One of our readers writes:
Alas, they, like I think the majority of corporate entities, feel that it is cheaper to maintain the appearance of quality through creative editing, marketing, positioning, etc, than to, in fact, maintain quality. Yes, I distrust companies.
Even my ‘Free Range’ expensive beef is no longer as soft as it was when it was first introduced a couple of years ago.
A relative’s original Braille watch lasted 14 years. The last 3 Braille watches (four, really, if you include the fact they replaced one and it, too, broke) lasted 1 year, 1 month, and 1 week, respectively.
It is my disappointment that companies have the calculus that the appearance of quality costs much less than real quality.
I believe this fits into the category of “Vatimaleh ha’aretz chamas”, as I understand Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch’s definition.
Ad kan.
Well, I say planned obsolescence is mostly an illusion, (and the majority of the rest – see this about appliances – is probably neutral, though government obstacles to new businesses surely contribute to the entrenchment of poor companies. Most customers want to buy things cheaper now, and then buy a replacement with new features later). And Rabbi Hirsch is misread.
Here’s a surprisingly insightful piece of original research in Wikipedia on “Survivorship Bias” (subtitles deleted):
A commonly held opinion in many populations is that machinery, equipment, and goods manufactured in previous generations often is better built and lasts longer than similar contemporary items. (This perception is reflected in the common expression “They don’t make ’em [them] like they used to”). Again, because of the selective pressures of time and use, it is inevitable that only those items which were built to last will have survived into the present day. Therefore, most of the old machinery still seen functioning well in the present day must necessarily have been built to a standard of quality necessary to survive. All of the machinery, equipment, and goods that have failed over the intervening years are no longer visible to the general population as they have been junked, scrapped, recycled, or otherwise disposed of.
Though survivorship bias may explain a significant portion of the common perception that older manufacturing processes were more rigorous, there are other processes that may explain that perception, such as planned obsolescence and overengineering. It is difficult to directly compare and determine whether manufacturing has become overall better or worse. Manufactured goods are constantly changing, the same items are rarely built for more than a single generation, and even the raw materials change from one era to the next. Capabilities and processes in materials science, technology, manufacturing, and testing have all advanced immensely since the 20th century, undoubtedly raising the potential for similar increases in durability, but pressures on production costs and time have also increased, resulting in manufacturing shortcuts that often result in less durable products. Overall, the contemporary consumer probably has access to and experiences a much wider range of product durability than past generations. Again, bias arises from the fact that historical goods of poor quality are no longer visible, and only the best produced items of the past survive to today.
Just as new buildings are being built every day and older structures are constantly torn down, the story of most civil and urban architecture involves a process of constant renewal, renovation, and revolution. Only the most (subjectively, but popularly determined) beautiful, most useful, and most structurally sound buildings survive from one generation to the next. This creates another selection effect where the ugliest and weakest buildings of history have long been eradicated from existence and thus the public view, and so it leaves the visible impression, seemingly correct but factually flawed, that all buildings in the past were both more beautiful and better built.
Read more on Wikipedia here.
