Slashdot Mirror


One Hoss Shay and Our Society of Obsolescence (hackaday.com)

szczys writes: The last time you replaced your smart phone, was the entire thing shot or had just one part gone bad? Pretty much every time it's one thing; the screen has cracked, or the WiFi stopped working predictably. But the other parts of the phone were fine. The same is true for laptops, or cars, or one-horse carriages. In fact this is a concept that has been recognized for well over one hundred years. The stuff we buy isn't meant to last forever, otherwise we wouldn't buy more of them. And for that matter, nothing lasts forever despite design. But what if everything was optimized to fail all at once? Instead of a single point of weakness, all parts wore equally and failed in the same time frame. Finding a balance between the One Hoss Shay model, and encouraging the return of user-serviceable parts would go a long way toward making sure that replacement is a choice and not a necessity. (And here's a nicely illustrated version of One Hoss Shay.)

170 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Will you stop approving submissions by this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We get it, you're a hackaday shill.

  2. Correct your spelling Editors by omnichad · · Score: 1

    One-Horse Chaise

    1. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by tsotha · · Score: 1, Informative

      The US spelling is "shay".

    2. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by omnichad · · Score: 1

      US misspelling at one time. Contemporary spelling of the word preserves the original French. E.g., Chaise lounge

    3. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2
      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      "Chaise" doesn't sound anything like "shay".

    5. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Chaise longue" - it is a long chair, not a lounge chair. "Chaise lounge" is a 19th century American misspelling.

    6. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by tsotha · · Score: 2

      Yeah, "hoss" is horse. A "one hoss shay" is a type of one-horse carriage. It will make more sense if you read the article, as the summary doesn't connect the allegory.

    7. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      It's a french word, and it is is definitely pronounced with a "sh" at the beginning, not a "ch" sound.

      The woman in the commercial got it right. If you don't want to pronounce it right, just say "chair" instead of telling people who can speak french that they're saying it wrong.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is called a "dogcart" in english (read enough sherlock holmes, you'll figure it out. A one-horse carriage.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      THANK YOU! I read the whole poem, and still had no idea why anyone would name a carriage a "One-Hoss Shay". I have no idea what a Hoss is, and I have no idea what a shay is. Of course, I have heard of Horse and Chaise. Crazy 18th century poets!

    10. Re: Correct your spelling Editors by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I get it. My joke wasn't funny. I read the poem before posting.

    11. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The whole poem is full of mispelled words, spelled that way to sort of represent a somewhat local dialect rather than being in proper Queen's English (foreign monarchs being easily overlooked on this side).

    12. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by unitron · · Score: 1

      For most of the one hundred years covered by the poem that would have been the King's English.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    13. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by sudon't · · Score: 1

      That's "chaise longue". French for "long chair". Chaise lounge is an English language folk etymology. You should at least know what you're talking about before you go correcting anybody.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    14. Re:Correct your spelling Editors by sudon't · · Score: 1

      It sounds like "shayz". You've simply never heard it pronounced correctly, or didn't recognize it when you did. The "z" sound was dropped because it sounded like a plural form to English speakers. Or, as the OED puts it:

      chaise, n.

      (ez)

      Also 8 chaiz, (shazess).

      [a. mod.F. chaise (chaize Cotgr.), a phonetic alteration of chaire (so Pazis for Paris, etc.), established in the ordinary sense ‘chair’, whence by extension ‘sedan-chair’, and by transference a wheeled vehicle for travelling in. In this later sense alone chaise passed into English, notwithstanding that chair had itself here received the same development (see chair n.1 11, which however was not always an exact synonym of this word, but often used as the name of a particular sort of chaise). (Cathedra, chair, chaise, are thus all forms of the same word.) The vulgar take (ez) for a plural n., and form on it a singular (e) chay, shay.
      (The change of lingual r to z in French is a phenomenon widely exemplified. It appears fully established at Orleans in 15th c., but did not come down beyond 1620.)]

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  3. the poem was "The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay." by swschrad · · Score: 1, Informative

    end of argument. get off my lawn.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:the poem was "The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay." by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      end of argument. get off my lawn.

      But the poem itself refers to "chaise" and "chaises". So pedantically I am not going to get off your lawn.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:the poem was "The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay." by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      But the poem itself is called "The Deacon's Masterpiece or The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay."

      So pedantically I am not going to get off your lawn.

      And yet you're perfectly happy to start a sentence with a preposition. Disgusting!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:the poem was "The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. So is a conjunction.
      2. No one, not even the morons who hate ending sentences with prepositions or starting them with conjunctions, has a problem with starting them with prepositions.

    4. Re: the poem was "The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay." by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      I fear for slashdot when posts like that get modded up.

      Oh yeah I did it.

  4. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by HiThere · · Score: 2

    IIUC, Ford used to study which parts in his cars failed least frequently, and then change the design to make it cheaper. This *should* be another way to achieve the same end.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  5. Mean time to failure by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Components have a mean time to failure. Your design is already optimizing your choices for your market unless you're an idiot. There's some simple math for for calculating the time to failure or likelihood of a combination of components. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Mean time to failure by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      It's not even that - even if all your parts have the same MTTF, they will not all fail at the same time. The only way you can cause all your parts to fail at the same time is if they all have dependencies on other parts such that if one part fails, the others are guaranteed to fail. Or, effectively, a self-destruct mechanism.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    2. Re:Mean time to failure by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they will. I said there's math for calculating overall failure time/rate. Part of that calculation in a real product will be adjusting that calculation in a reasonable way by changing how much you spend on each part. So inherently the optimization to fail at or around the same time is going to happen anyway, with adjustments to normalize for the cost-to-robustness ratio and discontinuity of each component market and for the varied price of components to come up with the most efficient product possible given the target market.

    3. Re:Mean time to failure by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not really that simple except for reasonably large, well studied components. But if you are doing the design of say, a motherboard or a the main board of your cell phone, you are essentially constructing a new thing, based on components that themselves may or may not be well understood even under their own environments. Processors are a crapshoot, many of them (including our favorites) don't have an MTTF at all, or any reliability data period. In fact quite a lot of smaller ICs are like that too. In a mature organization we do study the lifetime curves of the components (in some fashion or another), and there are standards of acceptability based on the market, but that is definitely not a good assumption to make about most consumer electronics (for example). A lot of those are made in some shady fly by night environments.

      The whole topic in context of consumer electronics is kind of dumb. Nobody designs things to fail in a given window. It's hard to do even if you have reliable statistical models. You design not to fail in a given window, and inevitably outside of that window something eventually goes wrong somewhere. In reality you are often against some sticky design choices (quality, reliability, cost, pick one). My favorite is selecting decoupling capacitors for big digital ICs like CPUs. Failure to have adequate decoupling will result in random and unpredictable failures, yuck. Proper decoupling is frequently physically impossible, some people who make chip packages don't think this through real well and don't simulate. Yay. But the designer does the best he can, trying to find the smallest parts to get in to all the nooks and crannies, with the least inductance he can introduce. In choosing that small package he has chosen quality over reliability and cost: the smaller package will have a lower voltage rating and thus the MTTF will be lower (often very much lower in practice), and you often add cost in choosing those components because they require SMT lines that support small parts, the smaller footprints have larger manufacturing fallout (tombstoning, bridging, etc.) and sometimes they just cost more because only one guy sells them, etc. No one will ship if the derating curves are too bad, but at some point we say "a life of 3 years is good enough", and that's that. In reality decoupling in many environments is black magic, no one has the technical data to know how much is enough, and we massively overdesign it, and even as components fail nobody ever notices!

      Then there's mfg variability. Your design may be absolutely correct on paper, it may even have met your DFM criteria for your factory. But there is a non-zero probability of failure in fab and assembly of every part of the design. Things happen, I mentioned surface mount part tomb-stoning (literally turning at 90 degrees to the PCB, like a tombstone) but that's just one of so many things. Not all of these produce a hard failure immediately, many of them make it through whatever physical and functional test you apply to a device after it is manufactured. But they fail early because the circuit as designed by the engineer, as hopefully studied for standard component failure, is now outside of its design spec, and is going to fail early. Or possibly someone mishandled a component and induced a latent ESD event to a device causing its lifetime to be reduced. So all that work above, designed to make sure your design works "just long enough" gets ruined horribly when it gets physically assembled.

