[HN Gopher] The beauty of cheap products
___________________________________________________________________
The beauty of cheap products
Author : elazzabi_
Score : 54 points
Date : 2021-07-24 12:07 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (elazzabi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (elazzabi.com)
| dirtyid wrote:
| I hate babying hand crafted items for this reason. Or flagship
| phones. Conscientiously downgraded to burner mid-tiers that I
| toss around without worry. I go out of my way to make a knick
| somewhere ASAP to pop the bubble of new item preciousness. Buying
| second hand is great too.
|
| With exception of classic monobloc chairs, I really appreciate
| industrial, mass produced, value engineered products that brought
| affordability to the masses. Including relatively high-margin
| Apple products. Most cheap products are still developed by
| competent designers with adequate production oversign. But
| ecommerce and cheap global shipping started flooding markets with
| subpar products or knock offs designed for developing markets
| (i.e. Chinesium). So one has to be more vigilent with with
| purchases these days. That said design and quality for indigenous
| PRC brands has largely caught up with modernization, I wouldn't
| hesisitate to fill my life with Xiaomi/Mijia products for 1/2 the
| cost if they were more accessible. No more tier level distinction
| of same MD player between Japanese / Korean / Taiwan / PRC
| factories.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| You haven't tried an Apple Watch? I don't worry about it
| breaking. It's expensive but in this case you almost get what you
| pay for.
| every wrote:
| I look for the simplest, least expensive thing that will do an
| acceptable job with minimal sweat-equity. All of those boxes have
| to be checked to some degree for consideration...
| [deleted]
| midhhhthrow wrote:
| Cheap products an often be as good or even better than so called
| expensive products. A lot of times manufacturers will sell the
| same exact profit multiple prices at varying trim levels with
| just minor differences in features. For example dishwashers. Our
| dishwasher broke and we had to buy a "high end one" because the
| wait time for all the base models "the cheap ones" was over
| several months. Anyways I quickly realized the high end ones were
| no better than the base model with only a few minor features you
| never notice anyway.
| jraby3 wrote:
| This is my exact thought process for keeping my 15 year old car.
| Never having to worry is a type of freedom I really value that
| most others seem to ignore.
| [deleted]
| wyager wrote:
| Or maybe don't buy stupid cheap gizmos that you don't really
| benefit from. If I don't want something enough to buy a quality
| instance, I probably won't buy it at all.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Yes. Reduce, reuse, recycle. There is a reason reduce is first
| in the list.
| jacknews wrote:
| I find another beauty in cheap products, which is the optimized
| cost-engineering that goes into them.
|
| For example with electronics, it's possible to use two common-
| valued (=> cheap) resistors in series, rather than a more obscure
| resistor of twice the value. This both reduces cost, and shrinks
| the list of unique parts.
|
| Of course the idea of cost-engineering is to reduce the cost,
| while maintaining adequate function and quality. It loses it's
| charm beyond that, as evidenced by so much of the garbage flowing
| from certain places these days.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| For exactly the same reason I use mainly iPhone 7, it cost me ca.
| $100 and if I lost it today I would buy another one tomorrow
| without even thinking about it. I use it for various tasks
| without worrying about it for a moment. On the other hand, there
| is nothing cheap about it, it feels very solid and works
| reliably. I would never feel the same about, say, iPhone 12 Pro.
| QuadrupleA wrote:
| I get a perverse pleasure sometimes in taking extra care of cheap
| products. It's like a paradox - you're supposed to treat, say, a
| dollar store whiteboard with rough disdain, since it's only a
| dollar and you can just trivially go buy another one.
|
| But there's an almost ironic fun in taking good care of it,
| handling it well, cleaning it carefully, making it last.
|
| And of course you can often be more rough and careless with
| expensive and heavily built products - it's one of their
| benefits. But they're often more clunky, with an unnecessary
| leather carrying case, 3x the weight, etc. Not always a clear
| win.
| aynyc wrote:
| Why does the author equate expensive with fragile? My rule is
| "buy nice or buy twice". My 20 year old All-Clad saucepan is
| still going strong. It costed 3X compare to others. I see no
| reason why it won't last another 10 year. My Weber charcoal grill
| is 15 years old. Store outside all season around, it still works
| while my neighbor's 4 year old home cheapo grill is a rust
| bucket. His grill is 50% cheaper but I wouldn't eat cooked on
| that grill.
