Why Do Gadgets Break?

TurboTurnip writes "A post on the Crave blog at CNET asks: Why are modern consumer electronics so easily broken? It argues that the 21st Century is 'The Age of the Flimsy' where 'your gadgets will simply break within the year.' Post author Chris Stevens talks about how computers are fast enough for the average user, and the only way to make consumers upgrade is 'increasingly poor build quality ... Engineers have built obsolescence into mass-produced technology since the 1920s. There are two kinds of planned deterioration in a product: one is technical, the other is stylistic.' The writer compares the build quality of a 20 year-old IBM XT to the modern Motorola Razr phone and concludes that modern gadgets are 'delicate, beautiful supermodels that can't go the distance.'"

Comments

Because

[atomicthumbs]

People drop them, spill water on them, http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t= 8764 put them in the washing machine, etcetra. People are stupid and careless. In addition, capacitors and other parts DO have a limited lifetime.

Re:Because

[gurps_npc]

Yes, they do that. And we expect them to survive. Your point is?

How do you tell a good company from a bad company?

The bad company tells their customers what to do with the stuff they buy, and yells at them when they complain.

The good company pays attention to what their customers do with their purchases and upgrades so that the next version will be able to do it better. That does NOT only mean 'more memory'. It also means shock resistant case and water proofing, and batteries that don't wear out (or explode).

Re:Because

[Rorschach1]

Quality tends to be expensive - not only in materials, but also in increased design and testing costs. I can understand why in a hyper-competitive market like cell phones it'd be hard to justify the added costs.

Fortunately the field I'm in is a little less competitive. For my latest products, I opted for powder-coated steel enclosures when most are using plastic or sometimes aluminum. Yeah, it's more expensive, but you can drive over one (which has happened to previous models) without harming it. But aside from that, it makes a big impact when I'm showing them off at a convention. People smile when they pick one up - it doesn't feel cheap or flimsy, and it's immediately obvious that quality is a major concern with the product. Same goes for the internals, with gold-finished PCBs and higher quality parts than are strictly necessary. It all adds up to an extra few bucks for a $65 product - more than worth it from my perspective.

Besides, I can't afford to hire a tech support / rework staff - if it breaks, I'm the one who has to fix it. Now THAT is a real incentive for quality!

Re:Because

[bigman2003]

Some industries design things to break on purpose- but usually in a smart way.

I used to own a print-shop, and with that came printing presses of course.

Most manufacturers designed their printing presses with 4 or 5 'weak points'. These would be gears, cams, or other parts on the press that were made of aluminum, copper or some other weak metal that was sure to break. And break they did. In fact, a good 80% of the time when I needed to get a press repaired, it was one of these pieces that would break- frustrating the hell out of me.

So the repair guy would come out and replace the part, charging me a few hundred dollars, and keeping us out of production for a few hours. Obviously I asked him, "Why the hell do they make these things out of aluminum, when all of the other pieces are made of steel?"

I was ignorant, but his answer made perfect sense. The manufacturer would put these weak parts on the outermost parts of the press, where they could be easily accessed. Also, one of these parts would be part of each important system on the press. So, when something went wrong- a bad paper jam, or rollers stuck together, or something fell into the press (like a hand), then these weak points would break, and thereby protect the rest of the press. So instead of the repairman coming out and tearing apart the entire press; taking days and tens of thousands of dollars; he would come out and replace one simple part in just a matter of minutes.

I wonder if there could ever be a similar way of engineering electronics.

Replaceable batters on MP3 players would be a good start....

Cost savings?

[192939495969798999]

An original IBM PC cost thousands of dollars when they were new. An iPod costs 200 dollars new, approximately. Surely a 10-fold difference in price reflects more than advancements in technology, it also must reflect a decline in longevity/quality based on price? If you made a $2000 iPod and focused that money on making a lasting piece of equipment, it would probably come out significantly longer-lived than the $200 model.

They want you to buy a new one in 2 years

[BunnyClaws]

The company has more incentive to make products that will break after 2 years of use so that you will be forced to purchase a new product from them. Why make a TV that will last 25 years when I can sell you a high end plasma that you will have to replace in 5 years? By making products that break it ensures that customers will continue to buy from the manufacturers.

Huh?

[Otter]

The writer compares the build quality of a 20 year-old IBM XT to the modern Motorola Razr phone...

