They Used To Last 50 Years (opens in new tab)

Newer ones from any manufacturer are indeed failing more often, and are designed worse.

The only explanation is that this is on purpose - just like cars or laptops or smartphones, they are designed to fail faster so you buy new ones. Planned obsolescence, plain and simple.

The best appliances today, by the way, are made by Bosch/Siemens and Miele. None of the other manufacturers come close, period.

Interestingly, the high-end machines from Bosch/Siemens made in Germany are higher quality than the ones made in Poland, China, Spain or Turkey.

Same design, but it seems they use lower quality electronics and metals, as the most common failures are with the motors, control boards and bearings.

One of the early class sessions was a lecture from a guy at a power tool company, making some kind of jigsaw or handheld cutting tool.

He explicitly told us, paraphrasing, "You don't want to make your product too reliable, because people won't buy more of them, and you won't make as much money". I was horrified, literally looked around at my classmates to see how horrified they would be, none of them were. I ended up majoring in philosophy.

Of course this site is dedicated to the idea he expressed, so I am not looking for agreement here, just relaying what I consider an interesting historical fact.

Haven't had a single problem other than the light inside the dryer eventually burned out when a housemate left the door open.

I know that when one of them eventually fails, it will hopefully be a cheap and simple mechanical fix.

I have no desire to own a "major appliance" (W/D, dishwasher, fridge) that has LCD screens, Internet connectivity, or any of those features that you don't really need and are just another point of failure. I manage computers all day at work, I don't want to come home and have to apply a firmware update to my washing machine.

It's a failure of feedback that makes this happen.

If people can't get reliable information about quality, quality will not determine what they buy. Price will, and price is readily available. To get price down, you need costs down. To do that, you replace the parts with crappy parts.

If feedback worked, people would know they were paying less for a less good appliance that will have more downtime, and they would act accordingly.

Part of it is statistical noise: you only get to use so many washing machines in your life, and you may or may not have big problems with them. Your only direct evidence on quality then depends on this roll of the dice.

Part of it is lack of competition: only 4 competitors. You only need to be in the ballpark of "OK" to sell. You're not scratching around for every customer, there's definitely going to be some. So why spend a lot of money making your machine more reliable?

Part of it is cost of information: how much time are you going to spend finding this information? You'll need to learn a bunch of technical terms. And how do you find trustworthy reviews? Most likely reviews are another source of noise, for the same reason as mentioned. So information is expensive to get and anyway if you're right about the manufacturers being the same it's also worthless!

I can see an opening for Trump here. If he wants the US to be known for high quality, long-lasting products, he could differentiate US products from cheap and crappy Far East stuff. There is clearly a demand.

The prices of appliances has dropped dramatically in the last few decades.

Building a long-lasting appliance often requires even marginally more expensive materials - many of which are highlighted in this article.

If consumers are primarily price sensitive at the time of purchase, they may choose the $50 cheaper appliance even if it lasts 40 years less. What I mean to suggest is that price sensitivity at time of purchase often trumps long term gains - which is why you often see things like payday loans being used. When a person is paycheck-to-paycheck they probably aren't thinking about their financial position in 50 years, simply out of necessity.

Another reason might be that the Nokia 3310's of the world have been basically prototypical products - they are overdesigned. When the user has a perception that a phone is fragile, what's the threshold? We might not need a phone that can be run over by a truck to think a phone is tough. If the split of material cost -> price point and consumer perception is optimal at a certain point - companies will try and design to that point.

In any case, I also guarantee that most of the junked appliances people throw out either still work fine, or are repairable. But there are other factors at work. A new kitchen remodel will often include new appliances. Is it wasteful? Sure. But it doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of older appliances.

As for repairs, labor costs have increased far faster than the cost of new appliances, so repairs are not always the better economic decision. Then add in large gains in efficiency of newer appliances, and utility savings _alone_ often make it worthwhile to junk a working appliance in favor or something newer.

I'm not trying to defend reliability of modern appliances, but this article way overstates the reliability and manufacturing quality of older ones, while ignoring a lot of other factors at play.

Miele machines are expensive but indestructible. Siemens ones are very strong and not much dearer than other brands.

Are those not available in the US?

Isn't there an element of survivorship bias to these statements? What about all the 1950's fridges that didn't last until today?

