Well that, and a home appliance doesn't cost 1/7th of your annual budget anymore. Some things were built to last because to justify the expense, they had to last.

James May (unusually) made a very good point that the "good old days" is an illusion created by survivorship bias, nostalgia, and failure to understand economics. The survivorship bias especially should be obvious:

Lots of cheap crap was made throughout the years, but it didn't survive. We only have examples of the stuff that managed to survive, or was notable in some way. The $50 Smartphone equivalent of the 50's was no more notable than today's version, and no more long-lasting.

Speaking of James May and manufactured items of yore vs today, he recently did a series where he puts together a bunch of old stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=james+may+reass...

That's actually the series in which he makes the observation I was paraphrasing. I found that show pretty entertaining actually, and oddly satisfying. Edit: I think it might have been the stand mixer episode.

I also strongly recommend the mini-motorcycle episode.

In a similar vein, I hope you've seen the Primitive Technology channel on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA

Oh yes, I love that channel...it's like virtual meditation crossed with a really interesting lesson.

The clip you mention is at 21:50 in this episode, indeed the kitchen mixer episode:

https://youtu.be/XnYPOkzy-oI

"Therefore medieval England must have been full of cathedrals. It must have been amazing!"

I'm really enjoying episode 1 so far. There's something almost therapeutic about it.

I agree... it's mildly amusing, mildly engaging, mildly informative... it's just mild in the best possible way. It actually feels a bit like looking over someone's shoulder in a workshop, in a pleasant way.

Well, there's buckling spring model-m style keyboards, or even other keyswitch keyboards vs typical gel membrane keyboards... but even then, the casing material and backplate on a newer unicomp doesn't match the older IBM keyboards... it's definitely cheaper plastic everywhere except the keys themselves. Unicomp are about the only kb mfg today whose keys don't show obvious wear within a year of purchase.

Even Lego is looking to cut mfg costs (or has, was an older article) by switching to cheaper plastic, and removing some of the supports.

What kind of world are we living in where we need cheaper plastic?

The keyboards are significantly cheaper as well. The Model M keyboard retailed for 150$, which would be almost 400$ in today's money. For 400$ I guarantee you you will find a keyboard with a thick casing and quality plastic today.

These product comparisons all fail because today, we can make so much cheaper products than we could back then. And we are now comparing the cheapest crap (even a 100$ keyboard is cheap in comparison to the Model M) with MUCH more expensive products from the past. (Lego might be an exception here, as that product is the same)

LEGO are, officially at least, looking to move to a more sustainable plastic rather than a cheaper one. They have spent a lot of time and money coming up with an analog that is more environmentally friendly without sacrificing quality (compression strength, deformity, discoloration, etc).

Being both non-American and non-public, LEGO are less susceptible to the MBA bean-counting that is at the root of most of the problems described in this thread.

I'm on board with half of this claim. The failure-due-to-defect rates actually are rising, according to systematic studies of home appliances. But the cost decline might actually compensate for that, at least in consumer terms. If you cut costs on the most over-engineered parts of your product, you can often create a less-reliable device that's still more cost-efficient. Of course, whether you pass those savings to consumers is a second question.

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/25...

This is why if you are a thrift store, the older-looking item is often a better buy than the newer-looking item of the same kind. The newer one is often further along is wear cycle than the older one.

Occam's razor goes on a different path if you know a little bit about the guts of the product.

The difference between a top 1% appliance and an average appliance is probably less than $10 of materials and $5 in labor.

Very unlikely.

Once you work in manufacturing you realize that components are actually very expensive, not a $10 joke.

The spectacular failures in these products that I've seen in the last decade were all skimping.

In the case of a refrigerator, the manufacturer undersized the motor, probably to meet some efficiency standard. The previous years model had an adequate motor, which worked much better.

I've also seen cases (Whirlpool refrigerators) where they included a rubber nipple that was too narrow, and would either freeze up and clog with biofilm. End result was icing of the condenser and evaporator. (Here's a description of the problem: https://partsdr.com/blog/w10619951-updated-drain-tube-fix-ki... )

I know that weight makes a big difference when shipping parts or complete machines. So the cost of shipping magnifies when you use heavier materials.

Perhaps when we buy applicances we should just choose the heaviest one.

I remember when I disassembled a VCR I was suprised to find a lead weight in it.

Presumably to help dampen vibrations from all the spinning parts?

Definitely, you'd have bits rattling around otherwise, and maybe even some harmonic issues. Even if it wasn't a noise issue, it would probably wear out the tapes a lot faster, and lead to more jams.

Then of course, you have Beatz headphones, which really are the next best thing to a scam.

You're probably correct. At the time I thought it was done to make it feel higher quality.

If that becomes a popular rule then unfortunately it's fantastically easily gamed.

Compare the average <$1000 fridge/freezer combo, with a Sub Zero model. My mother has one she's kept running for over 25 years...

Meanwhile my cheap apartment-scale fridge was made with chewing gum and hope.

