logoalt Hacker News

maxericksontoday at 12:58 AM3 repliesview on HN

Is there a bright line between cost reduction and planned obsolescence?

Obviously a small unreplaceable battery is not a good example for that discussion.


Replies

moringtoday at 7:31 AM

I think there is: It is the line between "not spending extra money to make sure it works" and "spending extra money to make sure it won't work".

There is a related problem with warranty: an inferior third-party replacement part may cause damage to higher-quality original parts. There is a line here between "making sure you don't have to deal with follow-up damage caused by inferior parts" and "preventing the use of inferior parts". This is a bit more blurry because most cases won't be clear-cut, and dealing with them will be a burden on the original manufacturer.

I think it is important that we reward the nice players as much as we punish the bad ones. A blanket "all companies bad" just means that no company has an incentive to be anything less than bad.

hgomersalltoday at 7:06 AM

I had an interesting situation where we had failure of a Thule bike trailer wheel and could see where the connection-to-the-trailer design had changed from an earlier version (from the company that Thule bought). The wheel functioned the same, but you could see a clear difference which fully explained the failure. I expect it was a cost optimisation, and we only encountered the failure because we used it very heavily.

Edit: they also failed to honour their warranty commitments, but that was secondary.

jojobastoday at 3:07 AM

Going out of your way to make sure the gauge doesn't work after the battery is replaced surely is.

show 1 reply