Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Michael Kennedy]

Separate matter entirely to the mindlessly silly claim that
its even possible to design an appliance to break about a
year after the warranty runs out, with most appliances.
..

Why do you say it is impossible? When designing the product
the engineers figure the average useage of the appliance every day
and then calculate about how long it will take before a failure.
They also do product reliability testing to see how long on average it is
before a product fails. Many times they use methods for speeding up
the process, ex acid or amplified sunlight.

And even the stuff which can be designed to do that like
the stuff with microprocessor control that can certainly
be programmed to do that, no one is actually THAT stupid

If I remember correctly I read about a certain laser printer on this group
that would stop functioning after it prited a certain amount of pages. It
had to
have a reset button pushed on its mainboard before it would start working
agian.
I don't know this to be a fact since I've never experineced this myself
though.

- Mike

 

[Rod Speed]

Michael Kennedy <Mikek400@remthis.comcast.net> wrote:

Separate matter entirely to the mindlessly silly claim that
its even possible to design an appliance to break about a
year after the warranty runs out, with most appliances.

Why do you say it is impossible?

Because it is impossible ? Novel concept I realise.

When designing the product the engineers figure the average useage of the appliance every day and
then calculate about how long it will take before a failure.

Nice theory. The reality is that that isnt even
possible with most domestic appliances.

It isnt even feasible with stuff as basic as an incandescent light bulb.
A CFL in spades. A moulded power cord or plug pack in spades.

They also do product reliability testing to see how long on average it is before a product fails.

No they dont with domestic appliances.

They dont even do that with mass market hard drives anymore.

Many times they use methods for speeding up the process, ex acid or amplified sunlight.

Not with domestic appliances they dont.

And even the stuff which can be designed to do that like
the stuff with microprocessor control that can certainly
be programmed to do that, no one is actually THAT stupid

If I remember correctly I read about a certain laser printer on this group that would stop
functioning after it prited a certain amount of pages.

Not in the sense that it will never work again and you need a new one.

It had to have a reset button pushed on its mainboard before it would start working agian. I don't
know this to be a fact since I've never experineced this myself though.

That is done with copier etc too, but thats nothing
like the planned obsolescence being discussed.

 

[Epictitus]

Is that why my dishwasher died after 8 years and it was cheaper to buy a new
one than to repair the old? Our previous one lasted 22 years without
hiccup. Was still running but the tub rusted out and started leaking...


"Ecnerwal" <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote in message
news:LawrenceSMITH-678E3F.13113414012007@news.verizon.net...

In article <B%tqh.1176$O02.696@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

Perhaps you've not been adequately involved with your appliances to see
that there is not a contradiction, even "apparently".

The old ones were, for the most part, designed to be repairable. "This
part always breaks eventually, we'll isolate it and make it easy to
replace".

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. "This part will (by design) break
about 1 year after the warranty runs out - let's put in in a monolithic
module containing all the most expensive parts of the machine." The
appliance industry would much rather sell you a new one than have you
fix the old one, and they have taken steps to ensure that only the
maddest of mad hatters will stubbornly stick to repair; and when they
do, the industry will still profit mightily due to inflated pricing. But
not making the parts at all will knock even the mad hatters into line
soon enough, so long as they keep all the parts adequately non-standard
that it's not economic for anyone to second-source them.

The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies in
8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair), clearing the
way for more new car sales.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

 

[Everett M. Greene]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:

terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that, it
then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate and
distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more complex,
costly products to less expensive, the compromises to accomplish the
goal become more severe. If your product is a plastic toy to try to
sell millions, the margin per item has to be miniscule. If, otoh,
you're building a high-end anything, that is a different set of
constraints. Either way, unless the product can be designed and
manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there won't be any more
company so the cost point is as important as anything else.

While I respect your opinion, it sounds like you are reading straight
from a textbook.

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you that I have never seen
it work that way.

Reality is much different than the academic BS model....see Dilbert for
a real life reference.