      In reality, yes we are making lifetime choices based on the market, but not in any devious technical way. Given the low costs the market demands on consumer goods, and the fast design cycles a number of less than optimal choices are being made that impact the final product. There is no way to predict what is going to fail first, all we can do is look at failures that come in and identify where the weaknesses must have been (even that is usually only done for the first 90 days, or maybe 1 year). However since products change so signifi

    4. Re:Mean time to failure by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It's yet another submission by the hack-a-day shill. That's pretty much all he does here - try to get people to his crappy website.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Mean time to failure by mitcheli · · Score: 1

      Of course, we don't HAVE to have a mean time to failure if things are engineered well enough. But then how would we feed our greed?

      --
      Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
  6. Ummm.. nothing by shaitand · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nothing typically fails in my phones before replacement. My phone and most phones are replaced because we are enticed with a newer shinier phone and amortized or waived costs with a contract.

    1. Re:Ummm.. nothing by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

      I get OS support failures in my phones. They usually stop getting manufacturer and carrier support about a year after they're released. Even my flagship Android devices that are under 2 years old are running 5.0.x. It's only very recently that some manufacturers have finally started to provide security updates for "obsolete" devices so at least some of my devices are safe from years-old exploits. But they'll still be Left Behind in a few more years when apps require 6.x or higher.

    2. Re:Ummm.. nothing by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Or they're just slow as s#%t for newer applications, games, or the technology is outdated (like having a non-LTE phone). My last phone was expandable via microSD card, but there were too many things you couldn't move to the SD card, and I ended up having extremely limited number of apps - it was a cheap phone that worked OK for a couple of years, but the constant "insufficient memory to install application" problems pushed me to get a new phone. That simple. Every time I upgrade I actually ask "what can I do with a new phone that I can't do with my old one (that I really need or want to do)?" If I have a good answer, then it doesn't need to be broken to update.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Ummm.. nothing by shaitand · · Score: 1

      A fair point but that isn't really a component failure. That's the problem with the general tone of this article. We are already pushed toward new devices in so many ways and it is common to all the carriers interests not to compete on this, no active collusion or conspiracy required to get the same anti-consumer needs to be outlawed result. The last thing we need is take planned obsolescence the next step by actually sanctioning it and supporting the manufacturers deliberately building devices to fail rather than last as long as possible.

      Also, how the hell do you plan something to fail at the rate of the screen? The most common failure in screens is a dropped phone which the manufacturer then does not support. We should be demanding more phones that are designed with unbreakable screens not designing everything else to fail.

    4. Re:Ummm.. nothing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      So, your provider contract model is broken - making your existing phone obsolete for no reason whatsoever.

    5. Re:Ummm.. nothing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      ... making your existing phone obsolete for no reason whatsoever.

      Except for weight, poor battery life, and lack of memory and features needed for new apps. Also, no one with an old phone is going to be able to hang out with the cool kids. New phones are being pushed by "providers", they are being pulled by consumers.

    6. Re:Ummm.. nothing by chispito · · Score: 1

      Nothing typically fails in my phones before replacement. My phone and most phones are replaced because we are enticed with a newer shinier phone and amortized or waived costs with a contract.

      I think the most common point of failure for the typical phone nowadays is the grip of the person holding it over a hard surface.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    7. Re:Ummm.. nothing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You are still getting security updates via Google Play. That's why older Android devices don't get recruited into vast botnets, despite there being billions of them out there. 5.0.x is currently very secure, and still supported by Google with security patches.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Ummm.. nothing by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yup, and to some degree that "feature" is built in by the manufacturer. Not even so much as raised edges around the screen to take the impact before the screen anymore because it reduced failure too much. That after market tempered glass screen protector they sell you, those should just be built in on these $600 devices and so should a solid and reliable case. These things actually cost pennies at phone manufacturer scale.

      The memory problems people mention above. They don't actually need to be a problem. There is plenty of room in even the most thin phone for multiple 32GB chips. More than that, intentional or not there is no valid reason for the storage creep people experience on phones.

  7. won't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone's use-case is different, you can't design it in such a way that all parts consistently fail at the same time.

    And it is not "nothing lasts forever despite design" it is "obsolescence is in the design".

    1. Re:won't work. by dj245 · · Score: 2

      Everyone's use-case is different, you can't design it in such a way that all parts consistently fail at the same time.

      And it is not "nothing lasts forever despite design" it is "obsolescence is in the design".

      There is a different, but related philosophy- to design a machine in such a way that with a simple action, the entire product falls completely to pieces, allowing for easy recycling of the materials. My engineering professor used the example of a car with a special bolt under the back seat. Unfasten the bolt and all the aluminum falls to one side, all the steel to the other side, and all the plastic falls straight down. Obviously that is a fantasy example and 100% disassembly will be impossible for products of any real complexity, but if we must live in a world of disposable goods, trying a little harder to make them more easily recyclable is the next best thing.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:won't work. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Even worse, making multiple quality levels of components could end up costing way more than just going with a higher quality component, due to economies of scale. And that's nothing compared to the insane levels of QA and engineering required to have the components fail at exactly the right time -- cheaper to make a component that will last 1 or two years, then to make one that will last exactly 365 and a quarter days.

      If you want all your components to fail at the same time, just hit it with a sledgehammer when one component breaks -- it would be cheaper than that harebrained scheme.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:won't work. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Cell phones don't even have any moving parts, and under normal use, should not be subjected to physical stress. Also, at the time the poem was written, anyone could cut down a tree and fabricate wood replacement parts for a carriage. In today's world, the cell phone components were just not designed to be user replaceable.

    4. Re:won't work. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Cell phones don't even have any moving parts..

      My Galaxie 4 has three exterior buttons, one of which is a rocker switch. I have a Vibrate Mode, indicating the existence of a moving part inside. Yes, even piezos move.
      I have a microphone and a speaker, both of which have moving parts.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  8. slash bucket / trash by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Article and idea too terrible to comment on. Creating a part to wear this way and maintain usable tolerances will cost way more then just a well designed part.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  9. planned obsolescence or inflation? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    The last thing I'd want is for industry to cheapen products further than they already have. All the cheap, fragile plastic in products today seriously shortens lifespan. Of course, the problem is that industries are trying to keep their products at 'magic' prices points ($9.99, 99.99, 199.99 etc) that customers have grown accustomed to over many years while fighting inflation of the currency. Their only choices are to increase the price or cheapen the products.

    Perhaps part of the solution is to reverse the inflation trend.

    1. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Well, what about efficiencies of scale? The costs of other factors dropping (e.g. transportation viz. lower petroleum prices, currently)? Offshoring manufacturing (which is why a lot of stuff got so crazy cheap in the first place)?

      Lots of factors besides the two you mentioned...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by BoRegardless · · Score: 2

      Which is why a lot of people buy the most reliable products, like Apple laptops and similar tough designs.

      The reason to buy tough laptops and other similar equipment is the inevitable time loss when you are forced to upgrade before you are ready.

      eBay offers the intelligent buyer a way to get less expensive replacements and sometimes repair parts.

      The free marketplace economy works pretty well.

    3. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The last thing I'd want is for industry to cheapen products further than they already have. All the cheap, fragile plastic in products today seriously shortens lifespan.

      Can't really say I agree, most the problems with flimsy plastic crap came from poor assembly, tolerances and quality control. These days I get the impression that it's mostly made by robots inspected by robots, it might still be cheap but usually very consistently so and just solid enough to last for most people. So many things have fallen under the "repair event horizon" where if you have to repair it the expected cost of niche parts/tools/skills and remaining lifetime doesn't add up.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Well, I was talking about increasing prices vs quality for long standing products. If anything, we're more efficient today at producing mass quantities of just about everything, so if prices are still going up, then there's a problem elsewhere.

    5. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      currency, and I'm not just talking about the technology industries.