| MrDunham wrote:
| Huh, I read the article differently. I read it as more of the
| difference between cheap sunglasses and a nice brand-name pair.
| With the cheap ones if they get lost/scratched/smashed you
| don't end up caring as much and have less worry about it.
|
| But... I could easily have read into the article wrong.
|
| (PS I agree with your "buy nice" sentiment. And Webers are
| fantastic grills.)
| [deleted]
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >Why does the author equate expensive with fragile?
|
| He doesn't. His last paragraph literally starts "If buying an
| expensive product makes you a hostage of it"
|
| Also keep in mind he's in Morocco. A $150 smart watch breaking
| is absolutely devastating when you earn $800 a month[1] and
| don't have access to the same warranty and support that people
| in the US do.
|
| [1] This number is based a sample size of 1: a telecoms
| engineer who I was talking to (in fluent English) back in 2019
| about hardware startups. It may not be indicative of the
| average salary in the region and is almost certainly above
| average.
| 0xakhil wrote:
| You are absolutely right about the situation in the
| developing countries. Here in India, an Apple product costs
| around 150% of what it cost in USA. But when it comes about
| after sale service, they are absolutely horrible. Xiaomi
| after sale service is miles better and cheaper than Apple. I
| had an iPhone X which was just shy of 2 years old. I dropped
| it last year from a 1 ft height and the thing doesn't turn on
| after that. When I took it to an Apple's authorised service
| centre (they don't directly provide service in India), they
| quoted such huge amount for replacement (yeah, they don't
| repair here) that it was cheaper for me to simply buy the
| latest model at that time, an iPhone 11.
| skydhash wrote:
| Everytime I buy something (usually from Amazon US to Haiti),
| I had to review several products just to be sure I don't end
| up with a crap one. You have to buy the expensive one because
| of the better build quality. I have an two Sennheiser
| headphones that are still going strong (one is a renewed
| product) while my friends buying cheaper headphones have
| already spent more than me.
| ericmcer wrote:
| Yeah it's great I always just buy a cheap $20 fan at the
| beginning of summer and then once it starts to get cold I just
| throw it in the ocean.
| zhengiszen wrote:
| Maybe it is the goal : what you think you own, ends up owning
| you. No matter the cost.
| tomcooks wrote:
| While I agree with the general idea outlined in the article, I'd
| go for cheap AND sturdy (mil surplus usually checks both boxes),
| thinking that worst that happens you'll buy another one is toxic
| to the environment and your finances.
| tpoacher wrote:
| Define "cheap"
| MrDunham wrote:
| In 2009 I bought an old 1960s muscle car. The interior and
| underbody were all nice but the paint was really needing an
| update (scratched, chipped, etc).
|
| Fast forward a few years, extensive bodywork, and a whole lot of
| cash and the car had show car quality paint.
|
| But there were certainly days that I missed driving around my
| old, beaten up paint job car. I would leave my coffee mug on the
| roof as I got in, would park wherever I wanted, and I generally
| didn't worry about the car much. Now I fret over parking it and
| have to walk from the back of any lot.
|
| I'm not complaining... I certainly love driving around shiny car.
| But it's an interesting observation that the cheap/beaten up
| version had virtues that I miss - to the article's point.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| There's a certain aesthetic to this though - the beater that
| survives. Often these things were expensive when new.
|
| Music gear, machine tools and well loved laptops are great for
| this.
|
| A 1960's car (survivorship bias!) has this quality in a way
| that cheap electronic crap tends not to. The connectors wear
| out. The battery dies. It just kaputs for no discernable reason
| and it's not economic to fix.
|
| You want stuff early in its lifecycle where the manufacturers
| accidentally over-engineer it because they're not confident
| about the lifespan yet - or that kind of "Toyota" stage in the
| lifecycle where they got making it good cheaply fully down.
|
| I reckon you'd have to go through a lot of cheap smart watches
| to find a proper "beater", and the whole function of the
| devices tend to fight against this with interface standard and
| apps that render them quickly obsolete.