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show "The Office" are so
popular...because they are so true.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when engineering says it
can't make a product based on the imaginary price point...who then
decides?

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can
sell...and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer needs to
buy another new one from them...and have to get any and all support
from them. It is all about separating the consumer from as much of
their money as painlessly as possible.

And that is called a conspiracy.

TMT


dpb wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their research
indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and the
design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a mandate to meet
that price point by top level management, but there are no "accountants" telling
anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore the
fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants. They
are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired profit
margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end lifes and
without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs who have
dictated what the product life and quality will be.
...

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that, it
then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate and
distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more complex,
costly products to less expensive, the compromises to accomplish the
goal become more severe. If your product is a plastic toy to try to
sell millions, the margin per item has to be miniscule. If, otoh,
you're building a high-end anything, that is a different set of
constraints. Either way, unless the product can be designed and
manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there won't be any more
company so the cost point is as important as anything else.

The point is, the manner in which it is made manifest is, in most
organizations, not a draconion "order from above" as you would imply
with an express goal to extract the pound of flesh a la a historical
vision of a Carnegie or a Vanderbilt, but an overall coordinated
approach to how to make the best corporate decisions in a competitive
economy. All information in this environment is imprecise and all
individuals making these decisions are not infallible so there are
always decisions made that aren't, in retrospect, optimal, but that
doesn't mean these decisions were made a priori to fulfill some grand
over-arching scheme. On the far extreme one _might_ be able to find a
company that tried to operate as you suggest, but I would submit it
would be an aberration in general and highly likely to not succeed in
the long run.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

No, 'Dilbert' is farce, very loosely based on a figment of reality...

No...Dilbert is a real life expose as to how companies are run
everyday.

At every company I have worked over the years, it has taken only hours
to note which individuals would be right at home in the Dilbert
cartoon.

Try watching "The Office" for a few weeks and notice how you soon the
same qualities at your workplace.

It's Corporate America and they don't have a sense of humor since they
would have to laugh at themselves.

TMT
dpb wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

You must be the guy who draws the "Dilbert" comic strip.


No but ask any engineer....Dilbert is fact, not fiction.


No, 'Dilbert' is farce, very loosely based on a figment of reality...

That there are recognizable traits and actions is only indicative of
the state of human fraility and foibles in any field of
endeavor...while we engineers can certainly recognize events and even
individuals who may seem to match, to attribute the actions as directly
motivated as are is a deliberate act of characterization and
exaggeration. Not that there aren't plenty of mistakes made and sorry
management practices, but the difference is as noted in another
response, for the most part they're a result of the "law of unforeseen
consequences" and well-meaning decisions individually that
collectively, don't provide the desired results.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

In terms of energy efficiency, many new electronics are more energy
gluttons than the old ones they replace.

Many electronics today have "always on" features where they
continuously draw current even when shut off. Couple this with others
who use wall transformers that continuously draw current. If one wishes
to reduce your energy bill, the first thing you need to do is remove
all these parasitic power users. The irony is those of us who are
serious about cutting our power bills seek out the older electronics
because they do not siphon power when not used.

It is true that some refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners are
more efficient but you also need to consider the depreciation cost of
your money when replacing the unit. The push to replace older
appliances is a push to sell new ones and for power companies not to
have to build new power plants....it is not about you saving money.

TMT

Tracey wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168795859.447722.255770@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In my opinon...no.

I intentionally try to have older appliances, vehicles, machines to
lower repair costs and keep overall ownership cost to a minimum.

Your thoughts?

One thing that you might not have considered is Energy Efficiency. Sure,
your refrigerator from 1950 might appear to be working fabulously. However,
it probably costs an awful lot more in electricity to operate it than a
newer model would cost. Likewise with your hot water heater, oven,
diswasher, washing machine, etc.

Its just something else to keep in mind...

 

[Mike Hartigan]

In article <1168890675.449796.83460@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
too_many_tools@yahoo.com says...

No, 'Dilbert' is farce, very loosely based on a figment of reality...