That 25 year old refrigerator is almost certainly very expensive to operate. Look at the energy use over time: 1990 -> 2015 saw a halving of power usage (1000 kWh/y -> 500 kWh/y) -- over a ten year lifespan with CA electricity at $0.19/kWh, that's $950 in increased energy expenditure as compared to a new refrigerator. ie it would be close to free.

http://aceee.org/blog/2014/09/how-your-refrigerator-has-kept...

For refrigerators at least, it doesn't make sense to make them robust enough to last more than 10-15 years since it's worth it to replace them over that time period. My understanding is the vast majority of refrigerators are then recycled. All those metals are valuable.

> All those metals are valuable.

And all those refrigerants need to be collected to prevent release to the atmosphere.

When I moved in with my wife, we replaced her 10-year old bachelor-sized fridge with a new one that was over 3x bigger and the new one had nearly the exact same power draw...

That makes a lot of sense though, a bigger fridge can have better circuit and insulation and will have a significantly larger "cold inertia".

A deep freezer is a very different beast. It is a simpler appliance with very basic components. Far fewer things to break than your combo which has to precisely regulate the temperature and has auto de-icing. I grew up with fridges that needed to be de-iced every few months. Those didn't break much either.

Sub Zero is a brand, it's not a deep freezer.

I believe Sub Zero still has sub-average lifespan.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18176916/ns/business-consumer_news...

don't look any further, I bought a 3k washer and dryer combination from LG 4 years ago. It boasted a ten year warranty!

the paint, drum, motor, finish, everything looks like new. But, the controller board burned.

I know my way around electronics, mind you, I can see exactly what is wrong (burned transformer), but the whole board is covered in some gelatin that makes any repair impossible.

the power input board is also water proofed with the usual epoxy that you can chip away and do your repair. but the controller board gelatin thing makes it impossible!

oh, and that board not only is NOT covered by the ten year warranty (only the drum and motor) but not a single place carry it. even LG cannot provide me that part for any money in the world. discontinued they say. after 4 years.

if anyone want to pick it up and drive the pristine electronics with an Arduino, msg me. machine is in socal though.

The gelatin covering the board does serve a purpose--it helps with vibration, among other things. It's called a potting compound, and you'll find it around electronic components in other high-vibration applications (automotive, power tools, etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potting_(electronics)

Don't know why LG does that when Miele only has a dedicated compartment containing the bare motherboard + service manual in plastic bag

Potting is less expensive than designing an entire suspended/isolated container.

This is the subject of this thread. How much "less expensive" you get on a $3~4k machine where the competition is $500. To compare with well built machines going for $3~4k in the 50's

An SMPS controller burned on my LG Washer control. LG didn't have any boards in stock, so I decided to repair it myself. Pried the board out of the tray with autobody pry tools and pulled away the silicone goo where I needed to repair.

I don't know what the rationale is for the board being covered in a half inch of rubber potting. A smaller coating would have provided a water seal, and this rubber is a heat insulator. Seems counterintuitive to me.

You will have to replace the board if the transformer has an open winding, because all these transformers are application specific. The silicone was burnt around some of the transformer terminals on my board, which scared me, but I didn't find any open windings. The other special part on this board is the cpu, everything else on the board is commodity and it is a real shame that LG decide to use this rubber potting AND screw up the supply of replacement parts.

I think it's a real flaw to integrate switchmode power supplies into control boards.

Might be worth suing them in small claims for breach of implied warranty.

Relying on an LG appliance warranty is an invitation to heartbreak...

>"The only explanation..."? What about "never attribute to malice..." and Occam's Razor.

Experience tells us that the simplest explanation for manufacturer's behavior is the kind of malice called "maximizing profit, all else be damned".

That's Occam's Razor in use right there -- we would need to get out of our way to invent morally good businesses, incompetent engineers who can't get things to last, and modern conveniences that have short lifespans as necessary engineering tradeoffs to explain that away.

Maximizing profits also involves making products at the price points customers want. If customers don't want to pay for 50 year appliances, why should they make one?

I do want to pay more for a 50 year appliance. How can I tell it will last 50 years?

I was going to suggest that a lengthy warranty would be a good guide, but gcb0 below says their LG came with a 10 year warranty which was worthless because it didn't cover one part.

Exactly. What incentive is there for manufacturers to make appliances that last 50 years when consumers won't even be able to tell? They'll just buy the cheapest one anyway.

>Maximizing profits also involves making products at the price points customers want. If customers don't want to pay for 50 year appliances, why should they make one?

Are customers even offered the option?

And why would "50 year appliances" have to be more expensive? The simple parts, and more basic processes used to manufacture them don't sound like costing more. And they could drop most of the electronics, IoT crap, and fancy features. If the average household could buy a fridge in 1970, why wouldn't they be able to afford one today?

Sure they are -- eg Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and Honda still sell cars. We're betting on getting to 250k and the maintenance costs: do you pick a Honda Civic/Toyota Corolla, or a domestic brand?

Miele sells dishwashers.

And better made things cost more money for lots of reasons -- better materials ($$), more coats of paint (time, materials), heavier duty metals or plastic (time, materials, shipping expense), more careful manufacture, tighter tolerances, and marketing.