    6. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      and why is there all this flimsy plastic crap, poor assembly, tolerances, and quality control? Cost cutting to keep a price point. Living with junk that's always breaking is its own cost, especially if most people can't afford to throw it away (say a home appliance or a car) and buy a new one whenever it breaks.

    7. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      In the words of the fed, inflation is too low. Some countries are trying to figure out how to avoid deflation. Target inflation is ~2% per year. Last year it was ~1/3 that.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Ever dropped your phone on concrete and not have it show any damage? Phones are pretty good in terms of build quality.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you want a device that lasts a long time then Apple isn't a good buy, because their hardware is very difficult to repair. Something like a Thinkpad, where you get a complete disassembly manual with part numbers for everything so you can easily order replacements from Lenovo/eBay, is a better bet.

      There is also the issue of upgrades. I have a very thin and light NEC laptop, very well made metal body, and it's easy to take out six screws on the base and replace the SSD/wifi/battery, clean the fans out, swap the CMOS battery and put back together. The soldered RAM was almost a deal-breaker for me.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You can do all the same things in Apple devices too. Don't believe the anti-hype. Apple has developed an annoying addiction to pentalobe screws, but the screwdrivers for those now seem to be available at many hardware stores. There are excellent tear down guides, step by step instructions for individual part replacements, and replacement part sales.

    11. Re:planned obsolescence or inflation? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Newer Apple laptops have glued in batteries, SSDs and memory soldered into place. They are truly disposable computers. And this is supposedly their "Pro" line. On the PC side things aren't too much better with some of the Ultrabooks, but at least you can still buy Thinkpads and the like that can be repaired more easily.

  10. We already have this by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Usually when one part fails, the whole phone is useless. It's effectively the same thing.

    1. Re:We already have this by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      We already have cars like this; one day past the warranty period, 30 things fail simultaneously. What you're saying is that, after walking the last mile home, we should walk into the house with a smile saying "Guess what, Honey! We need a new car! Isn't that great!"

  11. Why I keep my smartphone by Dracos · · Score: 4, Informative

    I keep my smartphone (Samsung Epic 4G, of the Galaxy 1 generation) because no phone available now has the one feature I want to keep: a hardware QWERTY keyboard. Yes, it's stuck on Gingerbread and has an anemic amount of RAM (even for its time), but that just shows how much I hate on-screen keyboards.

    1. Re:Why I keep my smartphone by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

      Blackberry still exists and has a hardware QERTY keyboard.

      Ah, yes, That's the legendary Blackberry reliability for you.

    2. Re:Why I keep my smartphone by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      "Nobody" wants hardware QWERTY these days. Today it's all about slim and thin, not functionality. Hoping my N900 has enough life in it to survive this trend. 9 years and growing so far. One day there just might exist a more perfect phone, but I doubt it.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    3. Re:Why I keep my smartphone by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can get cases for newer phones that have a QWERTY keyboard built in. They are more common for tablets but some models exist for phones.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Why I keep my smartphone by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when the W key falls off the keyboard of your curve a replacement costs peanuts:
      http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Genu...

      I still have a couple of spares - mostly I broke the front housing and front screen and replacements came with keyboard...

      In fact you can replace/repair just about all of it for next to nothing - problem now is the software is completely unsupported

  12. Color me skeptical by tsotha · · Score: 1

    I'm not convinced modular smartphones will ever be more than a niche product. The whole goal of smartphone design is to fit as much as you can into a tiny package, and modularization would require lowest-common-denominator physical dimensions.

    1. Re:Color me skeptical by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Depends. The goal of manufacturers seems to be to cram as much as possible in to the tiniest possible package regardless of any other constraints. As far as I can tell few people actually want that. Very many people I see seem to have some sort of protective case around their phone since the damn things are so fragile.

      So, if the modular phones were only as small as a normal phone plus its nice fat protective case, for most people nothing would be lost.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Tyrell Corporation figured it out. by bughunter · · Score: 1

    Sounds too much like a Nexus 6 model...

    If something is going to have a fixed lifetime that requires I make another purchase, then it better be cheaper than a durable model, you'd better pass the cost savings on to me.

    Otherwise I'll buy something I can keep longer by caring for it well.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  14. Nah - not seeing that happen... by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would get more than a bit expensive, wouldn't you think? I meant for the manufacturer, not the individual consumer (who also gets shafted).

    I'll explain - the R&D into making everything fail at once (or enough to brick the device) would never be recouped...

    * too much chance of the customer jumping ship to a competing brand that promises that their widget lasts x% longer.
    * too much chance that the failure wouldn't fail gracefully, causing something lawsuit-worthy
    * too much chance that the failure would fail gracefully, but do so at the wrong time, again causing lawsuits
    * too much chance that you mis-time your intentional MTBF, causing your entire customer base to simply stop using that class of device (after all, I don't *need* a smartphone to eat/sleep/shit/whatever, and if the cost is too high to keep replacing them, I'll simply do without.)
    * too much chance that some group like Greenpeace (or worse) would use that pre-planned failure to whip up animosity towards you and your company. ...sure there's lots more involved, but think about this: some breakages can be repaired at relatively little cost, such as a cracked screen. Because of this, replacing an entire fairly-new phone (and then blowing all that time configuring/syncing the replacement) because the screen cracked is asinine (doubly so when you consider things like device insurance).

    Just at first blush, I don't see this idea working at all... it would require everybody in the industry to do it at the same time, and further require that a struggling company not 'cheat' by making and selling more durable products.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  15. Which way do you want it? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you want small, efficient devices that can't be serviced or big, inefficient devices that are modular?

    The more customizeable or serviceable you make a device, the bigger it's going to be because the individual components need interfaces and power regulation and whatnot.

    1. Re:Which way do you want it? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Do you want small, efficient devices that can't be serviced or big, inefficient devices that are modular?

      These are not always mutually exclusive. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Which way do you want it? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Do you want small, efficient devices that can't be serviced or big, inefficient devices that are modular?"

      In the case of smartphones it seems we are getting "the best of both worlds": big inefficient devices that can't be serviced.

  16. I keep mine, too. Because it's small. by ffkom · · Score: 2

    And "being small" is a feature completely missing from every contemporary smartphone sold where I live. (By small, I mean dimensions smaller than 8cm x 5cm x 1.5cm).

  17. Do smartphones actually break? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> replaced your smart phone, was the entire thing shot or had just one part gone bad

    My family and I have owned about a dozen different phones now. None have ever broken. We really only get another phone because:
    1) Another kid is old enough
    2) I want more features
    3) "My phone's full/slow"

    Same thing with laptops/computers, etc. The side benefit is that a fresh new phone is new, non-gross and un-worn. Unless there was a regular and inexpensive "detailing" service for my phone, I'd still want to chuck my phone every couple of years just like I chuck running shoes.

    1. Re:Do smartphones actually break? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      My phone is one of the few devices that actually have broken. Mainly because I carry it everywhere, and it eventually falls out of my pocket, and sooner or later, one of those falls does some damage.

      OTOH, I don't think I've had a laptop break since the turn of the century, and I've NEVER had a desktop or tablet break. They might become "obsolete", but they don't break.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Do smartphones actually break? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Nobody's ever lost one? Wow.

      I suspect almost as many phones get lost as fail.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Do smartphones actually break? by Jiro · · Score: 1

      I've owned four tablets. Admittedly cheap Chinese versions, not name brands. The first one really did spontaneously malfunction; the touchscreen started acting strangely, acting as though it was touched in the wrong places at the wrong times until at some point it failed completely. The second I had dropped and badly cracked the screen; my fault since I hadn't secured it in its case. It actually still ran but I wanted to replace it. (The third was not malfunctioning; I just wanted to upgrade to a high resolution screen.)

  18. Electronic Engineer Here by labnet · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obsolescence is DELIBERATLEY limiting the lifetime of an object through design.
    I've designed electronic products for over 25 years, and not once have I ever purposely designed obsolescence into a product, nor have I known an engineer who has (We are talking industrial/scientific equipment), and I'm not sure how you would do it for an electronic product short of firmware date methods.

    Now: I have designed products, such a Alcohol Breathalyzers, that will refuse to work after a certain period of time because they need recalibration (this was to maintain a government certification), but re calibration restores functionality. The fuel cell wears out in those products; but again that is not planned obsolescence, but a limitation of the technology.