| loufe wrote:
| I think everybody evaluates the quality they need and want. I
| want the nicest sound system for my computer and top notch
| headphones but for a vehicle I just need something that gets from
| A to B. I'm not really sure what his point is.
|
| There is obvious value in choosing less expensive products from
| an environmental standpoint, I suppose. Where it gets tricky is
| obsolescence, safety, durability, supporting local manufacturing,
| sustainable sourcing, etc.
| nirui wrote:
| > Buying an expensive product is surely more enjoyable. We all
| want quality products, and everyone deserves the best. But, is it
| always a good idea?
|
| People often imply "long lifespan" when they buying expansive
| products, which is not always the case. Take phones for example,
| a well-made "cheap (inexpensive)" phone now days could last as
| long as the expensive one under the same usage.
|
| (Heck, the cheap/boring phones lasts way longer than some crazy
| expensive ones such as Galaxy Fold/Flip)
|
| I have a bluetooth bracelet myself, made by Garmin. And my friend
| got a similar product from Xiaomi at around half the price
| compare to how much I paid for mine Garmin. We all brought the
| device around the same time, around 2 years ago, and both device
| are still functional today.
|
| However, due to how Garmin designed the product, the glass
| surface on my bracelet can be scratched really easily. While in
| the case of Xiaomi, they designed their product in such way that
| the robber fringe around the glass will protect it from been
| damaged. The result is, after 2 years of use, my friend's Xiaomi
| looked almost new, while my Garmin is telling the others that it
| been abused by a barbarian.
|
| So I think the author has underestimated the "worst-case
| scenario". No, the real "the worst-case scenario" wasn't "the
| cheap one breaks", instead, it's "the expansive one breaks".
|
| Shop smart, I guess :)
| cdrini wrote:
| I think an element most of the comments are missing is the
| element of salary. Whether you "worry" about an item is related
| not to its absolute price, but to its price relative to your
| salary. So whereas the writer would be wary of swimming with a
| smartwatch "because it costs a fortune", someone else would not
| because it didn't cost a fortune relative to their bank account.
|
| I think software developers (especially US-based ones) are kind
| of the secret "nouveau riche". They make a lot more than people
| realize, and I think they themselves don't often realize how much
| more money they make than most people.
| closeparen wrote:
| I think of Agatha Christie's remark that she never imagined she
| would be so rich as to own a motor car, nor so poor as not to
| have any servants.
|
| I never imagined how much I would be earning in relation to
| consumer products and travel, nor how little in relation to
| housing.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| You see this in effect in threads about the price of Apple
| products. People complain about people complaining about a new
| smartphone being 1200$, saying it's so reasonably priced and
| they don't understand the complaints. You would see fewer
| comments like that in a forum not dominated by software
| developers.
| newprint wrote:
| As a software engineer in the US (and I don't make whole lot of
| money compared to other software engineer), I make more money
| than two of my closest friends(one has PhD) and my gf combined.
| I realized this fact few months ago and made me almost
| depressed.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I have the opposite problem where I'm terrified to invite
| regular income people to activities because of the cost. If I
| invite someone to an event/activity and their response is
| "That's kind of expensive," I feel embarrassed that I put them
| in a position to have to say that.
| newprint wrote:
| *See my prev. comment in a same comment branch. I have
| similar experience being with my close friends who don't make
| a lot of money. We never go to expensive restaurants or
| expensive places. If we get together and I think the bill
| will be high, I just cover for myself, my gf and person in
| the group who makes the least. That pretty much covers 75% of
| the bill. My friends are OK with that, because they know, I
| always there for them and never will use it as point of
| leverage or being show off.
| obedm wrote:
| Been there. But what I try to do is just invite them.
|
| Like literally tell them before hand the food is on me. Or
| find some stupid reason to pay for them.
|
| Even if it's just two pizzas, but it's at my place, I'll
| just pay and say it's our home and its on us. But if I
| bring the pizzas to someone's place I'll say it's their
| place so it's on me, lol.
|
| I used to be poor, and always saw people pay for my stuff
| without second thought. I really love being able to do that
| now.
