why is every new technology built in an ugly way, hard to repair, hard to recycle, pricey and shortlasting?
>overspecialization and invasion of proprietary parts
>lack of durability
>not having ease of mainintence by basic tools
are sold as genuine technological progress, while in reality those are one dimensional quasi inventions.
is that the (((way of the future)))?
Other urls found in this thread:
most STEM people are one dimensional autists that cant think outside the box so they design the tech that way.
You guys usually worship STEM but fail to see how they most of the time arent even creating anything, they approach creation of technology in a CHINEESE and MASTURBATORY way.
MAKE TECHNOLOGY GREAT AGAIN
Stuff lasts longer than ever, is more efficient, more complex, and more reliable than ever.
A few small number of exceptions to this can be found that only prove the general rule.
>they approach creation of technology in a CHINEESE and MASTURBATORY way.
what do I mean by that?
Technology can nobelify your life by making things easier thus leaving you more time to pursue smth else.
Most of todays technology is created in a selfcentered way - from architecture, cars, phones, even hand tools ffs. goal of designers of those stuff is to get a tap on the back from their little circle, not to help the end customer and make life better.
>Stuff lasts longer than ever, is more efficient, more complex, and more reliable than ever.
cars? tvs? phones? apps? homes? all ashortlasting and more pricey than previous.
cars.
how easy is to maintain a modern Audi? how pricey?
To what benefit?
How does that affect the selfsustainable lyfestyle?
They could have build them like tanks like Lada Niva and even drop the price, but they decided to pump them with gimicky technology that wins idiotic car desing awards, but not to the profit of the end customer.
Most modern tech is a horrible investment.
look at household appliances, they rarely even give guarantees longer than 2 years, made out of plastic mostly - EVEN STUFF LIKE TOASTERS THAT OFTEN MELTS FROM IT, engineers of that stuff are total idiots.
Pretty much, The future era of social justice is inherently incapable of maintaining complex systems.
no, it's the marketing people making them design it that way.
My wife is so cute in that picture!
This, and if you want to replace a car part yourself you need very special tools and some things are only designed to be snapped together and not taken apart ever. Unlike my grandfathers Packard which I could strip down mostly with just a basic garage kit.
>cars? tvs? phones? apps? homes? all ashortlasting and more pricey than previous.
>cars
then dont buy the latest and greatest thing and wait for it to get cheaper. if technology is advancing so quickly then you can wait for depreciation
>tvs
they last long enough for what you need them for which is generally 4 years to 5 years which is more than enough. LED panels are literally a godsend and everything else before it was unreliable
>phones
see what i said on cars
>homes
then fucking fix it yourself you retard
technology is made and its always expensive at first because its emerging technology and eventually it will become common place years from now
this has always been the case
damn that is an awesome shirt
>is that the (((way of the future)))?
Say it with me:
( ( ( P L A N N E D
O B S O L E S C E N C E ) ) )
its a good and bad thing to have planned obsolescence because it drives technology forward, if shit breaks then the companies that made it are forced to make something better
dont be jaded by the fact that shit like apple openly does the opposite of that
if everything lasted 20/40/50/60 years then you wouldnt have any technology in your life driving you forward
and you cant escape technological advancement because this is always going to be the case
if shit doesnt break then theres no money going forward do you think these companies are made of it
>why is every new technology built in an ugly way, hard to repair, hard to recycle, pricey and shortlasting?
because it is a freemarket economy.
they build in obsolescence and breakability to ensure constant demand.
a properly planned economy would ban this. but also probably stifle innovation a little...
>ly 4 years to 5 years which is more than enough.
yeah my parents had the same tv for thirty years...
>and if you want to replace a car part yourself you need very special tools and some things are only designed to be snapped together and not taken apart ever.
and worst of all, with almost 0 benefits for you as a user.
>technology is made and its always expensive at first because its emerging technology and eventually it will become common place years from now
bs, we are collectivly scammed, go buy a nintendow switch or some bug piece of equipment.
>( ( ( P L A N N E D
>O B S O L E S C E N C E ) ) )
MY ANTE!