    A cracked screen (user abuse), poor wifi (software driver, corrosion etc) are not Obsolescence.
    Failing batteries is about as close as you can get to obsolescence.

    I'm sure there are examples (especially for mechanical consumer devices with moving parts), but for electronics, it is not a 'thing' we do.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it appears to users as such. Our computers do not get measurably slower over time but we get used to faster computers elsewhere in our life and thus our home computer appears less fast or our TV is more blurry. It's a matter of perception mostly, some things like security updates may make things a bit slower but that's just what security requires (you can't expect your 20-year old computer to compute a 2048-bit key as fast as it does it's contemporary 256-bit keys).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by eyenot · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what you, as the designing Engineer, plan for.

      Ultimately, your plans get handed up and up until they reach a holder, and then down and down until they reach a buyer.

      And that buyer, ultimately, decides how those plans are executed -- whether in full or in part, with or without modifications.

      And when "in part" and "with modifications" means selling *more quickly* for a *good enough* price to any buyer whatsoever, then that course you took in Ethics In Engineering (I hope!) waves good-bye because the end-producer is the one who determines what the actual product is and the politics that producer works under decides how accountable they are to their consumers.

      Say "hi" to China for me.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    3. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same here.

        Products are not 'designed to break' but rather to last a certain amount of time. A good example f this are spacecraft, or more specifically, the Martian rovers. Say they are designed for a target mission of 90 days. That means you want a 97% probability of lasting 90 days.

      If each of the 10,000 components that went into building it had a 97% chance of lasting 90 days, the thing would statistically fail before you got to Mars. You have to use parts rated much higher than the mtbf of the entire system That's why you often end up with missions lasting years beyond the nominal time - because each individual piece was picked to last 10 years. This is very complicated stuff because you have to factor in each failure mode and how an individual failure will propagate through the whole system.

      I think the closest thing you get to planned obsolesce is the person who sets the product lifetime targets. Designing a widget to last for five years is not the same as destining it to fail in five years.

    4. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Obsolescence is DELIBERATLEY limiting the lifetime of an object through design."

      Like making components known to have a limited lifespan (batteries) non-replaceable for all practical purposes?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Chrome now hangs on startup on several of my older computers ever since the last major version thats not my imagination if I install an older verison of chrome or Firefox it won't do that.

      Also has anyone figured out how to fix lonesome smartphone syndrome? You know where your droid gets lonely when left unattended and starts calling people at random by itself?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    6. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by sjames · · Score: 1

      You pick components close to the limits rather than allowing a margin. Perhaps you run them a touch beyond rating. Cheat the heatsink a little smaller than requirements.

    7. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      Obsolescence is DELIBERATLEY limiting the lifetime of an object through design.

      No. When the IBM PC first came out, it made every CP/M machine in the world obsolete, but that wasn't planned when the various CP/M machines were designed and built. The term you want isn't obsolescence, it's "planned obsolescence," where the device is designed to wear out faster than it otherwise would. As an example, if a car manufacturer used parts known to be degraded by exposure to alcohol in cars that were expected to be sold in states where all gasoline was required to have ethanol added, the cars would break down sooner and more often than they would have otherwise and be replaced more often. Or, to keep things in terms of computers, designing a laptop with an inadequate heatsink and an underpowered fan to force users to replace them more often.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I've designed electronic products for over 25 years, and not once have I ever purposely designed obsolescence into a product, nor have I known an engineer who has (We are talking industrial/scientific equipment)"

      Maybe that's the reason.

      "I'm not sure how you would do it for an electronic product short of firmware date methods."

      Easier than it seems. On one hand, pay attention to the target audience for these devices: a lot of times a dying battery is enough reason to trash away a phone, or just adding more and more resident apps and claiming the phone is "too slow for modern times". On the other hand, there's no need for sophisticated analysis, just designing for the "good enough". I.e.:
      -This chipset is too packed and it'll run 20ÂC over its designed temperature, so it'll eventually fry.
      -How soon?
      -Probably somewhere between two~three years.
      -Good enough.

      Or:
      -This component is quite sensible to voltage variabilities: once the battery starts getting old, it'll fry it.
      -That gives us about two to three years, right?
      -Probably yes.
      -OK: go ahead.

      Or:
      -This micro-usb is low quality: if somebody uses it frequently to charge the phone or to take it in and out of his computer, it'll brake in no time, I mean 1000 to 2000 extraction cycles.
      -That will give us two to three years: ahead with it.

    9. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "You may as well be very honest developers, I have no reason to doubt that. But in some industries, things are simply very subtle."

      And even those very honest developers demand the biggest/fastest computers available and automatically think everybody else do the same: you end up with "hello worlds" that require 4GB of RAM a two-core 2GHz CPUs just to boot up.

    10. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Engineers don't have to design in obsolescence. It just comes naturally.

      Case in point: Have you ever designed any industrial/scientific equipment with a serial port on it? Where do you plug that into on a modern PC? ... They all have USB ports instead!

    11. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by guruevi · · Score: 1

      a) That's a problem with closed source software, not your OS or your video card. Commercial software producers are not going to support older stuff forever because it isn't profitable but they also don't let you tinker with it or compile it on an older platform. But the point is that the old stuff should still work and not slow down your computer over time. I haven't used Flash in at least a decade for that precise reason but for simple animations it seems like keeping an older version of Flash or getting Gnash may be a solution.

      b) Most (good) OS'es aren't vulnerable either. Linux is just coming out of their first LTS, Ubuntu had a few LTS versions and they're all still secure and stable and equally fast on that 80486 as it was 10 years ago. Antivirus is completely and utterly unnecessary for non-Windows OS (and no, market share has nothing to do with it anymore) as are standalone firewalls if your machine is well-managed. Firewalls do nothing against application-based attacks, only close ports that shouldn't be open in the first place or OS'es that somehow don't let you control the ports that are open.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    12. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      That word does not mean what you think it does until you pretend it with the word "planned".

      Planned obsolescence is different than just becoming obsolete naturally.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    13. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Also has anyone figured out how to fix lonesome smartphone syndrome? You know where your droid gets lonely when left unattended and starts calling people at random by itself?

      I'd recommend stop keeping your smartphone in a back pocket. A belt case would be ideal--it'd prevent the screen from being cracked, too.

    14. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I've seen several smartphones do this just sitting on a table unattended but I've never figured out why.

      Butt dialing is a even more common problem but its not what I was talking about.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    15. Re:Electronic Engineer Here by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The use of non-volatile SRAM which has an embedded lithium cell might be considered this when it is not replaceable. A lot of test equipment built starting in about 1990 has this "feature" even if it was implemented by replacing the previous solution of an external lithium cell, low power SRAM, and backup circuits while using the same printed circuit board.

      More recent is the problem with aluminum electrolytic capacitors which have a well understood and predictable wear out mechanism. I have older ATX power supplies which have lasted well past their warranty date but newer ones from specific manufacturers reliably fail just out of warranty.

  19. Depends on the Product by foxalopex · · Score: 2

    While some folks might like disposable products since they "upgrade" so often, I am not in that market and I tend to keep items for a long time. I suspect in most modern phones the part most likely to fail due to heavy usage will be the battery because Lithium Polymers wear out with use. However in my Samsung Note 3, the battery is replaceable so that's less of a concern for me. I'll likely keep using my phone until it can't play youtube anymore. I'm still using a Vaio Z laptop made 5 years ago. It was state of the art in its time so surprisingly it still seems like a fairly modern laptop. It can't run as long on battery and the discrete switch-able graphics are a bit weak but thanks to impressive design, weight wise and size is a match to modern thinish laptop. CPU power is pretty decent too as an i7. So no, I do not like disposable items.

  20. Stupid by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    That's seems like a really dumb way to tackle a problem. Why not address the reason why the part failed to begin with and improving that? The biggest problem I've ever had with my phones are crappy MicroUSB that seem to disintegrate if a little pressure is applied.
    Most people's biggest problem is the screen falling to bits if you stare at it too hard.

    I wish manufacturer's would consistently offer spare parts.