No...Dilbert is a real life expose as to how companies are run
everyday.

At every company I have worked over the years, it has taken only hours
to note which individuals would be right at home in the Dilbert
cartoon.

Try watching "The Office" for a few weeks and notice how you soon the
same qualities at your workplace.

Indeed! I'm celebrating my 28th year in Corporate America this month
and I've seen virtually every character from 'The Office' in every
one of the dozen or so corporations I've worked in over those years.

Yes, even Dwight.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

Try watching "The Office" for a few weeks and notice how you soon the
same qualities at your workplace.

Indeed! I'm celebrating my 28th year in Corporate America this month
and I've seen virtually every character from 'The Office' in every
one of the dozen or so corporations I've worked in over those years.

Yes, even Dwight.

LOL...Especially Dwight...many times over.

TMT

Mike Hartigan wrote:

In article <1168890675.449796.83460@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
too_many_tools@yahoo.com says...

No, 'Dilbert' is farce, very loosely based on a figment of reality...


No...Dilbert is a real life expose as to how companies are run
everyday.

At every company I have worked over the years, it has taken only hours
to note which individuals would be right at home in the Dilbert
cartoon.

Try watching "The Office" for a few weeks and notice how you soon the
same qualities at your workplace.

Indeed! I'm celebrating my 28th year in Corporate America this month
and I've seen virtually every character from 'The Office' in every
one of the dozen or so corporations I've worked in over those years.

Yes, even Dwight.

 

[Rod Speed]

Everett M. Greene <mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote

Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have replaceable batteries?

Its harder to design something as compact as that with standard replaceable batterys.

ipods too.

You have to toss a $60-$120 device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Indeed.

 

[Rod Speed]

Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

While I respect your opinion, it sounds like you are reading straight
from a textbook.

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you that I have never seen
it work that way.

Reality is much different than the academic BS model....see Dilbert
for a real life reference.

Nothing like real life.

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.

dpb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their
research indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and
the design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a
mandate to meet that price point by top level management, but
there are no "accountants" telling anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore
the fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants.
They are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired
profit margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end lifes
and without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs who have
dictated what the product life and quality will be.
...

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering nor were "engineers are under
the thumb of accountants." As Rick says, where the cost-accounting
enters the design phase is in trying to make a price-point which is a
function of market niche, competition, timing, comparative product
advantage vis a vis competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that,
it then becomes an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate
and distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to be
miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything, that is a
different set of constraints. Either way, unless the product can be
designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold for a profit, there
won't be any more company so the cost point is as important as
anything else.

The point is, the manner in which it is made manifest is, in most
organizations, not a draconion "order from above" as you would imply
with an express goal to extract the pound of flesh a la a historical
vision of a Carnegie or a Vanderbilt, but an overall coordinated
approach to how to make the best corporate decisions in a competitive
economy. All information in this environment is imprecise and all
individuals making these decisions are not infallible so there are
always decisions made that aren't, in retrospect, optimal, but that
doesn't mean these decisions were made a priori to fulfill some grand
over-arching scheme. On the far extreme one _might_ be able to find
a company that tried to operate as you suggest, but I would submit it
would be an aberration in general and highly likely to not succeed in
the long run.

 

[Rod Speed]

Epictitus <mikeNOSPAMster.d2@gmail.com> wrote:

Is that why my dishwasher died after 8 years and it was cheaper to
buy a new one than to repair the old? Our previous one lasted 22
years without hiccup. Was still running but the tub rusted out and
started leaking...

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

"Ecnerwal" <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote in message
news:LawrenceSMITH-678E3F.13113414012007@news.verizon.net...
In article <B%tqh.1176$O02.696@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote:

This raises an apparent contradiction.

Perhaps you've not been adequately involved with your appliances to
see that there is not a contradiction, even "apparently".

The old ones were, for the most part, designed to be repairable.
"This part always breaks eventually, we'll isolate it and make it
easy to replace".