I remember in 1990s it would be somewhat remarkable to see a car from the 70s. But in the 2010s it's pretty common to see cars from the 90s.

And the paint in my nine year old car basically looks brand new.

For people who move every few years, whose requirements change (from solo to 4-person family), and so on, the current situation is pretty ideal.

Spend less money, change models more frequently to fit your changing needs, and often it's even cheaper to buy a new one than to get it fixed -- which for consumers is amazing! (Because repair costs certainly aren't getting cheaper.)

Of course, the negative externalities on the environment are pretty clear and potentially horrific. As well as what it means for cultural values where more and more things are disposable.

But that's the answer, that's why they don't last 50 years -- because consumers actually prefer something that lasts only a few years at 25% of the price.

[1] http://www.aei.org/publication/the-good-old-days-are-now-tod...

https://youtu.be/O8L9PIjYngk

The only thing was that you could not open it too many times, otherwise the ice build up would mean you had to turn it off and defrost it.

Makes me wonder if 'convenience' leads to a reduction in longevity at all? Nowadays fridges are self defrosting, self cleaning, have built in IoT and a myriad of other features in order to try and make life easier for consumers.

Has this abdication of care and responsibility actually cost us in the long run? Perhaps if people went back to having to spend time to care for their goods, and took on a little extra time to ensure simple preventative measures, simplicity of manufacturing could come back in and things will last longer?

Anyway, to that end, does anyone know a good, modern sewing machine? Really, I just want a rock solid straight and zigzag stitch with no other frills that works on material up to denim and, if possible, both wovens and knits. I don't have a lot of room at home, so an industrial machine would be a little difficult to manage. My mechanic likes modern Brothers, but he also sells them, so there's a bit of a conflict of interest.

By far the most helpful resource out there for learning about available types and characteristics of each so you can make an informed decision.

EDIT: Unclear on why this is getting downvoted; explanation would be appreciated. I posted this hoping others might find it useful.

But planned obsolescence isn't a conspiracy, it's a design requirement: there is a requirement to reduce costs, at a greater rate than reduce in production cost due to advancements in manufacturing and logistics. That reduction in cost can not come from thin air, so most balance it by designing products that are not designed to last as long as those that were made 70 years ago.

That reduced cost isn't driven as much by consumers no longer ready to pay the high costs that they used to. You can find a premium fridge for +$5,000, but would you be willing to pay that much for a fridge?

When adjusted for inflation, that isn't much more than a good refrigerator cost in the 1950s. Only today, a $5,000 would get you a top end fridge, while $495 in 1950's Dollars might allow you to buy an average one then. iow, you'd have to spend much more for premium products then. And because there is less market for $5,000 fridges, it only drives the price of those upwards.

Some make the argument that amortized the cost over the lifetime of the appliance, a $5K fridge would cost the same or less per year of service, than a $1,000 one. This discounts the cost to operate the refrigerator (newer ones are more efficient,) and that a dollar spent today is worth more than a dollar saved today. Assuming you can even spend $5,000 today. Most can't.

In 10 years, I'd throw that old fridge, and buy a new one, cheaper and better, more efficient, quieter (those 50's refrigerator are quite noisy), and that won't contain as many hazardous and poisonous materials. The problem this creates is one of disposal and recycling, which is one to solve; but arguing that things used to be give better bang for the buck. You get same bang/buck, at a difference balance of features.

The article seems very US-centric, and doesn't mention European brands such as Miele, Bosch, Siemens and Jura (coffee machines), all of which are wholly owned and produce high-quality stuff.

My own repair guy told me that often the insides of different brands are IDENTICAL, changing only the brand name, door chrome and other superficial things to justify some kind of premium. This means you’ll break down just as often spending thousands more. The companies themselves are becoming lousier, it is not that they are taking your extra money to make a good product.

a) devices back them broke about the same and had similar lifespans. Yes, some devices lasted for a long time but I suspect that it is just a survivor bias.

b) there were less devices overall (no dishwashers for example), they were harder to get and more valuable.

c) they didn't have any modern electronics. All failures were mechanical, while today they are electronic (and usually non-reparable, only replaceable).

d) some of the devices were built using post-war production lines, e.g. ex-military electric motors, heavy metal bodies etc.

e) those devices were not even closely comparable to today's. Vacuum cleaners that were a metal body and a motor basically. Washing machine for <6kg that was twice as big. Fridges that couldn't keep temperature, had no proper ventilation, multi-zones or sound proofing. Rubber elements that degraded faster than now. The list is endless really.

tl;dr Article paints old tech as better overall which is maybe applicable to top models in some countries and still not even close. But he is right of course and we do need to strive for more durable devices.