    1. Re:Stupid by eyenot · · Score: 1

      q: what's stupid?

      a: wishing in one hand and shitting in the other. it's a joke -- don't actually do it!

      fact of the matter is, you can look at the history of PC's and see *FOUR* prevailing and concurrent trends:

      1. "this gets easier to sell as it gets smaller"

      2. "this gets harder to break into and work on as it gets smaller"

      3. "making things smaller takes more investment and research, it's more expensive and fewer companies can compete -- which means i can't just run out and get replacement parts for a smaller device"

      4. "things getting smaller, harder to work on and more desireable all at the same time is a real fucking hard on for me, i'm going to go with manufacturig the miniaturized model AND the proprietary model AND the unserviceable model, all because nobody can fucking touch me! i'm king! KING!"

      which is exactly where we are, today!

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    2. Re:Stupid by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Yep, stupid. While there is an interesting mental excercise about an optimum design being once that worked flawlessly until the day it falls apart into dust, it misses the point. Given the hundreds of electronic components and many millions of transistors in a phone it is amazing they work in the first place, let alone trying to shave tolerances so they fail predictably.

      Cell phone companies torture their devices all along the design process to see what fails early. The suppliers get their skulls cracked (or worse) for failures even during early builds and often there is very little or no cost or weight increase to be more robust, often it is simply a matter of figuring out how to properly test the sub-component to replicate a phone level stress event. ESD strikes are notoriously hard to replicate accurately at the sub-component level as an example.

      Screens should be replaceable more easily then they are, as they are a major wear item, similarly it would be nice if the micro-USB's could be more easily replaced. For test equipment we often put sacrificial connectors onto instruments the day they come out of the box, and only remove them for truly important measurements. Similarly, a socketed micro-USB that could be user replaced when worn would be great. Either that or have the promise of wireless charging actually come to pass...

    3. Re:Stupid by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, at least on some phones, including my Galaxy S4, the USB jack *is* user-replaceable (sorta): it's on a separate PCB mostly by itself, and you can buy replacements on Ebay pretty cheap. Of course, you have to disassemble the phone a lot to replace it, but it is something that someone can do at home with a micro screwdriver set.

      I wonder if anyone would want to make replacement boards with USB-c connectors instead, since those are probably better than the crappy microUSB ones,

  21. No by alzoron · · Score: 2

    I prefer only one thing failing at a time. That way it's economical to repair it.

  22. Apple products are fine and dandy... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I had a first-gen iPod Touch that lasted eight years before the battery quit holding a charge. Otherwise, it was perfectly fine. The replacement was an iPhone 5C because I needed a new phone after three years and it was $100 cheaper than a current gen iPod Touch.

    1. Re:Apple products are fine and dandy... by Mryll · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if mine will hold a charge any longer, but it lives in my car as an adjunct to the stereo functioning perfectly. Not bad for rattling around in a glove box.

    2. Re:Apple products are fine and dandy... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I'll just chime in.... my iPhone 4 lasted 5 years with absolutely no problems other than the battery life gradually diminishing. When I finally decided to upgrade, I paid a college kid $35 to replace the battery and now it works like new again (I passed it on to a relative to use as an mp3/audiobook player). I could have replaced the battery myself for about half that price, but I was too lazy to bother.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  23. cruft by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    When my old Windows boxen slowed down because of cruft buildup, I would give it a cleanout and defrag.

    But my phone? throw it in the bin and replace it.

    Are there solutions to phone buildup of cruft?

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:cruft by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Select "Factory reset." on startup. You'll have to play around with the on-off and volume buttons a bit to get to the boot menu when you restart. For a more limited cruft removal - Settings | Backup and reset | Factory data reset.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:cruft by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I never thought I'd read something more irritating than people referring to their computers as "boxen". But "Windows boxen" manages it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  24. Has this already been done? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    My experience with Hondas is that they are designed to last almost exactly 100,000 miles, at which point they start requiring significant maintenance.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Has this already been done? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right - but to be fair, since the 100k mile point on my car, I've had maybe $6000 in repairs (non routine maintenance). It's got over 200k miles now - definitely worth it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Has this already been done? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      You make that sound like a bad thing. Being essentially maintenance-free for 100,000 miles is far, far ahead of the industry average. There are two ways to have all components fail at the same time:

        (a) measure the life span of the worst component. Cheapen every other part down to that standard.

        (b) find the worst component, and make it better, so it lasts 100,000 miles. Repeat until the entire vehicle lasts that long.

      Given the choice, I'll buy the (b), thanks.

    3. Re:Has this already been done? by swb · · Score: 2

      Boy, there are a lot of people who think otherwise. You can't own a Honda with 100,000 on the clock and even casually discuss selling it without getting people coming out of the woodwork asking if you're selling it. We've sold two Hondas with 100+k on them in like the same day for better than Blue Book prices. One couple wanted the Pilot so bad they tolerated our clusterfuckery for needing a replacement title.

      We'd owned both cars for 11 years and while they seemed mechanically flawless, we were just kind of tired of them. I sold mine to a friend who took it to Arizona, drove it for a year and then sold it to his girlfriend's daughter who drove it for a year and a half and then sold it to someone else -- my friend says he still sees it around town, although I have no idea what kind of work its needed beyond consumables and maybe an AC recharge.

      I frankly expected both cars to ultimately lose a transmission. The Pilot had AWD and the Accord transmission struck me as kind of jerky for a 4 speed automatic, but neither car showed any operational problems, especially in the motors.

    4. Re:Has this already been done? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      (b) find the worst component, and make it better, so it lasts 100,000 miles. Repeat until the entire vehicle lasts that long.

      There's a car out there that hit a million miles or something crazy like that. The driver wasn't exactly a Sunday driver(not with that many miles), but nice on the vehicle, got lucky, did all the required maintenance, and wasn't lured by the 'newest' thing. Of course, at that point the thing had had almost as many engine rebuilds as most cars get oil changes...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Has this already been done? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There's a car out there that hit a million miles or something crazy like that.

      The world record is some guy with a Volvo who's done three million miles.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Has this already been done? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's a car out there that hit a million miles or something crazy like that.

      Obligatory "Is that Matt Farah's Million-Mile Lexus?"

      A million miles is a doddle if you keep up all the required maintenance, which nobody ever does. It's feasible as long as you do the important stuff, and don't beat the car too hard. Most people can't even manage that.

      Oil leaks kill cars. That's the thing most people don't seem to get.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Has this already been done? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Honda likes to (or at least used to) make a point of how little maintenance their cars required for the first 100,000 miles. I always wondered if they intentionally pushed back some maintenance items to 100k to accomplish this when some of that stuff should have been addressed sooner if one was concerned about the car for the long term. If I had a Honda I'd probably start checking on things like the coolant and transmission fluid after about 60k and replace it if I thought it needed it even if Honda says it should still be good.

      Then again, I've always considered Honda a bit overrated. Their engines are excellent, but the rest of the car always seemed a bit flimsy and doesn't hold up as well. And their automatic transmissions are the weak spot in any car so equipped.

  25. Ridiculous... by gfxguy · · Score: 2

    If the camera fails, I can still use my phone. If the wifi fails, I can still use my phone. Hell, even if the mobile unit fails, I can still do VOIP until I get a new phone. Having it all fail because one part fails is just moronic.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:Ridiculous... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      the japanese have been dreaming about this forever, no car in japan is older than like 5 years

      The Japanese have been out of meaningful jobs for forever, they have to have as much make-work as possible and making people replace engines or cars at a pittance of kilometers produces some.

      Of course, we're in the same boat now...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Ridiculous... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      the japanese have been dreaming about this forever, no car in japan is older than like 5 years

      And I expect their average level of safety is high and pollution low compared to somewhere where people are driving around in 25 year old rust buckets.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Ridiculous... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's because they have a taxation system that's the opposite of ours: you get taxed more the older your car is, and past 5 years it's prohibitively expensive so you might as well just buy a new car. This is the opposite of what we do in the US, where you get taxed based on the blue-book value of the car, so the older your car is, the cheaper it is (assuming you live in a state where there's a personal property tax ("car tax") or a registration fee that's based on the car's value).