>and you cant escape technological advancement because this is always going to be the case
its not advancing you total idiot, its being slightly tweaked for the (((new and updated))) version that is, you guessed it, incompatible with previous and propritarized to the core. and why should you change a fridge every 5 years? total bugman shit.
Technologically, construction is (((advancing))) into expensive mudhuts.
>because it is a freemarket economy.
nope, its allowed to happen for overspending on non-gold standard and (((outsourcing)))
>yeah my parents had the same tv for thirty years..
That sucks dude
Parts were not standardized in the past either. The reason repair is made difficult is that it's cheaper to just make a new product than repair an old one. You can manufacture things and have huge efficiency advantages due to economies of scale, but you can't gain much efficiency from economies of scale with repair.
So why would you want to repair them?
e.g. audiosystems
everyone know how good wood is for sound which was the standard even on low tier audios, but they (((advanced))) to plastic sound systems. you see this pattern everywhere - from water bottles to OS systems
>bs, we are collectivly scammed, go buy a nintendow switch or some bug piece of equipment.
i dont own a switch and you used a terrible statement without any examples
if you think you're being scammed because you want to buy the latest hardware then im sorry your misinformed on how these things work
>its not advancing you total idiot, its being slightly tweaked for the (((new and updated))) version that is
you're gunna have to provide an example my man
>you guessed it, incompatible with previous and propritarized to the core.
i'll budge and i'll say thats true for phones and other smart devices but again, dont buy them. specifically samsung or apple
>and why should you change a fridge every 5 years?
see now you're lying because most home appliances have a life of 20 years
and again, if you buy new shit you wont know unless you try
I wish I had been born a girl just so I could wear those stockings and that dress in the image.
or if i wanted to be really gay i could say you started this thread because your fridge died within the past 5 years and are bootyblasted you now have to replace it
good thing fridges in america are cheap as fuck and always go on sale for like 300 burgerbucks
>So why would you want to repair them?
way cheaper. Throway systems are only allowed to exist because of outsource.
>you're gunna have to provide an example my man
modern fridges are notorious for failure, but look at simples stuff like a pair of pliers - stuff made in western germany is of stunning steel quality than current taiwan made stuff.
lol wut
then it just sounds like you're not buying from the right people and or you're not buying the right models
everyone generally does fall into the trap that "new is better" but often times its not
there are plenty of companies out here in america that still make old fridges and last about as long as the old one from whatever era you wanna compare to because they havent changed their system
and yeah asia doesnt have good quality steel hence why its cheaper and thats always been the case
(((OVERDISIGNED & UNDERDEVELOPED)))
is the name of the game.
>look how the screen curves to the sides on this shitty s7 in order for it to break more easily when it falls unlike good ol )))Nokia(((
>you cant change the battery
>pricey
>desing appeals to neo-yuppies
>they wont update the software after 4 years, BUY A NEW ONE GOY YOU ARENT STINGY ARENT YOU???
just a few non crucial and non expensive details (protected screen and changable baterry) could make this phone 10x more durable and user friendly, but they dont give a shit as long as STEM autists give them the phone of the month award.
Screen repair businesses are becoming a thing btw. Bizzaro world.
poor example
if you're using samsung and apple for technological innovation you're gettin the gun my friend
samsung and apple are in the game to make money and only money and yes it sucks absolute dicks that occurs in the market but thankfully you can find better phones for cheaper and work better than samsung and apple
the reason why phones are pretty much a single piece with no battery removal is for water resistant purposes but somehow samsung did it right with the S5 and made it somewhat resistant to water but still failed unlike most newer phones that can last a long time in water
>Screen repair businesses are becoming a thing btw. Bizzaro world.
good thing protective layers are cheap as fuck and last long as fuck and with enough brain power you can replace the screen yourself
and yeah i'll even extend this post to say that no one asked for non-removable batteries too but you dont see too many people complain about the fact that it doesn't exist either so there isn't a demand for it
which is why i provided the S5 example
if people wanted water resistant phones with removable batteries it would exist theres just not a demand for it
German cars are a bad example. Planned obsolescence is a religion because of the union culture there.
