Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
If everyone built them at the highest quality, then every product would be at the highest price point.
Each reduction in quality makes that product available to more people who couldn’t afford it otherwise.
Eventually, the only way to put the product in everybody’s hands is to make it so cheap that it only works once, if you’re lucky.
lower quality products are not always cheaper to produce.
Can you provide an example please?
Samsung washing machines. Even if it’s top-of-the-line they’ll still sabotage it by using the spider arm as the sacrificial anode so that it breaks just out of warranty. Doesn’t matter if you paid $2000 for it; it’s still shit.
sneakers of all kinds. the materials and manufacture is essentially the same. its all marketing bs.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t even think of that point. Thanks for sharing, interesting perspective.
It’s also untrue, see my other statement.
In many cases, especially technology and machinery, extra effort is put into making sure they break down on time, just out of warranty. They’d be arguably cheaper without that extra effort.
Not too long ago, TVs were so expensive that most people rented them.
This might depend on where you live? I don’t remember seeing any sort of rental TV services in any area I’ve lived in or any advertisements for such. I’ll be honest, I wasn’t looking for one, but I also haven’t heard of this as a common thing.
The highest price points for many items are luxury brands that sell for hundreds to thousands of times the actual cost of manufacture.
And yet everybody (or close enough) in the world today has a smartphone that generally will last at least a year or two. (Set aside countries that are screwed up because of their govt, that’s another issue entirely). There are lots of things that could be supplied to every person on earth if capitalism wasn’t fucked.
Smartphones last way longer than that if you’re not using them to break rocks or losing them.
Not the point I was trying to make, I was just being conservative with an average lifetime.
Cell phones should last a decade, and could.
Agreed. Mine generally last at least 5 years, usually more.