      It's not *that* bad for the Japanese though: they export all their used cars to the rest of Asia and resell them.

  26. Racist by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    One Hoss Shay

    His name is Juan-José, you racist!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  27. I've seen this before by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Car manufacturers have been working on this for some time now.

  28. "hay" now by eyenot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... don't try to sell me on planned obsolescence!

    When I was proofing goods for the sales floor at a charity second hand shop, here's the prevailing theme I noticed:

    * Made before 1970: Pretty good

    * Made during WW2: Awesome

    * Made during WW1: How are we so blessed

    Everything else is unserviceable fucking garbage, might as well throw it in the trash.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:"hay" now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... don't try to sell me on planned obsolescence!

      When I was proofing goods for the sales floor at a charity second hand shop, here's the prevailing theme I noticed:

      * Made before 1970: Pretty good

      * Made during WW2: Awesome

      * Made during WW1: How are we so blessed

      Everything else is unserviceable fucking garbage, might as well throw it in the trash.

      The reason why you think that WWI era stuff is magnificent is simple: The crap that has broke has already been tossed. Anything that has lasted this long has obviously been either well built, well maintained, or not used.

    2. Re:"hay" now by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, the other thing is that something made before WWI is almost certainly not plastic. If it's made before WWII, it's probably not plastic. If It's made after 1970 and could be made out of plastic, it's probably made out of plastic.

  29. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We get it, you're a hackaday shill.

    Yeah, it is a stupid article. People don't buy a new phone because some random part wore out. They buy a new phone because it is better, lighter, and more fashionable than their old phone. Phone manufacturers would be idiots to focus on longevity when that is not something that is important to most people, especially if they had to increase cost or decrease thinness.

  30. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    See what's failing the least, make it cheaper. See what's failing the most, make it sturdier.

    The end result, if you're looking at cars, is a vehicle like what I'm hearing German cars are like right now - darn near the whole thing will fall apart within a year once you have the first major repair.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  31. Everything fail at once? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    That is, I'm sorry, stupid. It would take a large amount of effort, much of it directed towards making parts fail faster just so that the consumer can feel good about not having to throw something out just because one piece failed.

    The correct answer is, of course, to make things repairable, and arrange so that the failed part can be replaced. But that would cut into profit margins.

    On an unrelated note, have the new Slashdot overlords fired everybody but Timmay?

  32. Selection bias by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you're missing with that list is that all the bad and disposable stuff has already been broken, with only the most durable, carefully made, and maintained goods surviving to modern day.

    That, and especially for office equipment, intended duty cycle. A 3 hole punch produced around WW2 was expected to be used on reams of paper a day. One produced today is expected to be used a few times a day. Yes, you can get a punch built today that's intended for reams - but it's going to cost you, and to some extend the old high-quality hole punches that were hiding in closets and such satisfies the high duty cycle demands even today.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Selection bias by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      What you're missing with that list is that all the bad and disposable stuff has already been broken, with only the most durable, carefully made, and maintained goods surviving to modern day.

      While you're absolutely correct that this is a real factor, it is not the only factor. Older equipment is simply made of more material. It doesn't matter if you're talking about machine tools, or hand tools, or sewing machines or toasters or basically anything else, they used to make stuff with very little regard for weight. Materials science has advanced substantially, but sadly many things are built far more flimsily now than they used to be because shipping costs are a significant percentage of the cost of typical items as a result of the distances that they travel before appearing on a shelf someplace.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Selection bias by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      While you're absolutely correct that this is a real factor, it is not the only factor. Older equipment is simply made of more material. It doesn't matter if you're talking about machine tools, or hand tools, or sewing machines or toasters or basically anything else, they used to make stuff with very little regard for weight. Materials science has advanced substantially, but sadly many things are built far more flimsily now than they used to be because shipping costs are a significant percentage of the cost of typical items as a result of the distances that they travel before appearing on a shelf someplace.

      Yes, they used a lot more material. Plus they cost a lot more, too.

      I mean, an old TV, say, 19" ("big screen") would've cost the equivalent of a year's salary around the 1970s or earlier. Nowadays you can get a 42" TV with far clearer picture and sound for a month's salary, if not less. And a smaller TV can be had for under a couple hundred bucks.

      And not all old stuff is good. Old microwaves aren't better than new ones. Sure they cost a year's salary back then, but their performance is often worse (and especially as seals degrade) their RF emissions are probably way worse than even the $99 one at Walmart. Sure your 1950s one may last through the next nuclear war, but given wear and tear and especially microwave leakage, the $99 will probably last until you need to replace it for safety reasons.

      Actually, come to think of it - no one's really nostalgic about old-timey microwaves now, are they? I mean, you see people using old stoves, old fridges, but never old microwaves.

  33. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

    Check out the sheer number of chain and chain guides in newer Audi's.

    http://i.imgur.com/t5XUfav.jpg

    And this is the end facing the firewall, so to service any of this shit you will be removing the engine.

  34. Re: Will you stop approving submissions by this gu by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IMHO you're wrong. Battery failure is the biggest reason to "upgrade." Availability of software updates is a close second. CPU, screen res etc are already overkill even on a 4 year old phone. Many phone lives have been extended by replacing the battery, though the industry is "on" that "problem" now.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  35. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by serbanp · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that this is part of a modern car engine! It looks like an abstract work of art, though...

  36. Mine is just slowing down by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Have a 3 year old droid that, outside of a much shorter battery life, works well. Except the thing iisss slllooowwwwwiiinnnnggggg wayyyyyy dowwwwwnnnn. Games that, 2 years ago, played fine now take 5 minutes just to get to the start screen. Pull up the make a call screen and it's a minute to bring up the contacts list. We had a power outage yesterday, I pulled up the web browser to see if there was an ETA for my power, took 5 minutes to bring up a page. Then it did an auto refresh, which took another 5 minutes, at which time another auto-refresh hit, etc. Hell, a lot of times when I turn it on I get a blank screen with "loading..." for a good 30 seconds.

    It's not a bunch of apps running, I have none but the bare minimum. It's not a lack of storage, all my apps are on a SDCARD.

    This phone is barely on the edge of usability now due to it's slowness. Again, everything else works fine.

  37. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Yeah, it is a stupid article.

    I don't think so. When we think about the usefulness we get from products, it's a shame very good products stop being used because of planned obsolescence.

    Printers won't work with your computer, because the driver requires a more recent version of the OS (happened for real!), a scanner will no longer work because a new driver version for your new computer won't be released (happened for real!). The printer had to be returned; the scanner was transferred to an older computer (a XP one, still available for some months), but I saw an identical model dumped as "electronic trash" at a shopping center.

    > People don't buy a new phone because some random part wore out.

    Yes, they surely do. I myself (well, my daughter) had one of a very famous brand (which shall go unnamed). It stopped making calls, but as a smartphone, all other parts worked: could browse the internet via wi-fi, had an awesome 720p video capture, could play games etc. It was one year old, not too expensive, but also not exactly affordable (after all, it had a "griffe" unit).

    > They buy a new phone because it is better, lighter, and more fashionable than their old phone.

    Ok, as long as we agree this is kind of a bad reasoning: a new model is not 100% better than your current one; more like 10 to 20% better, perhaps. Yet, you will pay 100% again. Just like there was very little to gain from Office 2007 to 2010. Many features were already present in 2007 and that program would be enough for 80% of users. But everyone thought it was a good idea to get a new version with a new computer -- truth be told, there are special upgrade prices.

    But regarding hardware this is uncommon. I would like to get an upgrade of my phone and pay a small amount. The best one can do is enter one of those fidelity plans where you promise to pay the operator lots of dough and get a "free" phone.

    > Phone manufacturers would be idiots to focus on longevity when that is not something that is important to most people, especially if they had to increase cost or decrease thinness.

    Indeed, you're right, why would do a marketing campaign to tell people their new amazing model does the same the old one did, just with a slightly more powerful CPU, 1 inch bigger screen and some 5mm less thick? "Come and pay us for a new phone with much the same hardware you have and a new fantastic software version?"

    Even if everyone falls for that, it doesn't mean I should follow the trend.