I drive a 2012 Chevrolet and it's easy af to do my own work on. People who drive jap cars also find zero problems doing their own repairs.
The "cant work on your own car" phenomenon is exclusive to modern euro trash.
>way cheaper. Throway systems are only allowed to exist because of outsource.
Did you not read what I said? Making a new system is cheaper because of economies of scale. Repairing a system can't take advantage of economies of scale, because things break for many different reasons and that needs to be figured out and then fixed.
Making a new one in modern times is often cheaper than repair.
THIS IS NOW A STEAM TRAIN THREAD. CHOO! CHOO!
i also gotta go to work now so i'll leave this since im really not looking for an argument but i'd rather provide some insight
instead of hating on all technology just look at the companies that are dominant in the market and hate them instead for lack of innovation
no one asked apple for the no headphone jack
or non removable batteries
or no physical buttons
or any other feature that people hate with their other products
but on the other hand apple does do some good its just these companies dont follow that good example
in samsungs case they follow apple but they have this awful god awful system that exists with their phones slowing to a crawl after the lack of update support and you can blame their touchwiz software for it
which no one asked for
there are good pieces of technology out there and old can became new again
blackberry made a good example of that with the keyone/key2 and it sells better than most phone company reboots
also nokia is owned by the chinks and indians dont expect the same reliability
but at the end of the day you just need to do your research on your tech and check to see if you can service it yourself
i enjoy samsung because they sell all their parts and i can replace any piece i want at a cheap price
there are alot of useless features in devices but they dont have to exist thanks to the existence of other alternatives that can make a specific piece of hardware good
don't like windows? use a linux distro
dont want a smartphone? get a dumb one
dont want a laptop you cant repair? find one you can.
theres a billion options out there
>Making a new one in modern times is often cheaper than repair.
almost correct. you forget to mention that that same system is made upon western unemployment and loss of capital in the long term.
>no one asked apple for the no headphone jack
this is actually a nice touch, I know for cases of headphones jacks that broke or had so much play they broke. Its not about asking for it,its about companies creating smth genuinly innovative.
The leaf is right. Fuck Euro vehicles.
>modern euro trash
be gentle lads...
everyone with a Hermann Miller Aeron chair should be shot at dawn
>Hermann Miller Aeron chair
yuppie niggers creating yuppie technology. faggots.
:3
If that was the problem, you could just design the product in question to be somewhat modular; like a computer. If you need to upgrade or something breaks, you just replace the part. If you were real saavy, you'd ship the broken parts to some african shithole and then get them to repair it for cheap and then ship it back and resell them as refurbished if possible. And that's if you don't design the part to autodetect the problem and replace the part of a broken part in a factory.
We don't need all this fucking waste.
I have had my iPhone for 4 years now and its going strong. It can be repaired with basic tools. my toaster, microwave, refrigerator, and kitchen-aid mixer are all over 15 years old. My Cadillac has 200k miles and can be worked on with basic tools. Maybe if you didn't buy cheap Chinese garbage your shit would last longer.
>if everything lasted 20/40/50/60 years then you wouldnt have any technology in your life driving you forward
MODULAR TECHNOLOGY. Also, dumb people wanting new things because muh status symbol.
built like shit because only having to buy it once makes the company no money.
fucking WORD
BUILD THAT WALL
BUILD IT SO IT LASTS
oh wait a sec, we forgot how to build walls that last...
youtube.com
>If that was the problem, you could just design the product in question to be somewhat modular
AMEN! Stuff made that way makes the user far more selfreliable and you can Mod stuff to your preference far easier which is very neat.
>my toaster, microwave, refrigerator, and kitchen-aid mixer are all over 15 years old.
I am very glad to hear that, what brands are the mentioned?
>because only having to buy it once makes the company no money.
actually, companies COULD make money in lasting technology but not when outsourcing isnt regulated as it should be.
steam trains a best
General electric and kitchenaid
>This Croat monkey man losing his shit over Iphones
most people who own a smartphone today don't even know that phones used to have a removable battery. people are ignorant with technology in general and don't have any respect for the power it provides for them
nike won't make money only selling you one pair of shoes every 20 years
They last a lot longer than converse shoes do.