If you would pay $100 more for a washer with a 50 year warranty, there would be a washer with a 50 year warranty. It really is that simple. So many people choose by price, then quality, the best thing you can say about appliances today is that they cost less in real dollars than the ones from the 50's and 60's. If you chose your appliance the other way, quality first and then price, the manufacturers would put in quality to get you to pay more.

Every single thing mentioned in the article if you compare an appliance "with" that thing from the 50's to one "without" that thing today, every time by leaving it out you can sell for less, or sell for the same as the competition and make more profit. Metal thickness? check. Motor quality? check. Anti-rust coating? Check. Durable control circutry? Check. Everything.

You want to change the market, then the market has to prefer quality over price, and pay for it even when there is a cheaper, lower quality alternative.

But here is the kicker: a) People don't want to pay big money for something they don't know will last 50 years,. b) People want new things. While it's convenient to not have to replace something for decades, they also want to remodel their kitchen efter 10-15 years, at which time thet fridge needs replacement anyway (in 2000 it was chrome, in 2010 it needs to be black, etc).

That said, it would be good if the people who want new things could sell their old ones, instead of throwing them away.

So why does it only last 15 years? You can no longer get replacement parts for it. The machine looks to me like it should last 50 years.

The part failures mine had over the last 17 years are:

1. blower motor failed due to the bearings not being lubed, the replacement has sealed bearings and never needs lube

2. a relay on the circuit board failed - new board is $600. The relay is a $2 part.

3. the igniter failed. It's a $25 part, and 5 min to replace it. A $300 service call.

Managed to get it replaced with a second hand one for £300, including labour.

I don't really know what to do. The current one isn't very energy efficient, isn't laid out very well — but it's better than any of my other options.

Is there some small bespoke fridge maker out there?

Just in Amsterdam, I know of two [1], so undoubtly there are more out there?

[1] https://www.bundles.nl/ and https://www.peerby.com/

There was a case where Cadbury (the UK chocolate company) changed the recipe for their 'Cadbury Creme Egg' (to make it more profitable) but they changed the recipe too much and there was some backlash from consumers.

There are other cases though where hardly anyone notices. I know someone who worked for McDonalds in Australia who told me a story that the size of the buns used to make 'Quarter Pounder' burgers decreased suddenly - It seems that almost nobody noticed (except for the employees).

Also, pizzas from big brands have been getting progressively smaller over time and the toppings have gotten increasingly thin.

Same with fruits, vegetables and grains. I'm sure that soil quality has gone down and vegetables are lower quality today than they were 20 years ago. I was travelling around Europe over the past year and I noticed that the quality of fruits, vegetables and grains seems to vary significantly between different countries.

Now they use aluminum wire, which works perfectly fine, until there is a power surge in which case the aluminum overheats and the motor is now dead.

E.g. Still very early days (only me on full stack), but here is the ibGib I just did the other day when we got a new calphalon pan: https://www.ibgib.com/ibgib/pic%5EF1D5A3B90BB7580442405402A7...

(This particular use case is like a product-lifetime blog.)

(some) people are never satisfied, always want more more more...

Fortunately technology is making it easier for us to read reviews and get more information. Hopefully we will soon live in a world where manufacturers are obligated to get good reviews five and ten years after their appliance is sold. That said, the technique of folding a brand and spinning up a new one is a great way to bypass these consequences.

I like my Bosch dishwasher, even if I think it has only five more years max.

The problem is credibility. Manufacturers have an incentive to astroturf "independent" reviews. Insurerers have an incentive to rule out every common fault. And I want the data collection audited.

At this point, I'm ripe for appliances-as-a-service unless a big consumer watchdog steps up. Maybe there is room for a built-to-last manufacturer who goes to great lengths to show me they mean it. Maybe commercial appliances marketed to consumers?

Anecdote 1: Miele has a very good reputation. They also cost three times as much as the volume sellers and have a much lower market share. Sorry, no evidence of that claim. The closest is an article [1] claiming they produce 850.000 units per year.