The new ones are, for the most part, designed NOT to be repairable,
and/or parts prices/availability are manipulated to render them
effectively non-economic to repair. "This part will (by design) break
about 1 year after the warranty runs out - let's put in in a
monolithic module containing all the most expensive parts of the
machine." The appliance industry would much rather sell you a new
one than have you fix the old one, and they have taken steps to
ensure that only the maddest of mad hatters will stubbornly stick to
repair; and when they do, the industry will still profit mightily
due to inflated pricing. But not making the parts at all will knock
even the mad hatters into line soon enough, so long as they keep all
the parts adequately non-standard that it's not economic for anyone
to second-source them. The same logic is driving the production of hybrid cars that are less
fuel efficient than some non-hybrid cars. When the battery pack dies
in 8-10 years, the car will be junk (non-economic to repair),
clearing the way for more new car sales.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

 

[Terrence Briggs]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Rick Brandt wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Yes, my mother used her first clothes dryer for over 30 years. We
replaced the belt three times. A new dryer might last five years,
total.

On what do you base this statement? To claim that (on average) a new dryer will
only last five years is absurd. What, you once knew "a guy" who replaced a five
year old dryer? The dryer has to be one of the simplest and most reliable
things in the home. There just isn't that much to go wrong.


From dozens of relatives and friends who had major problems from 4 to 6
years. My stepmother replaced a GE washer and dryer pair that was less
than two years old because they were crap. Not much to go wrong? cheap
parts, poor designs and sloppy assembly work. Something is making noise
and you find a broken weld, sheared off bolt or bad bearing that SHOULD
NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

7 percent of dryers purchased between 2002 and 2006 needed repair,
according to a survey of Consumer Reports subscribers and their 109,000
dryers.

Not sure how much it would cost to repair a dryer, however. I've seen
good performers from reliable brands selling in the $450 range.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Terrence Briggs using a coin-op machine for now. Bachelors don't have
that much laundry
Peace to you...

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence is standard practice in
the industry.

TMT

Everett M. Greene wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

 

[Rod Speed]

Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

In terms of energy efficiency, many new electronics are
more energy gluttons than the old ones they replace.

And plenty aint too.

Many electronics today have "always on" features where
they continuously draw current even when shut off.

And plenty take bugger all power in that mode now.

Couple this with others who use wall
transformers that continuously draw current.

Plenty use switch mode plug packs now too.

If one wishes to reduce your energy bill, the first thing
you need to do is remove all these parasitic power users.

Wrong again. I use electric for all heating and cooling
and that completely swamps any effect those have.

The irony is those of us who are serious about cutting our power bills seek
out the older electronics because they do not siphon power when not used.

Anyone with a clue, which obviously counts you out, has enough of a
clue to continue to use the current products and chooses those which
use switch mode plug packs and have minimal standby power use.

It is true that some refrigerators, freezers
and air conditioners are more efficient

All of them are, actually.

but you also need to consider the depreciation
cost of your money when replacing the unit.

Yes, but that usually pays for itself quite quickly because the improvements
are significant, particularly with the dinosaur stuff from the 50s etc.

The push to replace older appliances is a push to sell new ones and for power
companies not to have to build new power plants....it is not about you saving money.

Wrong again. Its actually about doing both.

Tracey wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168795859.447722.255770@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In my opinon...no.

I intentionally try to have older appliances, vehicles, machines to
lower repair costs and keep overall ownership cost to a minimum.

Your thoughts?

One thing that you might not have considered is Energy Efficiency.
Sure, your refrigerator from 1950 might appear to be working
fabulously. However, it probably costs an awful lot more in
electricity to operate it than a newer model would cost. Likewise
with your hot water heater, oven, diswasher, washing machine, etc.

Its just something else to keep in mind...

 

[Terrence Briggs]

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

You've never worked for a company that manufactures stuff have you?

Marketing (NOT accounting) might provide a price-point that their research
indicates a product needs to be at to be competitive and the
design/engineering/manufacuring departments might be given a mandate to meet
that price point by top level management, but there are no "accountants" telling
anyone where to cut costs.