I'm not totally convinced that's true. Cars used to break down after a few years of use, but modern cars will last you a decade, maybe more if you take good care of it.
Why do people who have never accomplished anything in their lives feel so compelled to criticize those who do?
Mallard, as well as all the A4s, remain the peak of aesthetics and technology. They’re so beautiful.
Hello my fellow men of culture
They will if they sell a billion shoes retard.
you don't have to
most technological advancements today are in areas that make us dependent - like communication tech. independence enhancing technology like cars, construction and tools is reversing. (((who))) could be behind that weird push?
>Cars used to break down after a few years of use, but modern cars will last you a decade
true, but modern cars, unliek cars from 20-30 years ago are very different in terms of mainintence requirements.
>>This Croat monkey man losing his shit over Iphones
its about they way technology is cucking us, also rude posting.
>A4
hngh!
look at what redwing does.
there's something to be said for coronation, especially in maroon/red
capitalism
Why don't car companies remake and improve older designs instead of making new cars with generic names
>Ugly
New aesthetic sensibilities (I don't agree myself with these), but also changes away from aestheticism as prestigious, towards more economy and fitness to function rather than form.
>hard to repair
Sometimes this is the case of modern consumerism (wanting to continually have something "better"), as well as attending exploitation as happens with market products.
Often this is more to due with advancement in components which cannot be bought and factory processes which encapsulate or produce them in such a way that they cannot be disassembled, primarily for rigor, production efficiency and cost.
Most bigger box items, such as televisions, ovens, systems in the home, and even more complex items such as computers and their parts, can be repaired by the consumer, after some to much learning depending. Performance often leads to technological complexity, which public knowledge can't keep up with.
>Alternatively, much of the "ugliness" and "repairability" is intertwined
The Mallard, as a headliner pic for these threads, is symptomatic, because its shell was actually a major nightmare. It had to be lifted up to make any repairs, how ever minor, or inspections. This was costly in money and time, meaning it took a long time to get any work done.
>Hard to recycle
Specialised materials for performance. Most manufacturers are getting better about this, depending.
>Pricey
Inflation + market consumers gullibility.
>Shortlasting
Usually favouring a race for that "genuine technological progress" in performance, when it comes to technological components, not consumer goods like your iPhone. Your battery may not last as long, but thats because better batteries have been chased out by more powerful components.
Also, knowing the lifecycle of your product is important - in engineering it's a basic notion to consider items that last overly longer than they're expected as being far too over-engineered; more expensive, not necessary. Also consumer/client expectation.
>tfw you're the rare STEM creative who isn't COMPLETELY autistic and is actually capable of translating from nerd speak to normalfag and back
>could be working in software somewhere creating the best, most intuitive user interfaces anyone has ever seen
>could be the one guy in the company who can act as a middleman between the dark closet full of autistic engineers and the brightly lit offices of management, and improve productivity 10x by making everyone understand each other the first time
>but I have no motivation and really don't want to deal with the stress such a job would entail
>just work blue collar jobs instead and laugh with rednecks about how one guy is letting his gf peg him and another guy got drunk and ran his freshly restored truck into a tree
>keep STEM shit in my hobbies
>remake and improve older designs
>capitalism
*removing the gold standard for fiat money.
>Most bigger box items, such as televisions, ovens, systems in the home, and even more complex items such as computers and their parts, can be repaired by the consumer
its not even more complex or more inovative, just made so its hard to repair, e.g. flatscreen TVs and modern cars.
>Specialised materials for performance. Most manufacturers are getting better about this, depending.
look at bicycle tech. You can recycle/reuse steel far more easily than you can carbon or alu. Only 2% of the market really needs that carbon fibre frame, yet the industry is standardized on it.
>Shortlasting
back to carbon VS steel. Its totally rediculous how they compare, also watch this>youtube.com
Nice, I got trips.
>overspecialisation
This is to be expected.Niches to be filled, All-in-one solutions that are not adequate for certain things.