Maybe they couldn't afford a refrigerator in the 1970's. Living within ones means is a value that has not been a large part of the country's identity (US.) We could just be growing more conscious of living with in our means now because of the economic crisis. I don't mean to sound like an expert or anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate

The average household can afford a fridge today. How many people do you know who don't have one?

When did I contest this? What I asked is: if they could afford a 50-year-good fridge in the 70s, why wouldn't they be able to afford a 50-year-good fridge today?

They're also so much more energy efficient now:

> New fridges aren't just a little more efficient, they're incredibly more efficient. A 1986-era 18 c.f. fridge uses 1400 kWh a year, while a modern energy-efficient model uses only 350 kWh — a whopping 75% reduction. At 15¢ kWh, trading in a pre-1986 fridge for a new efficient one would save about $158 a year in electricity costs. And some older fridges are even worse than the average. One reader estimates her savings to be $238 per year for trading in her 1979 fridge for a 2004 model.

There's not some great conspiracy of appliance manufacturers. All those difficult-to-repair parts have been added to make the appliances cheaper, or more energy efficient, or quieter, or speedier and more effective (compare how dishwashers and washing machines and dryers from a few decades ago work to how they do now).

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html

You are picking an unusually high end example.

http://www.aei.org/publication/appliance-shopping-1959-vs-20...

200$ in 1959 for a washer = 1600$ today inflation adjusted. So yes I can go on Best Buy's website and pick a mid range washing machine for 1/2 the price. And yes there are plenty of cheaper examples, but the mid range cost in no way justifies 1/5 the the lifespan.

He said a washer dryer. I can buy a brand new Hotpoint washer for about $250, but you won't find a washer dryer for that price.

Also, a sidenote - that Hotpoint washer comes with a free 10 year parts warranty - you have to pay for the engineer to come and install it, but Hotpoint will replace any part of the washer for free, or give you a new one if they can't fix it.

Washing machines cost between $250 and $2,050; dryers cost anywhere from $200 to $1,750. http://www.kitchens.com/product-guide/washers-dryers/washer-...

And people complain the average machine does not last 10 years. So, unless you found the cheapest washing machine from 1950's it's not exactly a direct comparison.

If you have to pay their engineer, there's surely nothing to stop them charging an inflated price that more than covers the parts cost, no?

Not only that, but people also _want_ to buy new appliances, since they actually become better. More silent, less power drain, more features, etc. So if everyone buys new stuff every ten years or so anyway, why bother building stuff that lasts fifty since that undoubtedly is more expensive.

I'd be happy if new stuff lasted 10 years.

Came here to say the same thing. I am always skeptical when people use the phrase "they don't make them like they used to" because the reason they used to make them like that is either (a) they had to hand make them and it wa super expensive, (b) they didn't have cheaper materials so they used thick and strong stuff just so it wouldn't fall apart before being delivered, (c) they didn't have the infrastructure to repair or replace parts, or (d) there were no economies of scale because everything was a one off.

Take jackets. I guarantee you that a modern windbreaker is in every way better than an old school leather jacket. Lighter, cheaper, requires no maintenance, and lasts longer. But polyester is not as cool as leather and doesn't feel as sustatial so we have the sense that things used to be better. No way. It's just that synthetics like that didn't exist 100 years ago and leather was the best you could get.

>jackets

I used to buy a nice looking faux-leather jacket from Zara three years ago. The faux leather layer started discoloring making it look like shit after a year and completely peeling off after a year. Worst shit ever. I learned that I have very little need for fancy clothes, and I don't care about styles. But I learned to buy leather jackets after that. A good (not nice) leather jacket is very much worth the money I paid for. Same for shoes, shoes that are built to last are very valuable to me.

That's what you get for buying fake leather. A polyester jacket will perform better and be lighter, and not need maintenance. It won't look like leather, though. That's why you're having problems: you're trying to get something that looks like leather, because you want that style, not because it actually performs better.

I wear leather jackets because I like them. A good leather jacket is better than a shitty faux leather jacket. But for the same price, synthetic probably wins.

Shoes are a hard one for me... 13-6E (US) so my options are very limited, form meh, to okay.

> I don't know what super heavy duty high end washer/dryer you could get these days for $4500, but I bet you could find one that would last 50 years.

I'm hoping the Electrolux I spent $3000 on 5 years ago lasts another 45. That would be great. So far so good though. No rust, no leaks, and the only problem we had to call a service person for turned out to be the fault of our electrician, not the appliance.

Some little controller will break in 3-4 years and cost $450 to repair.

Came here to ask how the author could write that entire piece and not compare costs.

If I can buy $500 ones that last 10 years I will be better off than buying 1 for $4500 that lasts 50. Although the planet wont be

And then account for interest, inflation, improved efficiency and possibly future reductions in cost -- a $500 one that lasts 10 years might be a better investment than a $4500 one that lasts 1000.

Having to worry about safety (electric shocks, leaks, fires, short circuiting) when something breaks, hauling big heavy appliances in and out of the house, selecting new ones,... those are costs you have to factor in when choosing to go with the shit that doesn't last. I'd prefer having the stuff that lasts longer for a little bit more money if I had a choice.

I would too - but 10 years would be ok

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is a great way for the malicious to fool the stupid.