Anecdote 2: I just replaced a cheap ($200) oven from Ikea (made by Whirlpool). Most likely the heater had broken. Inspection, parts and repair would probably cost the same as a new one. It had lasted 5 years, just past the warranty. We bought a new one, same model. It's simply too cheap to repair.

My conclusion: Lousy quality is our own fault - we do have options.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandcon...

Unbelievable.

Also pretty much every Samsung or LG washing machine i see in promotion has 10 years warranty on engine, though i would be afraid about electronics.

I bought a GE refrigerator last year. Just a few weeks after having it, I woke up one morning to the thing not getting cold. GE insisted they come to look at it, while I insisted they replace the refrigerator. Repair guy comes on the first visit 2 weeks later, tries some different parts, tells me, "I'll be back next Friday.", which was 7 days away. He comes back the next Friday and determines the refrigerator is unrepairable. It had heated up and completely warped the inside. The repair guy had to take photos and video for corporate. That means a brand new refrigerator went straight to the dump. It's upsetting. And note how much time it took before this poor guy could get to me. He was booked with appointments.

This was a month long fiasco. I had spent time researching and purchasing the refrigerator before hand, which was even more frustrating. During the month without a refrigerator my only option as I saw it was to bite the bullet and buy another refrigerator. That refrigerator has been great, albeit my standards for a 'great' refrigerator have lowered.

Because everything else -- the push for higher efficiency, more bells and whistles, a proliferation of models that change all the time, lighter metal parts -- applies to automobiles too, and today's automobiles are significantly more durable and low-maintenance than those of my parents' and grandparents' generations.

Instead you pay by the page.

Apple did a similar thing last year with their phone rental program.

If appliance makers are really worried about recurring revenue, maybe they should explore the subscription program. It would then be in their best interest to make things that last longer, since they would have to replace broken equipment sooner, but at the same time, if they make it last long enough, they can get more revenue out of that with a subscription than without it, and it's much smoother revenue.

Not a single problem in all that time, though I suspect it could use a new door seal. It is a manual-defrost model, which gives me the opportunity every few months (or when the door no longer closes :) to thoroughly clean it out.

The only other issue is that I have had to raise the temperature setting (rotate the 'wheel' away from "Coldest") from time to time over the years. It started at about 6 and is now past 3. If the trend continues, have a good 10 years left before it ices up completely.

Although it is true that it is not very efficient. A rough guess, based on having left it unplugged for over a month while traveling earlier this year, would be that it uses $0.65 (ConEd rates in NY) per day.

Enjoyed and agreed with the article, thanks!

When clearing out my grandmother's house a few years ago, my uncle and I almost broke our backs trying to get the freezer out. It felt like it weighed a ton, even empty.

My grandmother told us it had been a wedding present, and that they had been totally awestruck at the time at the generous present from her parents-in-law. After all, a decent freezer cost at least 2,000 kroner! (At this time, the average yearly gross pay was just in excess of 7,000 kroner.)

My grandparents married in 1950. Since then, monetary value has been reduced twenty-fold.

You can still buy a top-loading freezer for 2,000 kroner; I just checked.

So - in 1950, you had to work for five months to earn money for a freezer (after taxes.)

In 2017, I have to work one day for a freezer (after taxes.)

If you want a reliable appliance, buy the least energy efficient, oldest commercial model you can find with most mechanical controls possible. I've had my commercial Speed Queen washer and dryer since 2001.

I already had to deal with new ones 4 times, including one I personally purchased when I lived alone for a while... None of them ever got close to the 'granny' version my parents have in quality, the stove I bought never really pleased me.

I think it is just sad...

My parents also have older than me: Photo Camera with cool interesting lenses. A VHS player. Programmable calculators.

Also one of my dad favourite computers, that he is still using, is a now 13 year old HP laptop... He happily uses WinXP and the newest Ubuntu in it without issue, and use it as his main coding computer, because despite being 13 years old, it works better than any of his new laptops, it doesn't misbehave, don't get slow out of the blue, and is just more useable and sturdy... he only uses his most new laptop when he needs beefier amounts of RAM and CPU, but for day to day stuff, the 13 year laptop somehow is faster. (I am not even sure how or why, but it is, I also used that laptop myself for a long time).