I believe it is you who needs to work in the real world and ignore the
fairy tales of academic circles.

In a real company, engineers are under the thumb of accountants. They
are to make whatever cuts need to be made to make the desired profit
margin. Products are manufactured with intentional end lifes and
without any possiblity of repair...all required by MBAs who have
dictated what the product life and quality will be.

It is done to extract as much of your cash as possible.

TMT

And what if the consumer tires of your company's product and moves on
to another brand?

As this thread proves, people take anecdotal evidence of a product's
failure and avoid all of that company's products in the future.

Poster A refuses to by a GE dryer because a family member had to repair
hers in less than 5 years.

Poster B avoids anything made by Panasonic because a vaccuum broke in
less than a year.

It would seem to work AGAINST a company's bottom line to make products
that piss off your customers. They'll move on to another company.

Terrence Briggs
Peace to you...

 

[Rod Speed]

Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard
batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

 

[dpb]

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

(Actually, the following is what I wrote earlier but the attribution
seems to have been snipped...)

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing firms
from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought by very
large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are MBAs and
accountants, and they have very important functions, in none of these
places did they dictate to Engineering ...
....

While I respect your opinion, ...

Maybe so, but the rest of your post certainly doesn't make it sound
that way...

But, then again, it wasn't opinion but experience...

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you that I have never seen
it work that way....

All I can say is you obviously were with the wrong organizations or
missed the signs of how things _really_ were...if the former is
actually the case, sorry.

In the 30-yrs mentioned previously, the only really bad blunder
enforced by a large corporation ethic I experienced was in one of the
aforementioned purchases of a successful startup by a behemoth. Their
plan was to integrate the new product line into an existing one with
its third-part sales reps and distributors rather than retain the
smaller company's dedicated sales force. This, unfortunately for both,
turned out to be a blunder for both.

But, it had nothing to to w/ MBA's deciding to cut or pare the bottom
line, it was just the business model that had been quite successful for
the new owner that they assumed would be successful for this product
line as well. Similar sorts of "not so black-and-white" scenarios are
almost surely in play as Rod points out in the situations you've
encountered as well.

 

[Mike Hartigan]

In article <5126f3F1ijseeU1@mid.individual.net>,
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com says...

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

Isn't "what really happens" the same as "true"? What am I missing
here? Perhaps "true" is not accurate since they don't deal with
actual events. "True to life" is probably a better characterization
of 'The Office' and 'Dilbert'.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

Caricatures make reality entertaining. But they still reflect
reality. They wouldn't be funny if they didn't. 'The Office' is a
caricature - that's why it's funny on the particular level that it is
funny. I find that people who have never worked in an office are
less likely to 'get it'. 'Scrubs', on the other hand, is farce. You
don't have to work in a hospital to enjoy it.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

Typically, it is. Particularly when the target price is
'impossible'.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Are you suggesting that Apple did not try to minimize the production
cost of the iPod? Perhaps you could explain why they are made in
China?

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

Actually, you're both wrong. The objective is to sell a product NOW.
Given the rate of change, particularly with technology products,
repeat sales are no longer an objective. Build them as cheaply as
possible TODAY. This year's bottom line is what the CEO's bonus is
based on.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

That's pure BS. Consumers are motivated, first and foremost, by
purchase price. That's the reason so many products have a 'Made in
China' label. Apple and a few other American companies have
successfully marketed a perception of quality (actually, hipness),
but still import the products.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.

Actually, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It's simply using
a business model that works.

 

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:11:43 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree. No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium

Polymer battery pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into
a device. That would look after all the ipods and ipodlikes,as well as
all kinds of PDAs etc. On the ipod nano it's just the simplicity of
assembly that counts - it's crimped together, but not sealed, so if it
gets wet it's finished, and it IS possible to take it apart - but the
battery is soldered on, rather than plug-in, because it's
simpler/cheaper. Could still replace the battery - but they are NOT
AVAILABLE. And if you get the beggars wet, the battery goes south.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard
batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com