| ronyfadel wrote:
| The trap I often fall into is buying cheap when getting into a
| hobby (camping, bicycling), because I'm not sure I'll stick to
| it, or because the initial price of entry is high and I don't
| want to make the wrong choice buying equipment.
|
| I always end up buying twice. I can't re-sell the cheap gear, and
| renting equipment is too time constrained to make up my mind.
| mcphage wrote:
| > The trap I often fall into
|
| That seems the right way to do it, though--buy cheap because
| you don't know if you'll need the good version (and because you
| don't yet know enough to distinguish what you want out of an
| expensive tool)... and if you stick with it, you buy good
| tools, and if not you're only out a fraction of the cost. The
| hardware equivalent of "build one to throw away".
| ronyfadel wrote:
| Agreed! It just generates double the waste.
|
| Decathlon worldwide makes it convenient, but wasteful.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I think you can go a long way just by skipping the bottom 10%
| in any market. A PS10 pair of jeans is always going to be
| compromised but there won't be much difference between a PS20
| pair and PS100 pair.
| Hackbraten wrote:
| You can own a good-quality, expensive product and at the same
| time acknowledge that its lifetime is limited. I do it all the
| time without worrying too much.
| art3m wrote:
| This is the beauty of products you could easily afford.
|
| If you earn x and could not worry about $20 item, then $200 item
| for the people who earn 10x.
|
| Also, thinking like "it's cheap, I'll buy another" generates
| overconsumption.
| 0xakhil wrote:
| If something is not repairable without breaking a bank, it is
| better to go for cheap and good enough options.
| shinycode wrote:
| Products in the case described are usually tools.
|
| What tool do you need for what purpose, is the right question to
| ask.
|
| Are you using it as a professional, as a hobbyist or out of
| curiosity ?
|
| Then choose the product from your real needs.
|
| I tried a cheap bracelet for many years then I felt frustrated
| because of the inherent limits of a 30$ electronic bracelet. It
| wasn't very nice as well and in some situations plain ugly and
| because I didn't want to have a nice watch + an ugly cheap 30$
| bracelet at the same time it was annoying ... then I found that
| it wasn't precise enough with sports.
|
| Since I bought a more expensive smartwatch, I can use it even
| when I'm going out, it's really better with sports and
| synchronisation, and I just take the best care I can and I put it
| away if I do some kinds of manual work.
|
| I don't think of the price anymore after some months to a year
| it's just sunken cost. But I enjoy it every day for it's
| aesthetics and features.
|
| People used to buy 500$+ watches for decades and the watches were
| just giving time (and the current day). They could've just bought
| a 15$ watch isn't it ? It's the _same_ time on it.
|
| Nothing changed, we have a choice and buy to invest for utility,
| pleasure or both.
|
| Usually more expensive tools last longer than cheap ones based on
| the same use. That is by design, more expensive materials vs
| cheap materials. So cheap stuff is usually made for occasional
| and not really heavy use. Every time I used heavily or often a
| cheap product, it broke.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Harbor Freight Tools. Why buy a fancy, durable specialty tool
| when you only need it for one project? Buy it cheap, use it once,
| forget about it, sell it in a garage sale a decade from now.
| Don't forget to clip their coupons, they used to give out an
| unusual amount of low quality tarps free with any purchase.
| matthewaveryusa wrote:
| Absolutely. I've DIY renovated my whole house with hard-wired
| harbor freight tools, none have failed and cost a fraction of
| the price. My philosophy is if it breaks I'll be the top of the
| line equivalent. So far that has only happened on my drill, and
| only because I had to go from 12 to 20 volts for more power.
| (Coincidentally it's the only battery tool I own)
| michalf6 wrote:
| I really prefer a model where the market niche for the budget
| conscious is filled by second-hand high quality products. Much
| less waste gets produced this way, and no one has to suffer using
| cheap plastic crap.
|
| I do this with all the technology I own - be it cars, phones,
| computers, audio gear, motorcycles, sports equipment... you get
| the best of both worlds.
|
| Of course, in order for this to be possible, these products have
| to be repairable, and that's why we have to fight for it.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| I've given away things i cherished to a family member. Be it a
| scooter, or a couch. The new owners just didn't have the same
| respect for the items and they deteriotated rather quickly.