>Proprietary parts.
Protective measures for a company for corporation. This is basically something since the beginning of modern industry, patents galore.
>lack of durability
Ropes back to what I said about about product lifecycles. Also, some things are TOO durable, or minimally updated in interations; for example aeroplanes - the most major changes to most models and families of aircraft are evolving in iterational changes. Slightly better engines with slightly better fuel efficiency on each step, more space, better materials, better avionics. Small steps that are also long lasting or can be added on to older planes that need minimal repair (this is what flight operators want). But they're still mostly the same, and some families have lasted for something like 40 years or more - the 737-800 for example is so old and widespread that at any one time there are 2000+ in the air in the world.
>Not having ease of maintenance by basic tools.
Complexity for performance to do something requires different and more complex tools.
These threads come up often but they're always weird to respond to, as a mishmash of contradictory complaints - Tech isn't genuine progress! But its too overspecialised and complex. It isn't easy to maintain with basic tools! But I still want it to fulfill a certain contrary aesthetic, while performing better.
Tech isn't a singular "thing". You are thinking too one dimensionally about what is technology, and what is an advancement, however minimal, what engineering and product development processes actually look like.
The view in these OPs is more like thinking science and technological products happen in big steps like games of Civilisation or other 4x videogames
good thread. bump
How do you expect people to make money off of well-made things that last forever? Repairs, spare parts, or having to buy a whole brand-new unit is the status quo now.
"What is Engineered Obsolescence?"
The Post
Ok improve this with technology.
>just made so its hard to repair
>Flatscreen TVs
You can repair them by yourself more easily than you think, the skills are just more time involved. With the advent of the original TVs this was still the case, and television repairs were common. Less so today because of consumerist replacement being more "liked".
>Modern Cars
I actually don't agree with this - most of these cases come from trying to wrangle monopolies by mangling copyright law on digital parts of a car - forcing you to only get repairs at their monopoly.
>Look at bicycle tech
Most bicycles are actually in steel still, Alu is pretty easily recycled, and carbon fibre is actually very specialised and overly expensive.
With friends who are very deep in biking communities and industry goings on, I know that for the past few years, there has actually been a big consumer pushback against carbon fibre, especially because of durability - they often fail very dangerously, and the "positives" of a lighter frame is actually much less desirable than safety.
Also a general support for something that feels solid.
Many options are available which are more durable alternatives to general mainstream products, but you must also weigh up the drawbacks to you, personally. More durable, higher quality shoes for example, are far better than most all factory produced mainstream ones, but often far more expensive.
Same goes for rugged, durable electronic and consumer items, or consumer items that "perform" less well than the mainstream or higher tier current peak product.
It all exists on a spectrum.
look at construction, quality of houses etc. more expensive, notoriously low quality. they use the explanations youve used, but its only true in nieche cases, a literal scam in most.
>How do you expect people to make money off of well-made things that last forever?
by advertising it that way, like hippies do. redwing, patagonia, other hipster brands etc.
OK
>try enancing durability
>try lowering the price while maintaining same level of durability
>improve distribution
you dont have to just create an app for it there are better ways.
>there has actually been a big consumer pushback against carbon fibre, especially because of durability - they often fail very dangerously, and the "positives" of a lighter frame is actually much less desirable than safety.
very true, but are you familiar with sudden wheel size planned obsolence change that was done in mtb? changing perfectly fine 26" for 650b?
>but you must also weigh up the drawbacks to you, personally. More durable, higher quality shoes for example, are far better than most all factory produced mainstream ones, but often far more expensive.
Same goes for rugged, durable electronic and consumer items
there is a solution to that - buy used and youll profit tremendously...thing is you can buy used toasters from 1960s, but not used from 1990s, doesnt that raise a few flags?
Construction has its own problems desu. It has a far more decentralised, short term mindset about it, which contrasts with long term, big picture city and urban development - hence speculation and suburban cash grabs; A-frame housing tight packed in the UK, mcmansion timber matchboxes in the US.