  38. Apples push to be thin is driving this. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Apples push to be thin is driving this.

    Even the mac pro has fallen to the looks over what is really needed

  39. What by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Make the whole thing fail at once? That would be an engineering accomplishment on the same order as making a device that never failed.

    Why on Earth would you want to do this? It's idiotic and I feel like a sucker for even responding to this steaming pile of "news story".

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  40. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by grub · · Score: 1

    Weird failure note: we have a 2014 Q5, the only part which failed was the driver's seat warmer and it went twice. Both covered by warranty and the shop said they'd never seen it twice in one car.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  41. We'd like stuff you could repair .. by tetraverse · · Score: 1

    We'd like stuff you could repair, instead of throwing away and having to buy a new one. Even replacing the battery on some models is problematical, as it's glued to the inside of the case that requires a special tool to open.

  42. Some things do last practically forever by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have tools that are older than I am, and I'm soon to be 63 years old. I've seen and used guns that are far older than I am (wish I owned some of them). The oldest book I own is close to two hundred years old, and there are many that are much older. Everybody has seen houses and buildings that are hundreds of years old. The universe has lasted billions of years, but it had a master builder!

    I have a burial plot and casket that will probably last until we're all gone. Of course I won't care about those two things!

    1. Re:Some things do last practically forever by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have tools that are older than I am, and I'm soon to be 63 years old. I've seen and used guns that are far older than I am (wish I owned some of them).

      I have a Mauser which Peru bought from Fn in 1935 and then later rebarrelled to .30-06 from 7.65x53. In order to get a rifle its equal, I would have to spend a good thousand bucks, especially since it's got a nice upgraded competition trigger. You can pick them up around two hundred.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Software by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Majority of devices fail with perfectly functioning hardware, because software is no longer updated, with the last available release usually being horribly slow and bloated. Installing a custom ROM often does wonders for usability. We should first demand that that bootloaders are unlockable and at least the interface expected and provided by driver binaries is well documented. Fully open and user serviceable hardware would be great, but even modest steps will keep lots of stuff out of landfill.

  44. Two topics here. by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    Two topics here.
    1. Planned obsolescence - planned to keep working to specs, but to no longer mesh with current technology or fashion.
    2. Planned failure - designed to fail sooner.

    Example: many phones fall into the planned failure category as they irreparably fail early because the battery is unreplaceably glued in.
    Whereas pretty much all smartphones are rendered obsolete by the advance of many technologies - they still function, but begin to be surpassed by newer phones with more desirable features.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  45. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    We get it, you're a hackaday shill.

    Absolutely. And the title is realy stupid. "One Hoss Shay" - if the horse dies, get another horse, and vice versa. No need to throw everything out just because the horse died, same as no reason to throw a vehicle just because the engine died.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  46. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Just because it wouldn't make calls any more is no reason to junk a smartphone. Making calls is the least used feature on smartphones. And since the internet worked, she can still communicate via email, facebook messenger, skype, twitter, etc. And there's always texting if that part still functions. And it's still a pocket-sized media player, camera, music player, radio, video camera, etc. For calls, she can get a cheapie flip phone if she really needs it - but since she's the next generation, she probably doesn't.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  47. Furnaces too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm an HVAC/R mechanic, and this is becoming a huge problem with modern "high efficiency" furnaces. Sure you may save 100 bucks a year on natural gas over the, say, 10 year life of the furnace. But the inducer motor is an ECM (electronically commutated motor) and despite them being basically a fricking shaded pole electric motor, they are very expensive to replace.

      I replaced one in a Carrier furnace this morning and it cost the guy $717. Now that's just part cost with zero mark-up or labor. So factor in those 2 things and the customer has actually lost money going for a high efficiency furnace instead of an 80%'er mid efficiency one that doesn't have all these fancy expensive parts in them.

    Dirty secret of the industry right now: Carrier's furnaces of the past ~3 years or so, they used a shit design and basically the acidic condensate water from the flue gases are getting backed up inside the inducer motor instead of draining out, and are burning these motors out in as little as TWO YEARS!!! Can you imagine buying a $5000 furnace and 2 years later you wind up with a bill for around $1500 to replace a wrecked inducer motor? I would be livid!

    1. Re:Furnaces too! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Supposedly the real dirty secret is that the motor itself is fine (well, maybe not in the case of said Carrier's with the water problems) but usually it's some shitty control board buried somewhere in the housing that's actually failed. If you have some electronics knowledge, you can crack them open and get them running again for a few bucks in parts.

      My house is now 21 years old, with all original HVAC and appliances. I'm really dreading when they start to go out, as I can guarantee that none of the replacements are going to last 21 years. At least the government dropped the requirement at the last minute that any replacement furnace would have to be a high efficiency one. That would have been an expensive retrofit.

  48. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We get it, you're a hackaday shill.

    Absolutely. And the title is realy stupid. "One Hoss Shay" - if the horse dies, get another horse, and vice versa. No need to throw everything out just because the horse died, same as no reason to throw a vehicle just because the engine died.

    Sigh.

    Don't kids learn anything these days? Or do they just hear-and-respond without any thought at all?

    http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holm...

  49. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Meh, it's a timing chain (or chains in this case), not a belt. As long as the oil is changed at the proper interval, I doubt most owners will ever have to worry about those. Granted, I've seen them go before, but most timing chains outlast the rest of the car.

  50. Phones fail? by eggstasy · · Score: 1

    Phones are, for a lot of people, fashion accessories, status symbols, you buy the latest "just because".
    A phone, failing? What? You can't afford to buy a new one every year? Or every two years, even. It's about 1% of an average IT salary?
    Do you wear clothes until they start falling apart?
    I mean, people crave novelty, I don't care if your phone is built like a brick, we want new toys on a regular basis, that's why the market provides them.
    It's not a conspiracy to steal money from your pocket. There's simply no demand for a phone that lasts 10 years.

    1. Re:Phones fail? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      we want new toys on a regular basis

      You make it sound like the world's run by ten year olds.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Phones fail? by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

      Have you looked around lately?

      I know alot of people who do.

      And most of them own Iphones, only because it's an Iphone. It's "trendy"

      --
      Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  51. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by serbanp · · Score: 1

    After googling for the picture (it's the timing chain setup for the previous generation Audi S4), I found out that this particular engine is renown for how unreliable it is and how expensive is to fix it when it fails (after some 100-110k miles only).

    What's failing is not the chain, but the ridiculous rails/tensioners, which are made out of inadequately spec-ed *plastic*. These are the parts that were designed in as planned obsolescence.

  52. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    No, I upgraded mine because it basically stopped working. Touch screen wouldn't work on demand. No user serviceable parts. Shame because it was less than 3 years old, whereas the phone before it lasted nearly a decade.

  53. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Oh that's crap. Yeah some people do, but not everyone just likes to burn money. People still on dumb phones (they still exist hand have week long battery lives) buy new ones when the old ones break. People on smart phones, who want a working phone, upgrade them when the old ones turn to shit. For example, the still perfectly functioning Galaxy Ace is just horrid to use now.

    By the time you've reset it and upgraded all the necessary apps to get improved security there's no space, it's slow as fuck and you can barely install any new apps.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  54. But why? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    But what if everything was optimized to fail all at once?

    The only ones to benefit from this are the ones selling the crap - and they don't see any incentive either. What difference does it make whether people discard their old HW because 1 compnent is broken or because all of them fail? A far better concept, for the consumer at least, would be if all gadgets were repairable and upgradeable. It is perfectly doable from tachnical point of view; it is not really a big challenge, whether is is phones, tablets or computers - or even cars. The only reason we don't have it is that producers don't like it, as it would cut into their profit margins. Just imagine a world where all parts for all cars were standardized, so you could find any spare part for any car from a large number of producers - and even better: you would be able to gradually upgrade from you smallish, cheap set of wheels to a flash superbeast. Suddenly car manufacturers wouldn't have a virtual monopoly on certain things. Same thing with everything else. The technology needed to make a small computer like a smartphone repairable and upgradeable is well understood, and again the only reason we are not already heading down that way is that manufacturers don't want to. Well, that and historical reasons: concepts like modular computer systems, clustering etc have evolved alongside the hardware, but we could actually do it now.