|
| I think the trick is to not make it free. Maybe sell it, well
| below market price but just enough to where they'll care.
|
| Easy come easy go.
| Springtime wrote:
| I see it as more 'what can be replaced/repaired' and how long of
| a timeframe that is, as to how much I concern myself with what I
| use. There are also well-made things that are cheap but the
| converse isn't always true. It's preferable to me to own things
| that last and don't require being gentle with than merely being
| cheap/disposable.
|
| I bought a pair of Sennheiser HD-25 Mk. II headphones
| specifically because I appreciated that they're high quality (and
| I preferred the sound signature to previous Sennheisers I've
| owned), designed to withstand being knocked about and every
| single part is replaceable. The company has been producing
| virtually the same headphone and making its parts available for
| more than 30 years.
|
| By purchasing such a product I'm getting something that I likely
| don't have to worry about finding a replacement part or the
| entire product in 10-20 years (already owned them for over 10
| years).
| jmercouris wrote:
| There is something to be said about not worrying about your
| stuff!
| turnsout wrote:
| This attitude is the reason why we have so much e-waste. We need
| to stop treating technology as disposable.
|
| "The worst-case scenario is I'll get a new one if it stopped
| working for some reason." Sure, just chuck it in the trash and
| let it end up in the ocean--or dispose of it properly and it ends
| up in an e-waste pile halfway around the world.
| ensiferum wrote:
| I agree. Also I find the word "disposable" to be q misnomer
| since it's actually very hard to dispose of this junk properly.
| One time use plastic, e-waste etc really should be called "non
| disposable" since that crap is still going be around somewhere
| 1000 years from now in the oceans and land fills.
| Retric wrote:
| It's easy to safely dispose of this stuff, there simply isn't
| enough of an incentive to do so. Sure lead and mercury for
| example are toxic, but they where toxic sitting in the ground
| before we extracted them in the first place.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| But it still works, it is still in use, so no e-waste.
|
| A product you don't use is waste all along. Maybe it will sit
| in a drawer for a decade or two before it becomes obsolete and
| you trash it. But it doesn't mean it lasted for decades, it
| means you kept your waste for decades.
|
| A cheap product you use to its fullest because you are not
| scared of breaking it is less of a waste than an expensive
| product you hesitate to use.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| I mean it's a natural progression of how products are designed
| and made. We have electronics that are relatively easy to break
| (either through normal use or casual misuse), and then are
| simply not economical to repair.
|
| All sorts of things (both supply and demand side) are
| misaligned with respect to minimizing wastage as a whole.
|
| And that all being said, there really is something valuable
| about the 'cheap product' thinking - and that's specifically
| the mindset of decoupling your enjoyment and utility of a
| product from its up-front cost. And this is valuable, because
| the very thing that we need to do to minimize waste is to
| increase the up-front cost of like... everything.
| miltondts wrote:
| > I mean it's a natural progression of how products are
| designed and made. We have electronics that are relatively
| easy to break (either through normal use or casual misuse),
| and then are simply not economical to repair.
|
| The primary reason this happens is that companies don't want
| you to repair their products because that hurts their
| revenue. It's only natural in a system that rewards profits
| above all else and has little to no mechanisms to enforce
| compensation for the externalities.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| As maxerickson notes, I believe it's really important to
| note that this is an issue that impacts and stems from both
| sides. While I agree that manufacturers are incentivized to
| increase revenue, we should also be clear that the likely
| end-game is that everything becomes more expensive upfront.
|
| We can't dance around with bullshit and tell people that
| right to repair (depending on the flavor), and sustainable
| pricing, and proper pricing of disposal will just result in
| the same or cheaper upfront costs - it won't - and we need
| the right answers for the obvious questions like "won't
| this just screw over the poorest people"?
| maxerickson wrote:
| A huge portion of the dynamic is that people will buy a
| $398 device over a $399 device. It isn't just companies
| relentlessly pushing unrepairable stuff.
| yarky wrote:
| I agree, it always comes down to how much the buyer cares
| about anything other than the price paid.