And if you compare my new washing machine to a 20 year-old umbrella, you'd reach the opposite conclusion. How about comparing the Razr to a Walkman or a Swatch, not to a cinderblock of a product from a mainframe maker?

Re:Use a bit of care...

[oliverthered]

- iPod: almost 4 years. Battery is shot, but that's a physics issue, not a quality issue.

My mp3 player takes standard rechargable AAA battries, I can even replace the battery in my mobile. I think having the battery build in is a clasic quality issue ment to force people to upgrade their ipods every few years

Be Responsible, and It Won't Break

[ematic]

Taking good care of your electronics is the key to making them last. Especially if you pay a bit more for a well engineered one. I know of a lot of original Gameboys that still have life in them.

I'm an electrical engineer. While there may be system-level/market-level planned obselescence (based on outdated protocols, DRM, or style -- think iPod G1-4), there certainly is not one at the component-level (chips/ICs). Microprocessors are reliable as ever.

This essay lacks references. And, following argument is groundless: "The electronics industry has clearly spotted this problem, and ... your gadgets will simply break within the year".

Explain.

Re:Use a bit of care...

[b0s0z0ku]

iPod: almost 4 years. Battery is shot, but that's a physics issue, not a quality issue.

If it used standard sized NiCd or LiIon batteries and the back was easily removable, any putz with a screwdriver would be able to replace them. Sealed devices are silly unless there's a compelling reason to seal them (water pressure resistance or something).

-b.

Re:Use a bit of care...

[joto]

I'm not shure what's most scary. The fact that a properly taken care of powerbook will only last 4 years, or the fact that you are happy with this. I have a pair of boots thats lasted me 4 years, used regularly for long hiking trips in rough terrain, wet terrain, rough and wet terrain, and so on... How many times can you jump on your powerbook? (Of course, the (modern) gore-tex liner lasted only a few months...)

My mothers old washing machine lasted 26 years before giving up. When I went and bought a new washing machine for myself 5 years ago, I was expecting it to last for at least 10 years. It lasted 3! And I'm single, have no kids, etc...

I've almost given up on cell-phones. Even if I buy one specifically marketed as sturdy (e.g. Nokia 514), it is almost guaranteed to fail within two years (usually within a year). I would be willing to pay a lot more to get a phone where I don't have to worry about random breakage any time I fall on it.

The thing with gadgets is, I'm not interested in "being careful" with them. I'm interested in getting something that works. If I buy a mobile phone, it's because I want to bring it with me to become mobile, not to keep it inside original packaging with temperatures between 15-25 celcius and low air humidity. If I buy a washing machine, I want it to wash my clothes, not randomly fail. If I buy a car, I want it to keep driving, not require expensive maintenance, and having expensive parts fail all the time. And if I buy a laptop, it should survive a little rain, being dropped on concrete, being dropped in salt water, having someone fall on it, etc, all common things happening to transportable items.

Which makes it more expensive

[everphilski]

The good company pays attention to what their customers do with their purchases and upgrades so that the next version will be able to do it better.

A lot of products have a dropproof/waterproof/dustproof alternative, at an increase in cost. People opt for the cheap model. The consumer makes the choice in the end.

Re:Which makes it more expensive

[shmlco]

Ditto. People drive twenty miles to save five dollars on a $500 TV. As such, too many companies compete on price, and buy the cheapest possible components to do so.

Or you have the WalMart effect, where they've beat their suppliers wholesale prices down to the point where the suppliers are forced to do the same thing, buying and building cheap just to stay in business.

End result? You "saved" five dollars buying a flimsy POS, and you'll get the chance to do the same thing a year from now when it breaks down and dies.

It's more than you think

[Sycraft-fu]

Adjust that for inflation as well and it's staggering. An IBM XT Model 5160 was $8000 for a full system in 1983 when it came around. Adjust that for inflation today and that's about $15,500. Turns out, you can get some pretty serious computer for 15 grand, one that will be pretty well built.

However if you want a $400 computer from Dell, which would be about $200 in 1983, well don't be surprised if there's some compromises made and it doesn't last all that long.

Also something people seem to forget is that the examples of old things around today that we see are the good ones by definition. Sure that XT that still works today is reliable, but what about the ones that failed? Well you don't see them because they are on the trash heap. Just because there's a few examples of old items that have survived doesn't mean they were all well made, may have just been some that were particularly lucky.