Maybe some do, but I don't think that is the root of the problem. A lot of people would be happy to buy a more expensive product if they knew they would get a better product. But we don't know that. A lot of more expensive brands are just design and marketing. And models often aren't sold long enough so I still can buy something that some reviewer (which I should try to make sure isn't paid by the manufacturer) praise after actually using for a couple of years.

So, as usual, it's an information problem. We don't pay for quality, because it's almost impossible to know that we actually get what we pay for. So it's more rational to buy some cheap stuff and hope for the best instead of paying 5 times as much and be disappointed again when the stuff breaks.

> And models often aren't sold long enough

This is so annoying. There are pointless model churn for everything. You can't keep up and get a understanding of what is quality or not becouse when a device has been on the market for a while and you can know if it last it is out of production.

This is the root of the problem for me as well.

This is the root of the problem. Quality machinery costs more and most people think they are getting a good deal when they buy junk at cheap prices.

However, sometimes you get lucky buying cheap stuff that lasts and that is the experience we like to remember and try to repeat.

It's the root of the general problem, but as noted elsewhere by another commenter, paying a lot more doesn't actually provide much signal that the product isn't junk.

For beancounters, a brand's reputation for expensive but long-lasting products is an amazing opportunity to "create shareholder value" and boost (short-term) profits by cutting corners on quality. Obviously the reputation will eventually adjust and this strategy will stop working, but besides the disgruntled customers, bonuses have been paid, people have been promoted and shareholder value was created. By the time the brand dies the people involved would've moved on to their next victim.

Paying more indeed isn't a reliable signal because even if a brand truly has a reputation for reliable stuff there is no guarantee someone isn't pulling the aforementioned strategy in the background.

Also, if you make machines that last a long time and are easily repairable, pretty soon you will saturate the market and won't have any new customers. If you can only sell to each person once, you won't have a sustainable business.

All the companies that made things that last forever went out of business.

If companies can't produce the high quality goods that we want and need, then what are they good for? They were supposed to compete with each other to see who can make the best products, not the cheapest junk.

This pathological capitalism has to go away forever. It's bad for consumers and bad for the environment. Companies exist because society allows them to exist, and they're allowed to exist because people believe they will fulfill their wants and needs. If they keep failing us in such spectacular ways, there's no reason for them to keep existing.

But a lot of people actually want companies to produce as cheap as possible - be it because they are poor or because they dislike regulatory interventions for ideological reasons.

Not saying this is great and I try to buy higher-quality goods if possible, but the reality is that needs and wants of high-income persons might be different to those of the poor.

It feels like a middle ground would be to make shit that lasts and decent amount of time AND sell the parts at a decent cost to keep them working for ever.

Parts provide a regular revenue stream, consumers don’t have to buy a new appliance every three years, and swapping a gear doesn’t cost 75% of a new appliance.

If you buy something expensive it won't last any longer than the cheap shit. Most of the core components are the same, you just get more features.

The key is usually to buy commercial grade, but that can be up to 10X as expensive.

Consumer grade stuff has been a race to the bottom on price and quality for years with glitzy bullshit features like WiFi support making up in marketing.

That’s not true.

But Amazon, Walmart, Whirlpool, GE, etc, have no useful indications for longevity.

There’s no way to know how long your fridge will last before you buy it. So why spend more when you literally have no idea if it’s actually better quality?

this is just your opinion.

People have no way to know longevity of the product they are buying

Not between a $100 product and a $120 product on a store shelf. Because the difference is slim to none. They are all similar quality.

Pretty much anything within about an order of magnitude in price will be value engineered like everything else.

Go to a specialty store with 10x the budget and they’ll hook you up with something where price was not a primary engineering factor.

Will they? Or will they hook you up with feeling superior while selling you the same crap branded differently?

You can be ripped off at any price level, but you won't get a premium product for budget prices. Reputation and quantification is, of course, key.

For example, the $1200 chair I'm sitting on is unquestionably better quality than the $120 chair it replaced. The $120 chair had no warranty, only the retailer's return policy. The manufacturer of the $1200 chair will gladly send someone to my house for free to replace a squeaky wheel more than a decade from now.

And more than consumer protection. At least here in Australia we have the ACCC, even though it feels somewhat weaker than usual in recent years, it can still help. It probably contributes to the so-called 'Australia Tax' we have on products here in addition to our small market and large distance. But at least a TV or car manufacturer offering a 4 year warranty here is still obliged to replace it later if it's reasonable to expect such an expensive product to last longer than 4 years.

Planned obsolescence went so far that often appliances has a higher TCO than 10 years ago.

The cheap ones by lasting very little. The reliable ones by being very expensive.

Except with any decent brand being sold down the river for a quick buck and all sources of review being paid shills the choice for most people that don't know the specific niche extremely well isn't cheap and crap vs. expensive and quality, it's cheap and crap vs. expensive and crap but with more failure modes.

Probably true, but it's also almost entirely impossible to know for sure whether a product has longevity. Yes, this is why branding is important (see Tumi or Briggs & Riley for examples), but it's very difficult to actually know whether the product will last outside of a contractual guarantee.

People nowadays also don't seem to mind to replace their items more frequently to get newer ones for possibly better features. Being too sturdy is almost a disadvantage.

(I'm not saying it sacrificially; I think both sides have a point.)

I believe this is on old merits from the time where stuff actually got better. Wont the "new model" is implied to be better wear off by now?

What does this say about the longevity of items priced higher in their category?