  55. Abstraction is moving from components to units by maxm · · Score: 1

    Stop considering the individual components of a piece of equipment for a unit that can be repaired. It is the wrong layer of abstraction.

    In modern electronics a single electronic component has long stopped being the unit of repair. If your electronics gets fried, you change at least the entire circuit board. Personally I rarely get electronics repaired. Rather I will replace.

    The new unit of repair is whatever not requires human intervention. A modern phone is assembled by robots so the entire phone is cheaper to replace and get a new phone you know is working. Instead of risking the uncertainty of getting a non-fixed device at unknown human hourly wages.

    --
    Max M - IT's Mad Science
  56. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by unitron · · Score: 1

    I can't tell if you're being ever so droll, or not, but I'm going to assume the former.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  57. Re:Still perfectly fine by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Telegram messaging

    I just use the "smoke signals" app on my phone.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  58. My g/f has an S3 which was backed over by a car by waspleg · · Score: 1

    in the snow, last year, and sat there all day until we came home from work and found it. It has a shitty generic plastic case, granted, but it's still going over a year later and works for what she needs.

    I just replaced the battery in my S4 yesterday for ~$7 from ebay. I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade anything that's working and that I don't feel some limitation that irritates me enough to pay the exorbitant amounts they want for a decent phone. Both of ours were Verizon that have been paid for and are off contract now (still Verizon month to month, more than I'd like to pay but few options where I live that are good) but I don't even think they do pay-the-phone-off-over-time shit anymore and I'm not spending $600+ to get a new one.

    Internally the phones look like cheap shitty netbooks I'm frankly shocked they've lasted as long as they have (~2.5+ years).

  59. Fixing smartphone screens by xarragon · · Score: 1

    Dropped my Moto G 2nd gen and got a hairline crack. Still works, only slightly annoying. I do not understand why we can't just use hardened plexiglass instead of this heavy, brittle glass crap. My old Nokia 5230 had plexiglass and did not get scratched, despite actually coming apart several times because of the abuse.

    The LCD is intact, but the digitizer is bonded to the front glass and the LCD is glued to the glass. So the entire unit needs to be replaced unless I am prepared to break out the heat gun. The same is true for my Nexus 7 (2012) unit.

    My proposal to extend life for mobile units is simple: Get rid of the glass, this saves weight and makes the units more rugged. Then switch to a touch technology that does not require any digitizer panel.

    I recently interviewed at Pronode Technologies AB in Sweden. They and their sister company Neonode makes input devices based on optical sensing that does not require you to actually touch the surface.
    They created smartphones with this technology back in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    This would allow for far easier sourcing of parts and maintenance of the units, bringing down both retail price and service costs.

  60. Re: Will you stop approving submissions by this gu by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Have to call bullshit. Your own assertion supports the OPs point. I've replaced the battery in my current iPhone twice (and the screen three times). If "battery failure" was really the primary problem with old phones then people wouldn't upgrade for $1000, they'd replace the battery for $30. The primary reason to upgrade is that people want a new phone.

    It's a standard feature of emerging technology. The new thing is much better than the old thing, so people use any excuse to upgrade. When the technology becomes mature there's much less impetus to buy a whole new device. Digital cameras and desktop computers are now pretty mature. Smartphones are fast approaching.

  61. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    What kind of phone did you have that had less user serviceable parts than a car? When your car needs an oil change do you junk it too?

  62. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by sudon't · · Score: 1

    Yep. My Bondi Blue Agfa scanner from the late 90s still works fine. Unfortunately, I can only use it with my laptop running an older OS, (10.6), and a third-party driver. When that much newer laptop dies, (CD/DVD drive already non-functional), I'll have no choice but to toss both. Obviously, they didn't intend for anyone to continue using it this long.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  63. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    The article is crap. There is NO excuse. And references to a dog cart (single-person carriage in england) in the title are so f*ing contrived - the shill is a poseur and a hoser.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  64. Invalid comparison by belthize · · Score: 1

    The One Hoss Shay comparison would be valid if:

    - Genetic engineers were madly trying to evolve a horse and still debating how many legs it should have.
    - Mechanical engineers were still debating the optimal number of sides for a wheel. Somewhere between 3 and a lot.
    - Structural engineers were still debating whether the frame should be made out of stone, iron, transparent aluminum or wood
    - Behavior scientists were still debating what direction was best to drive the thing in and which orientation. Landscape or portrait driving mode

    Obsolescence of parts is uninteresting when they have a half life significantly greater than their practical application.

    Designing a One Hoss Shay in 1905 that would last a hundred years would be very useful for about 5 to 10 years. Then everybody will trade it in for a Model-T, 20 years later for a Model-A, after that figure 5 to 10 years as a function of economy.

  65. Re: Will you stop approving submissions by this gu by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Pretty much. However, I would like to point out that one big problem I see on smartphones is the shitty software. After a few years, the phone gets ridiculously slow and pretty much unusable because the software has gotten so bad (or infected, it's hard to know really since it's all closed-source).

    I would have hung onto my old HTC phone for longer if it hadn't gotten so slow. But instead of futzing around with some unsupported and ancient build of CyanogenMod, it was a lot easier to just buy a newer phone.

    It's not that different with PCs: a lot of people still buy new computers (though not as much as years ago) simply because the software had gone bad. So instead of re-installing Windows, they'd go buy a whole new computer.

    This is really pretty shameful, considering how easy it is to update software, but it's not in the manufacturers' interest to support software very well because it'll just slow sales.

  66. Repairs? by SinisterEVIL · · Score: 1

    My god! What shameless company posted this?

  67. How long is long enough? by volmtech · · Score: 1

    I'm old enough to remember when even simple tools were built to last. On my grandfather's farm laborers had to shovel across 40 acre fields to allow excess rainfall water to drain into water furrows. Three hundred seventy eight 40 inch rows across a quarter mile, six different cuts down the length of the field, six or seven times during the season, on three different fields.

    The shovels they used lasted for years. The older ones had a hole worn in the wooden handle where the workers thumb had gripped. Only when the metal blade had ground down too short was the shovel retired. Now if you put any muscle to a wooden handle it will break in two. You have to get a very expensive steel or fiberglass handle. Then after a few years the blade will fracture and break. You can find commercial heavy duty tools but sixty years ago or more all tools where considered heavy duty.

    Lower quality consumer grade tools are fine for home owners, no way I'm going to use a shovel long enough to wear a hole in the handle. Just as long as the price reflects the quality. In case you want to know, today one man drives a hundred thousand dollar tractor equipped with an articulating 30 ft wide blade through the field to cut the cross furrows. At the right place in the field the blade is dropped and the sections use hydraulic cylinders to push in opposite directions to form a cut across the rows. Yes I did have some experience with the shovel method, the tractor is much nicer.

  68. Re:Will you stop approving submissions by this guy by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    This was HTC One X. Case is glued on, no screws. No service center to fix the screen, etc.

  69. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone's though of making and selling better-quality rails/tensioners to replace the inadequately-specced ones. Or is it too expensive to do the labor needed to install them?

  70. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by serbanp · · Score: 1

    From what I read, the parts are about 3k, while the labor is at least 5k at the rare independent shop willing to touch a modern Audi and more like 7-8k at the happy-to-see-you stealership. Expensive.

  71. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by HiThere · · Score: 1

    And if you read the poem of the Deacon's Marvelous One Horse Shay, you'll see that it all fell apart at exactly the same time. So it fits.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  72. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    Cheap chain guides and/or tensioners are a huge problem with shitty aftermarket brands as well.

    I got a spare engine for my older car awhile back, less than 10k miles. Decided to open it up and inspect the main bearings to be sure I didn't get hosed and found large plastic chunks of timing chain guide in the oil pan, it's almost like they used a kind of plastic that doesn't last long in oil.

    tl;dr: Stay away from Scantech's aftermarket shit, especially if you own a Volvo or Saab. Fork out the $100 for OEM parts.

  73. Re:Understatement 1st Prist by toddestan · · Score: 1

    So end result is most cars that have this inevitable failure will be deemed not economical to repair, and off to the scrap yard?