[1] http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm

I'm not really inclined to conspiracy in the large but there are probably some small and lots of subconscious (for example managerial empire building) forces designed to fully employ and otherwise bolster certain economic localities (manager's headcount/power, company's volume->quarterly P&L) that have pulled us in this direction. A rising tide lifts all ships kind of thing, if the rising tide is more units sold, and more people building/tweaking the products. Unfortunately that is massive amounts of waste, and if you care about quality as a virtue.. misery in every direction.

Back to appliances, it's interesting to think about energy use as a whole.. newer motors, refrigeration tech etc may be more efficient, but if you have to replace it 3x it's likely a net loss due to energy expended in manufacturing and shipping. For example, over half of the pollution for a car is caused by manufacturing, so buying a new more efficient car for altruistic reasons is basically worse than maintaining a used car.

If this website is accurate: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50selectrical.html

A washer and dryer set in 1950 would cost the equivalent of $5000, and a refrigerator from 1950 would cost $3400

- sound quality is worse: cds >> mp3s

- flying is slower: concorde >> easyjet

- articles more errorful: newsrooms >> bloggers

- etc.

People prefer to consume more, different, faster, rather than less, better, slower. And, of course, the true cost of externalities (on the environment et al) is not properly factored in.

Consumers might say they care about quality, but ask them to define it beyond "it lasts" and they will likely say brand.

For example, take searching the web, what's the best search engine and how often do you think people compare the options they have and the quality of the search results?

It's just there's no incentive to make products last past warranty, so it doesn't happen.

Anyway, ever tried to move a 40 year old fridge? Good luck to your back.

They are also not very energy efficient.

But yes, TCO is a interesting topic we humans and markets can often get wrong.

[1] http://pingec.si/blog/articles/fixing-a-faulty-freezer-senso...

On the other hand I have a 30 years old washing machine which is rust-free and it simply just works. I am not sure I would ever want to replace it.

I lived in Hawaii for 7 years. Everything rusts.

I still have a couple of HP-41 calculators. Over thirty years old and they look brand new and work as new. Here they are, on my desk. Always there as computers, keyboards and trackballs have come and gone.

The same is true of power tools (not battery operated) of that era (early 80's).

My Bridgeport milling machine is another example. Yes, it's an industrial machine so the comparison might not be fair but the electronics function as new.

One of my biggest concerns as we were forced to transition into RoHS chemistry for electronics assembly has always been product lifetime. The intent of RoHS was, of course, to reduce pollution. I think that, in practice, it may have produced exactly the opposite effect. Sure someone has studied this. I hope I am wrong.

How is this the case? Well, RoHS solder chemistry has problems. From brittle solder joints to tin whiskers, the latter being a huge concern.

Whereas prior to RoHS one could build a great product like and HP-41 calculator and have it last decades, RoHS ended all of that. There is absolutely no way to prevent or predict tin whisker growth. Consumer electronics companies do not report failures (to be fair, the probably don't see most of them) and we have no real way to track people just tossing electronic products in the trash and why they do so.

Having tin whiskers is like having guaranteed obsolescence. Products will fail and there is no way to predict when and how. Which, to me, means we are probably dumping more shit in landfills than we used to.

In other words, my HP-41 hasn't gone into a landfill in over thirty years and it is unlikely to do so in another thirty. But nearly every other post-RoHS calculator is likely to end-up there because of these unpredictable failures.

And so, while the intent of RoHS was to clean the planet I have a feeling they have effectively setup the world for massive product failures over the years and far greater piles of electronics waste to contend with.

Professional marketers apparently refer to this sort of manoeuvre as "harvesting the brand".

In real dollars, appliances have gotten much cheaper. I found a Sears catalog from 1960 that had a refrigerator for $359. According to the inflation calculator I found, that's $2948.10 today. The descendent of the 1960 Kenmore is $429 on sears.com today, and manages to have twice the capacity.

he takes apart tools to see what they are made of and determines points of failure and longevity. of course he has a love of things built to last, just like anyone who makes stuff. makes me realize that with a little learning, we should all be able to see past crap products that are built to fail.

I then decided to buy a new one and got a flashy Samsung. It microwaves at best poorly, the food in the center will still be cold by the time the food on the edges of the plate will start to burn you.

I remember the store we bought them at had this display comparing "maytag parts" vs. "competitors parts" showing that maytags parts were clearly better. Stuff like springs, screws, etcs.

