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

Supermodel Gadget.

[teiresias]

Where can I pick up one of those delicate, beautiful supermodels gadgets everyone's talking about these days? At an Apple store?

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....

Re:Because

[ChrisMaple]

To a certain extent, electronics can be engineered for extra durability. Use high quality parts from respected manufacturers. In some cases, use mil-spec parts. Don't run parts anywhere near their power, voltage, or current limits. Don't let parts run hot. Use sealed potentiometers. Use a manufacturing process that doesn't leave flux residue on the printed circuit board. Design so that variations (and in some cases, failures!) of individual parts don't cause degradation of performance or failure. Protect inputs and outputs from electrostatic discharge. And so forth.

Some of this is just good practice, some means more money must be spent, some means a lot more money must be spent.

In 1980, a new VCR cost $700 at a bargain store. It was heavy because it had a high quality machined cast-aluminum chassis. It was good until the heads wore out or the belts failed. Now, a new VCR costs $50 and has many more features. It's light because it's mostly plastic. Technology has advanced; what was transistorized in 1980 is now integrated. Recordings are better due to video processing tricks and better tape. The machine will last until the heads wear out or the belts fail.

Designing electronics so that cheap, easily replaceable parts fail is generally not an option, with the exception of adding fuses and circuit breakers.

Re:Because

[idontgno]

Also, for some very very odd reason, after around 18 months, the solder joints begin to somehow grow little spikes and cause pins to short out.

Ah, tin whiskers. An extra-special gift from our European friends.

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.

Keyboards

[bmo]

Keyboards these days are neither supermodels nor even remotely stylish. Yet they are exceedingly flimsy. If you bludgeon someone over the head with a keyboard these days, it simply shatters into dozens of pieces. The old XT keyboard, however, could have been used to dispatch Jimmy Hoffa.

--
BMO

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.

I still have an XT - 3 of them!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I will testify to their sturdiness! They are being used as blocks, to hold up my 1962 Jaguar XJ12 - itself another of those time-honored robust technologies, in contrast to today's delicate and tempermental flim-flams!

Oh yeah?

[MillionthMonkey]

I found my Razr after it was missing for three weeks. Somebody had buried it in the backyard.

There was not a scratch on it, and it worked just fine after a recharge.

This guy must be using one of the pink ones- those are sissy phones.

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?

The funny part

[ArchieBunker]

Is seeing how much older electronics are still around compared to new. I have tube amplifiers that are over 50 years old and still operate because the parts are easily servicable. IMHO most of the electronics that fail early are due to bad solder joints. Your average tv is probably assembled by children in an open air factory somewhere in the pacific. Parts are bought from different suppliers constantly to save a penny here or there. Remember the recent rash of motherboard failures due to leaking capacitors?

Weight?

[rickkas7]

An original IBM PC weighed 28 pounds with two floppy disk drives. A cell phone (err... mobile?) with a heavy gauge steel case would probably be pretty durable, but I wouldn't want to carry one around.

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.

Flimsiness? It's more about cost pressure.

[TheAwfulTruth]

yes, yes, planned obsolescense etc...

The #1 reason that modern gadgets break is because market pricing pressure makes then that way. They are cheap cheap cheap. While a /few/ people would pay the $120 it would take to create and sell a heavy duty all metal, robust keyboard, it would not be enough to compete with the millions that won't pay over $12.95.

I work in the hardware industry and pricing pressure causes manufacturers to do crazy/dangerous things to reduce the cost of every single component in a 1000 component product. Farm out calls for 1000 parts to the lowest bidder and you can pretty much guess what the total end result will be on the quality.

ISO 9000 has pretty much gone out the window in the last few years as being just too expensive to implement and manitain by the entire supply chain. Thus we are now constantly (Yes, still even today) dealing with capaciters that explode after 100 hours use, switches that break after 100 presses and an almost infinate variety of unplanned but inevitable hardware failures.

And in the end, if that means that someone has to buy a new phone and a new keyboard every year well, the companies that make them could have worse things happen than selling another product to the same customer. Even if the customer gets mad an never buys from that company again, it doesn't matter, pissed off customers of the competitor will come running back to THEM. As long as their quality is not significantly worse than their competitiors anyway.

But in the end, the age of the flimsy is mostly the end result of the age of extreme consumerism where everyone must have everything and it must all cost 12.95 or less.

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.

Re:Use a bit of care...

[cerberusss]

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.

Welcome to the real world. I wished for a chick with long legs and a tight pussy but instead I got an ostrich and a cat who lets me pay everything.

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.

The nice thing is that. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

once the critical part has broken, if you have the technical skills to fix it, you can pretty much be assured that your toy/tool/car/whatever will last a good, long time.

A while ago, in my search for a small, dedicated word processor with a long battery life, a big screen and a proper keyboard, I bought an HP Jornada 820. It's a great little machine with no moving parts and a flashcard port rather than a hard drive. Awesome. I use it all the time for writing on the go in ways that make regular lap-top and palm users go, "Wow! I wish I had something which served me as well. How much did you spend? Really? Wow. . . If I gave you some money, could you get one for me also? eBay scares me."

The problem, and I was told to anticipate this, is that the screen on the Jornada 820 likes to break off after a period of use.

So when mine did, I pulled it apart to see why. It's pretty amazing! I discovered inside a set of re-enforced bolt holes in the chassis where some scrupulous engineer figured the screen hinging system ought to be attached. But somebody, somewhere, made the call to ignore those bolt holes and instead use these single, weenie screws in a rather less than strong part of the chassis. A ploy which was clearly designed to have HP's cute little Jorna break with ease. And they do. Thank you so very much, HP!

But since planned obsolescence is a given these days, I was overjoyed!

I simply drilled out the never-used re-enforced bolt holes and employed proper bolts to re-attached the screen. (And because I like to do a really good job, I used some spring-steel and washers to make the whole thing even more rugged. Barring accidents, the screen will never come off again.)

So now I have a computer which by design was supposed to be dead several years ago, but which works just fine for me. And unless the (evil) designers were able to sneak any other time-bomb flaws into the device, my little word processor should last me for a very long time. This makes me happy!

The moral of the story? Learn how to fix things or get used to spending hoards of cash because several somebodys over at HP and similar companies are spineless villains.

-FL