I just bought a used sewing machine. It cost less than a new one. It's 98 years old, and with a minimum of care will last another 98. It was built to last.
This notion of "bury the throwaway culture one repair at a time" treats symptoms, not roots: there is nothing persuading manufacturers to make stuff which will last. Should the movement take hold, manufacturers may very well respond by making stuff even cheaper, as the effort to make things so inexpensive it utterly undermines the movement is easier than making things robust and durable. I appreciate the movement's intentions, but think they should seek means of persuading production of durable goods, not eeking another 20% of life out of something having a very short lifespan to start with.
Occurs to me that the only durable products made today are firearms. Ironic.
The manufacturer responded by replacing the Linux firmware with a proprietary real-time operating system. That allowed them to use hardware that was less powerful than the original both in terms of electricity consumption and computational performance. Furthermore, most people have better things to do than reprogramming their wi-fi routers.
Reading Cringley's predictions in that article is cringeworthy.
I just bought the WRT54GL a couple months ago, after suffering through several newer model routers the previous year.
Needless to say, it's brilliant. Fast, stable, consistent (for a change). And not only in my anecdotal experience - it still gets higher average reviews on Newegg and Amazon than any other modern router, despite being an almost decade old tech product.
It may not have met Cringley's predictions, but it is a really interesting case study in what years of software optimization on stable, robust hardware can achieve, vs the competing model of throwaway software on frequently updated hardware.
A big reason manufacturers don't produce durable devices/clothes is because durability is invisible at purchase time. It is also hard for a manufacturer to signal durability to customers who care about it.
It is similar to the reason for which all restaurants being unhealthy --- because the healthiness of a meal is invisible. A meal may have lots of vegetables and nice-looking meat, but also lots of salt and transparent sauces that are unhealthy but tasty.
There are exceptions to this rule where the durability of the product is the key selling point. Example: Tilley Endurables (http://www.tilley.com/default.aspx) and their hat.
> It is also hard for a manufacturer to signal durability
The distribution channels and price are the primary signal. Good stuff made by craftsmen is, of course, much more expensive than crap glued together by slave labor. So spend double or triple. The craftsmen who make the good stuff do not put up with crap from the big box stores and maintain a certain level of distribution exclusivity. You might have to go to a higher end department store, like bloomingdales or saks, to even find the stuff.
The other signal is nation of manufacture. Anybody left making things in America or Northern Europe is probably good. Sadly, made in Italy doesn't mean much anymore because in the south there are many sweatshops full of chinese slaves cranking out stuff on which to stamp "made in italy".
> the reason for which all restaurants being unhealthy
All restaurants are not unhealthy. Cheap restaurants are, because they use cheap ingredients. If you're going to eat out you have to spend money. Just don't go to $15 entree places.
> The distribution channels and price are the primary signal. Good stuff made by craftsmen is, of course, much more expensive than crap glued together by slave labor. So spend double or triple.
Of course, this signal is easily abused - junk sold for high prices will be assumed to be 'better' than equivalent junk sold for low prices...
I wouldn't say that firearms are the only durable product. I recently bought a Jet Mini lathe, and every piece of it has a part number and can be reordered from the manufacturer. It was a lovely feeling to know that it's build to last.
I would say that consumer items are primarily built to be thrown away.
All machine tools, beyond the absolute cheapest ones, are like that; because they're built by machinists for other machinists. There's no such thing as a consumer-oriented lathe.
> the only durable products made today are firearms
I don't think that's quite true. You can seek out many "made in America" products at a higher price point and with a lifetime warranty. I recently ordered a Duluth Pack bag. It cost triple the walmart/target equivalent. But it will likely last the rest of my life, and if it doesn't it is guaranteed.
I have had my two pairs of Allen Edmonds (made in America) shoes resoled a few times. They've lasted many years and will probably last another 10, perhaps even the rest of my life. Likewise my Red Wing boots are tanks.
A lot of high quality, made to last stuff is available. It's just expensive and people are stupid cheap. And Americans are especially stupid cheap. Why buy a crap $250 suit that will disintegrate in a matter of years? Shell out for the fly made in America Hickey Freeman suit that will last forever, man.
An interesting startup idea might be providing some kind of financing for higher quality goods. If the problem is that they don't sell well because the initial price is much higher than throwaway junk, then spread the initial price over a longer period, with the lifetime warranty as finance-cost-reducing collateral?
It's easy to finance consumer purchases these days, but I don't know if there is any financing program specifically aimed at highly durable stuff (besides cars), like consumer goods with lifetime warranties.
Much of the high-end outdoor gear industry values quality and durability. For example I bought my MSR backpacking stove in 1994 and it still works as well today as it did then. I've had to replace a few o-rings, which the product is designed to make pretty easy. It will most likely last me the rest of my life.
This notion of "bury the throwaway culture one repair at a time" treats symptoms, not roots: there is nothing persuading manufacturers to make stuff which will last. Should the movement take hold, manufacturers may very well respond by making stuff even cheaper, as the effort to make things so inexpensive it utterly undermines the movement is easier than making things robust and durable. I appreciate the movement's intentions, but think they should seek means of persuading production of durable goods, not eeking another 20% of life out of something having a very short lifespan to start with.
Occurs to me that the only durable products made today are firearms. Ironic.