|
| Markets/companies care about whatever their customers
| care, and the way customers vote/express themselves is
| with their dollars.
|
| We can talk all we want about how wrong this is or not,
| but that doesn't change the underlying reality.
| turnsout wrote:
| Not disagreeing, but part of the underlying reality is
| that companies are not financially responsible for the
| externalities they contribute to (such as climate change)
| or post-consumer costs such as disposal. The result is
| that the "true" cost of the product to society is not
| reflected in the consumer-facing price.
|
| I think regulation should be a last resort, but in this
| case, some kind of taxation or regulation is necessary,
| because there is absolutely no incentive to be good
| stewards of the Earth within our current version of
| capitalism.
| yarky wrote:
| It can sure help, but then, as a company, you might want
| to find a way to avoid the regulation to keep the price
| low if that's what your customers care about.
|
| Maybe some form of labelling could have a greater real
| impact: let the customer know what the real impact/cost
| of the product is, and let the customer made an informed
| decision.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| No, the _primary_ reason is that being unrepairable is
| simply a side effect of being the least expensive way to
| manufacture it and people buy primarily on cost. I used to
| work for an outfit that made wearable consumer electronics:
| customer being able to repair something was never on the
| table. Hell, even with the right equipment, it was
| difficult for _us_ to repair them sometimes, if we had a
| limited number of prototypes and needed to get a broken one
| working.
|
| Yes, it seems like it's in the company's best interest to
| make something unrepairable, but the reality is that
| repairing a cheap electronic item simply doesn't even occur
| to most consumers.
| metaphor wrote:
| Cherry-picking wearable consumer electronics as a class
| that intrinsically suffers from diminishing returns with
| respect to repairability doesn't negate the fact that
| there's a crapton of other classes in a common household
| whose design space isn't fundamentally constrained in the
| same ways but nevertheless artificially suffer from
| unsustainable lifecycle trade-offs that could have easily
| been designed around or avoided altogether if objectively
| targeted from the onset.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| The "problem" is that people get what they pay for. The
| majority of consumers prioritize cost, so they get price-
| optimized devices that are difficult or impossible to
| repair.
|
| When you prioritize, e.g., reliability or ease of
| service, that problem goes away, but now stuff costs
| more. Worth it for commercial/industrial products, but it
| tanks the consumer market.
|
| My Kitchen-Aid mixer has had its sacrificial plastic gear
| replaced a few times because I keep overloading it with
| bread dough. It was designed to be repairable. My cheap
| Walmart TV, OTOH, is in the garage awaiting the annual
| electronics scrap pickup because although I know what the
| problem is, for $200 (about what I paid for the mixer 20
| years ago) it simply isn't worth my time fixing it when I
| can buy a better one for the same price.
| miltondts wrote:
| I think you are right, but at the same time, if the cost
| of manufacturing doesn't reflect the overall cost then we
| need to make laws for that.
|
| Also in video after video of electronic repairs:
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOrKQtC1tDfGf_fFVb8pYw
|
| The primary reasons for why he can't repair something
| are:
|
| - lack of documentation
|
| - can't find the components for sale
|
| - design choices (like using glue instead of sealing
| rings)
|
| I think at least some of these things can be easily
| provided at little to no cost to the companies.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I'll admit upfront that I'm not a fan of more legislation
| but let's look at that.
|
| Lack of documentation: some components are provided with
| docs under NDA, so you can't get them anyway.
|
| Can't find the components for sale: many components are
| only sold through approved representatives and their MOQ
| (Minimum Order Quantity) may be in the thousands.
|
| Design choices: are you planning on legislating how a
| device is designed?
|
| Look, I'm all in favor of Right To Repair: I'm a cheapass
| who still uses a 35 year old snowblower (that I've had
| for 15 years) because fixing it is cheaper than a new one
| and I Hate Waste. I repair _everything_. I 'm practically
| on a first-name basis with the guys at
| eReplacementParts.com but still even I accept that
| there's a limit to what's reasonably practical. When a
| watch uses a COB
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_on_board) part with
| the only documentation available in Chinese, you have to
| accept that it's probably not going to be repairable. And
| the reality is that that's a common state of consumer
| products these days.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-24 23:02 UTC)