to this is just a bit silly, in my opinion.

> And? That just sounds like they have good engineers. If you are designing a machine, you have an target lifetime. You'd obviously want the product to last through the warranty period, because warranty claims are a cost to the company.

> Every choice of a component affects lifetime. Designers of mass-market products can't just use premium components everywhere -- the mass market will not pay steep premiums for otherwise equivalent products.

Dying just out of warranty is only okay if the warranty covers the actual expected lifetime of the product. And for appliances, it doesn't.

The difference between a 5 year washing machine and a 30 year washing machine is not very big. Anyone pinching those specific pennies is doing a bad thing.

If you think people want 30 year old washing machines, you're kidding yourself. Do you remember what washing machines were like in the 1990s? They were noisy and tore up clothing. Not only would I not want to use one of these outdated machines, nor display it in my home, but I also wouldn't have wanted to move it to the dozen different addresses I have lived at since then.

At least in the US, people move frequently, and a washing machine that lasts for decades isn't even a benefit, because they'll likely have left it behind.

> The difference between a 5 year washing machine and a 30 year washing machine is not very big. Anyone pinching those specific pennies is doing a bad thing.

Absolutely right, it's only a matter of tens of dollars, probably. However, retail consumer appliances live and die at the margins. Nobody is opening up their washer to inspect the components to see if the $510 washer has better components than the $499 washer. All else equal, they're buying the $499 washer 90% of the time. Your fixed costs are going to eat you alive when spread across your fewer units, and retailers will stop carrying your product because it isn't moving.... All the while the $499 washer is going to be sitting in that home 5 years from now when the realtor puts a sign out front. And literally zero people are buying a house based on the bearings in the washing machine.

> If you think people want 30 year old washing machines, you're kidding yourself.

You say this in the same breath you talk about people being desperate for any cheapest appliance instead of having nothing?

> And literally zero people are buying a house based on the bearings in the washing machine.

Well that's them being dumb.

> You say this in the same breath you talk about people being desperate for any cheapest appliance instead of having nothing?

Yes? I think you’re suggesting that the existence of old machines would be good for the poor. That’s true. However, manufacturers don’t make used machines. They only make new ones. So the forces of supply and demand do not apply.

> Well that's them being dumb.

Wat. No I’d say choosing a home based on location, school district, or inherent qualities of the home itself is a less dumb idea.

> Yes? I think you’re suggesting that the existence of old machines would be good for the poor. That’s true. However, manufacturers don’t make used machines. They only make new ones. So the forces of supply and demand do not apply.

As far as I can tell you were discounting the value of old machines, and suggesting long durability wasn't useful. I'm glad you agree they're useful.

And I know manufacturers make new machines. I'm suggesting that if the cheapest machines were much more durable at not-much higher prices, the end result would be better for everyone including the poor people that would otherwise have bought the even cheaper model.

(If we switched cold turkey it would be worse for them for a couple years before it got better. So let's not switch cold turkey. But that's not a reason to act like the current situation is anywhere near optimal. It's great that appliances have gotten massively cheaper than they used to be, but we could do even better.)

> Wat. No I’d say choosing a home based on location, school district, or inherent qualities of the home itself is a less dumb idea.

Wat. Do you think that's an either-or choice?

It's reasonable to say people choose a home based on price, right? If there's a washer and dryer as part of the package, the expected lifetime is basically an offset to the price.

> Wat. Do you think that's an either-or choice?

Often worse -- in many markets a buyer will pick whichever available option has a plurality of their preferences. Most buyers are going to prioritize the location, size, and permanent qualities of the home, and that's going to narrow them down to a short-list of options. Major renovations tend to affect the price of a house somewhat, but the quality of individual appliances typically does not, because they are easily changed and account for maybe 1% of the value of a home. Even a home without appliances entirely will tend to sell just as fast and for prices similar to other homes.

Product have an expected lifespan longer than the warranty period. This is malicious if given as a target. I'd like to see MTBF numbers on everything so people can lump together and sue the shit out of manufacturers who do this. Would also make it easier to check the 25$ light bulb.

> Product have an expected lifespan longer than the warranty period. This is malicious if given as a target.

Also it is mathematically stupid, because products do not fail at consistent rates, nor are they used by customers are equal rates. If you want to minimize warranty costs, you do need to target some mean lifetime well beyond the warranty period.

MTBF (or MTTF) might be useful number if you buy 100 light bulbs, but is not really a useful number for you buying one appliance. Product failures don't follow a normal distribution. The stuff that ticks people off about shitty products is the infancy-failure part of the bathtub curve -- It's when you get 13 months out of a $200 blender that fails in infancy that you're pissed. Not when you get 24 months out of a $20 blender that fails from end-of-life.

> It's not my fault if other people are too dumb to comprehend TCO because I would buy the $25 bulb if it had a 30 year warranty.

A 30 year warranty would certainly make a difference in the decision making. But more typically you see the $3 bulb, with a 1yr "warranty", next to the $25 bulb, and the $25 bulb either has an identical 1yr warranty, or has a warranty period not commensurate to the price difference, such as a 2yr warranty.

There was a documented conspiracy in the past to limit the life of incandescent bulbs. Humans haven't changed that much.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

Not LED light bulbs specifically, but...

"The Phoebus cartel engineered a shorter-lived lightbulb and gave birth to planned obsolescence"

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy

It's true that the Phoebus cartel arranged to have light bulbs die after a certain number of hours, but bulb lifetime is a trade off between lumens, filament life, and energy consumption. The cartel-defined lifetime limit sits very close to the sweet spot for all of those metrics for incandescent bulbs.

Technology Connections explained this well in a video about a year ago: https://youtu.be/zb7Bs98KmnY

  > bulb lifetime is a trade off between lumens, filament life, and energy consumption

At a specific temperature, using specific materials.

There is no reason to suspect that material science would not advance. Or other constraints would change. A specific company choosing that particular sweetspot for a particular product line is fine. But a collusion between companies dictating that specific constraint (in lieu of, e.g., wattage per lumen) is too clear a marker of anti-consumer intent.

>At a specific temperature, using specific materials.

The temperature of incandescent bulbs is directly related to the light that they give off, and tungsten is the obvious best material, there's no other materials on the horizon giving an improvement for the tech. It really is a pretty well understood tradeoff surface on a very mature technology (which was then displaced by completely different ones).

Advancements in materials led to LED bulbs, which operate under different principles and run fall cooler. Yet the time-limited bulb lifetime remains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com