I think that "6. How can we change things..." is avoiding the elephant in the room. This looks systemic. This is exactly why laws were written against monopolies and trusts. I have no idea how DoJ decides to prosecute a trust/monopoly. How does that work?

This is not only about avoiding to replace your own machine, it's also about everybody else’s machine littering the environment. So I think, this is a market failure and an environmental disaster. Governments have to intervene.

New EU rule: Everything, which is heavier than 10kg has to last for 10 years, otherwise mandatory on-site repair and replacement. If you get caught putting in parts designed to fail (maybe even with reversal of burden of proof), the company has to pay back a multiple of the profits made from that machine, plus mandatory prison sentences. Problem solved.

I suspect the market has optimized for low acquisition cost, and longevity is a side-effect. People these days move more, rent for longer before buying a house, and remodel their houses more often. I wouldn't be surprised at all if manufacturers were incentivized to make cheaper units that can be replaced every 10 years when the "start to look dated" rather than ones that last 50 years.

Sounds ripe for a class action lawsuit against the major brands.

The most interesting question that came up during the 'cash for clunkers' program is 'how much energy does it cost to create a car' -- i.e. the relative fuel efficiency model needs to take into account that the new car needs to be manufactured whereas the manufacture of the 'clunker' is a sunk cost.

Planned obsolescence is another interesting question. If a manufacturer advertises reliability and also designs parts that don't last, can I sue them to reclaim the cost of disposing & replacing?

Longest mileage, 1966 Volvo P1800 - http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g121/million-mile-club-...

I'm sure there are lots of other examples. Simple, mechanical, solidly built. No gimmicks.

This is an educating documentary about the subject [1] and is worth watching.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdh7_PA8GZU

Consumers will buy devices that feel attractive. Shiny touch screens sell. Shiny plastic sells. Over-the-top features sell. Boring mechanical machines don't sell. Thick and sturdy looking metal doesn't sell.

Customers want the advanced features which make these once-simple devices complicated and more error-prone and they also want their devices to be more lightweight (hence more plastic and thinner metal) and be curvy, not boxlike (which is why we stopped having smooth surfaces).

I totally agree that 'cradle to cradle' shouldn't just be some hipster word. In the EU we pay to have any appliance recycled. Hopefully that is done ambitiously.

I've had to replace switches, as well as some cheap plastic parts which should sell for a couple of dollars at most, but they go for $20-40, and that's if you know how to buy them, if you get a repair person to replace the part, not counting the labor, those parts are going to run some multiple of the Amazon prices.

You wouldn't have wanted a computer from 1995 in the year 2000. And you probably don't want a phone from 2012 today. Well, everything is getting more like that.

[1] https://twitter.com/clumma/status/593890418028253185

I live in Vienna where most flats get heat and warm water from gas-powered combination boilers. There are a couple of companies who produce them.

Mine is 25 years old. The guy who comes for maintenance once a year says it should have broken down 10 years ago and he is only doing little fixes, but not swapping out larger parts anymore because: "If I replace something big, it might just stop working, then you have to get a new boiler, and those are all bad and break after 3 years."

note: Same can be said about furniture. Arhaus/Restoration Hardware is way more expensive than say ArtVan, for the old rustic look that last's longer.

The trick would be to market the total cost of ownership, rather than the sticker price at the store. They already do that with electricity consumption, but don't for repairs and warranties.

Regarding the opening link: " I’ve bought and sold refrigerators and freezers from the 1950’s that still work perfectly fine."

This may be true but in many countries electricity costs will kill you if you run a freezer from the 50ies.

If you are willing to spend similar sums of money and buy items from luxury or industrial markets, you might still get the similar quality and get the modern energy efficiency. Not many people are willing to spend that money for their kitchen.

Like the author said, there are a million brands but only a few manufacturers. Consumers can't buy based on reliability, even if they want to.

Also, seriously, you see so many people scoffing at the idea of supporting anything for any length of time. It is just the engineering mentality now-a-days; nobody wants to work on anything "old". Can you imagine trying to hire someone to maintain the software/electronics for appliances in 5 years much less 50?

Metal is made into shoddy components and appliances and sold to the consumer. When they break, they're scrapped, recycled, and remanufactured into new shoddy components and appliances. The material cycles in a loop, pumping cash.