I favour traditionalist styles of architecture, and that they can be done in conjunction with modern construction techniques. In fact it is usually the public that supports a much more traditional architectural style, which can be done with higher densities and with more pedestrian and public comfort than the common sweeping empty concrete plazas and steel/glass spires, this notion supported by a motion to replace a suggested London development that was largely hated with a more traditional, masonry development. However, the gatekeepers are individualistic architecture snobs who want to smash history to emplace a statement of themselves.
Everything is product development processes informed by market mindset, at the consumer or producer level. it is the consumer's responsibility to push harder.
+VR goggles for more easier hammering, only 100$ more! Its worth it, proven by scienceTM!
Prestani staviti ovu nit gore, shill
>Chinese and masturbatory
so fucking true
>we did it because we can do it
>no of course it's not sustainable, but we DID it!
planned obsolescence is the answer
>However, the gatekeepers are individualistic architecture snobs who want to smash history to emplace a statement of themselves.
we are all familiar with architecture modern memes, but in terms of simple utility and worth of investment we are lacking compared to 100 years ago and this is not retrogrudging.
Ever noticed how you dont need air conditions in old style buildings during summer - stone and high ceilings. Drywall is literall plastic that creates asthma.
You mentioned neo-traditional styles of construction, we literally dont have skill full masons to build quality brick walls - a UK user posted pic rel for that example, said pic rel is shitty quality and they tried imitating older UK brick houses.
>we did it because we can do it
"le producc of teh week!!! ITS GOT AN APP FOR IT! FUTUREEEEEEE!"
we are fragmenting and desintegrating as a society and its visible in technology.
I fucking hate that I grew up too late to be able to buy cheap 90s japanese cars. They were well made and easy enough to work on which created a flourishing modding community. Think Supras, S13/14 Silvias etc. Now these cars have appreciated up to 5 figures and what you *can* buy these days that is cheap are garbage in every way. The cars totally suck now and the modding communities around them are completely masturbatory to the point where the car is just a vanity piece rather than a real machine. Fuck.
pure bs
also pic rel was built by romans in split, croatia. 2000 years old, people just refurbished it for apartments. how cool is that? its literally cool in the summer due to extra THICC stone walls and long lasting since it doesnt have concrete (concrete traps water and makes walls crack)
notice the bow. 2000 years old. believe it.
A
lrnit
lvit
>2000 years old. believe it.
New Worlders can't
>>no of course it's not sustainable, but we DID it!
such narcissism, technology should GIVE not be worshipped. That bs started with unsonian architecture. architecture snobs competing with each other how to make builders job more complex and houses more expensive with lower temperature properties.
GUCCIGANG!
>2000 years old
imagine the ROI for the generations.
>want to buy a nice golf 3
>parents are like omg user, we're not that poor, here you can have our a class mercedes
>mfw I open the hood
>mfw I see the first repair bill
Could have bought a golf 2 for the same money.
>true, but modern cars, unliek cars from 20-30 years ago are very different in terms of mainintence requirements.
No they aren't, you have no idea what you're talking about. Diagnosing a check engine light has required a computer since fuel injection came out. The only things that may actually go bad are the little trinkets and gadgets, which don't affect the lifetime of the motor. You can go 200k+ miles on basically any motor now with simple, routine oil changes. Most car companies now offer warranties for 100k miles on the drive-train. Buying a car has never been better in terms of reliability, efficiency, technology, and power.
fuck off
>k
this
>expensive
>heavy
>tethered by an air hose
>need proprietary nails
>need air compressor
>need electricity or fuel for compressor
>too cumbersome to club a nigger in the head with
how is that an improvement?
>The only things that may actually go bad are the little trinkets and gadgets, which don't affect the lifetime of the motor. You can go 200k+ miles on basically any motor now with simple, routine oil changes.
well, you have a point, but its harder to maintain it by yourself compared to older models, yank cars might be different in that way today compared to current germans.
*blocks your path*
Also usally fucks up the wood pretty good, especially cheap lumber.
planned obsolences = dependence, slavery to the company.
If you have all that stuff, then it can pump out more nails per hour and easier than a hammer ever could.