Also from Wikipedia is the top photo from that article. "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: mounds of trashed appliances with a few smashed automobiles mixed in, waiting to be scrapped". So perhaps not a fair cover photo since most any appliance would be junked after being under water for days.

But `shortevity` also has advantages: If most of the consumers would not buy new phones every 2 years, innovation cycles would be even slower.

The challenge is to deal with the waste responsibly: Recycle resources and use renewable energy.

In "bang for the buck", it's the best purchase I ever made.

Man... I hate hate hate short toilets (the kind where you were like 14 inches off the ground at most and your junk always hit the front rim). Now every toilet is at least 17" tall and properly elongated, with jet-flush tech that never clogs. And those old short 30" counters like they built back in the day -- as a 6'1" guy bending over to shave in my own house? I think not. All those things built to old shitty standards had to go.

Replaced fridge and dishwasher about 5 years ago (replaced the 15 year-old builder-quality appliances that had been installed). Replaced the stove and range hood to get something a little more fancy... Why smell things cooking (and risk the smell getting sucked into all your closets and ruining your dry cleaning -- thanks to central air) when you can just get a 900 CF/M fan to suck away all the cooking smells.

So I guess my point is just... do we really want these things to last a life time? We're a throwaway culture. Any excuse to buy something new isn't a terrible thing... who knows what the trend will be 5-10 years from now... maybe we'll have carbonation machines in our fridges and I'll want one of those.

Our parents appliances did last longer, but their fridge didn't have a water filter or an ice machine, or double doors and LED lights and 36 cubic feet of space that magically fits in the same space as my old fridge that had like 30 cubic feet... Gave this more thought... the appliance manufacturers aren't to blame here... it's shoppers preferences and the disposable, competitive culture we live in. I perpetually want the latest, greatest, and most stylish thing I can get. I think they are just selling me what I want to buy...

Also seems like an odd business if you think used appliances are cruddy.

I was browsing for a new refrigerator - my apartment has fitted appliances so there isn't really much choice, most stores here maybe 10 fitted vs 50+ free-standing. Anyway, one shop had a model by Electrolux, Zanussi and AEG next to each other, which are all brands of AB Electrolux - each model was exactly the same (looks and specs), except for the badge and the price :s

So we dumped a bunch of money (close to $300.00) into a commercial microwave. One knob, 6 minutes max, high power only. Honestly, it works perfectly, easy wipe-out interior surface, no turntable, but heats evenly without turning the food. The only downside with it (as with all commercial kitchen appliances) is that it is stainless steel only (we have a "white appliance" kitchen.

Our next purchase will likely be a commercial refrigerator, and a replacement freezer. We're going with only a refrigerator in our kitchen, and replacing a small chest freezer in our garage with an upright. It's going to cost a helluva penny to do this, but considering how much a new consumer side-by-side costs anyhow, it should be worth it in the long run. The only downsides we have found (so far) are that a) commercial refrigeration units are much taller than consumer units, and we're having problems finding one that will fit into our current space, b) commercial units, if used in a home, usually will void the warranty, c) commercial units need commercial repair service, which is much more expensive in parts/labor when it does happen.

But we thought we'd give it a shot. Our current side-by-side works ok (mainly - water dispenser and ice maker don't work anymore), and it has worked well for 15 years now (and was bought used when we got it). Part of me wonders, after reading this story, if it might be better to have it repaired instead. We've already seen prices for new units, and they are crazy expensive for what you get. Plus, most of them don't fit in our current space; they seem to be made for new houses, which have taller ceilings, and no overhead cabinet above the fridge area - unlike our 1970s ranch-style home (Why do we live in such an older home? For starter's, we live below our means, because it provides a bit of insurance against uncertain problems. We also wanted a house without an HOA - new houses where we live, without HOAs, tend to be custom construction, if you are lucky, and that was beyond our means at the time for our first house. Lastly, we wanted block construction, copper piping and electric, and better construction - houses today are built so damn cheaply).

Hopefully whatever we decide will work out in the end. But so far, we wouldn't change our decision on our microwave (ours is basically the same one used in much of restaurant service - Sharp and Amana make the majority of these).

It stops being anecdotal when it moves away from your personal experience (including the anecdotal experience of your friends) and moves towards an actual scientific study.

For Reference:

> Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

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