Proposed EU rules would require clothes to last longer and be easier to repair(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Proposed EU rules would require clothes to last longer and be easier to repair
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60913226
297 comments
This is all part of a larger phenomenon I like to call the "Amazon syndrome".
The quality standard for products seems to be incredibly low nowadays. I see people happily buying whatever cheap Chinese junk Amazon dropshippers sell, for a "low" price that's usually 4-5x the price of the exact same item on AliExpress. Reviews are overwhelmingly positive because most people don't care about actual specs or functionality and give 5 stars as long as it's cheap and it works, even when the product is marked up by the dropshipper and leaves a lot to be desired.
Reputable brands that used to make quality products now need to compete on price in a sea of "good enough" garbage, and many of them choose to do so by outsourcing manufacturing to the same Chinese factories that make the no-name stuff. Midrange products disappeared entirely and now the choice is between disposable landfill and ridiculously expensive high-end items.
As someonce in a Reddit thread (?) once said: "The product that retails for $500 costs $5 more to manufacture than the low-end equivalent that sells for $20. If you try to find a middle ground and spend $100, you end up with the $20 product in a nice box."
The quality standard for products seems to be incredibly low nowadays. I see people happily buying whatever cheap Chinese junk Amazon dropshippers sell, for a "low" price that's usually 4-5x the price of the exact same item on AliExpress. Reviews are overwhelmingly positive because most people don't care about actual specs or functionality and give 5 stars as long as it's cheap and it works, even when the product is marked up by the dropshipper and leaves a lot to be desired.
Reputable brands that used to make quality products now need to compete on price in a sea of "good enough" garbage, and many of them choose to do so by outsourcing manufacturing to the same Chinese factories that make the no-name stuff. Midrange products disappeared entirely and now the choice is between disposable landfill and ridiculously expensive high-end items.
As someonce in a Reddit thread (?) once said: "The product that retails for $500 costs $5 more to manufacture than the low-end equivalent that sells for $20. If you try to find a middle ground and spend $100, you end up with the $20 product in a nice box."
> Reputable brands that used to make quality products now need to compete on price
I don't think it's just that. Many people (like myself) stopped buying "reputable" brands because they have betrayed their reputation. Nowadays when buying electromechanic devices even when putting 10x the price i have no clue if it's going to last more than 2 years (minimum warranty in EU) and that's a fucking awful problem.
In my view, we need 20+ years warranty (minimum, i personally would argue for 50+) on all products mandated by law, then we can start to see some improvement. This is a public policy problem and as much as i hate the EU institutions they are the only entity i know doing anything about this very serious problem creating tons of waste/pollution.
I don't think it's just that. Many people (like myself) stopped buying "reputable" brands because they have betrayed their reputation. Nowadays when buying electromechanic devices even when putting 10x the price i have no clue if it's going to last more than 2 years (minimum warranty in EU) and that's a fucking awful problem.
In my view, we need 20+ years warranty (minimum, i personally would argue for 50+) on all products mandated by law, then we can start to see some improvement. This is a public policy problem and as much as i hate the EU institutions they are the only entity i know doing anything about this very serious problem creating tons of waste/pollution.
I’ve lost faith in the concept of brands. They’ve almost all been MBA’ed.
Hopefully the wheel will turn soon and product people will rule the roost once again. We need some MBA types as well, but there needs to be balance in the force.
Hopefully the wheel will turn soon and product people will rule the roost once again. We need some MBA types as well, but there needs to be balance in the force.
> I’ve lost faith in the concept of brands. They’ve almost all been MBA’ed.
This is the first time that I've seen the term "MBA" being verbed (at least with that meaning) and yet I understand exactly what you mean and I fully agree with you. Congratulations if you coined this usage, it's a great way of expressing something for which I was missing a word.
This is the first time that I've seen the term "MBA" being verbed (at least with that meaning) and yet I understand exactly what you mean and I fully agree with you. Congratulations if you coined this usage, it's a great way of expressing something for which I was missing a word.
It’s one of the popular tropes that’s repeated here and people use it as a lazy way of assigning blame for a phenomenon they do not understand whatsoever. Something bad happened? Couldn’t have possibly had a good reason for it, must be those MBA types. When Apple (as an example) turns around and produces groundbreaking chips and fantastic computers at an affordable price nobody gives Mr. MBA (Fuqua) Tim Cook credit for business decisions and leadership that enable this.
I’d recommend avoiding this lazy intellectual path because it’s not only incorrect in this context, it perverts your thinking in other contexts as well.
I’d recommend avoiding this lazy intellectual path because it’s not only incorrect in this context, it perverts your thinking in other contexts as well.
I would not be so quick to regard this as lazy thinking. It's merely shorthand for this idea: product people produce value, "MBA's" turn value into money. Obviously we need both sides.
Tim Cook is an Industrial Engineer with an MBA - a perfect combination. Apple is actually a great example of a company that produces a lot of value and also captures it in the form of dollars.
From this point of view, to be "MBA'ed" is to focus on profit while forgetting about producing value. This then waters down brands that were established on the bedrock of value produced by product people.
Tim Cook is an Industrial Engineer with an MBA - a perfect combination. Apple is actually a great example of a company that produces a lot of value and also captures it in the form of dollars.
From this point of view, to be "MBA'ed" is to focus on profit while forgetting about producing value. This then waters down brands that were established on the bedrock of value produced by product people.
I don’t think there’s a “both sides”.
The reason this is lazy thinking in my view is because usually it’s not associated with the good (Apple example, nobody goes “dang they really MBA’d the price on that MacBook Pro that I love) and because when something “bad” occurs there’s no understanding or analysis of the situation that lead to the current state. Just a bunch of “that’s bad, must be MBAs screwing me”. You find similar issues with “those Silicon Valley engineers all screwing us and stealing our attention” and other common phrases. The MBA one I think is even less nuanced than the contrived Silicon Valley one.
If we go back to the MBA thing. Well. I have one. I don’t like fast fashion. I wouldn’t want to support it even if it made more money. The degree doesn’t make you do anything, your incentives and who you are as a person are much more powerful. There’s no class on fast fashion (or similar) where MBA students are trained to maximize profit at all costs or not think about sociological impact. At least at Ohio State (Fisher) that was the case in all classes I attended. We spent a lot more time learning about not doing such things and how they are bad for business and society in the long run. My classmates had a lot of empathy. Maybe it’s because like me they were/are regular people just trying to do better.
So I really hate seeing this. To the extent it can happen on an internet board I find it a little offensive and disrespectful. Not a big deal or something just saying if you joined some forum and everybody said all the bad decisions were because of software engineers, well you’d probably at least get tired of hearing about it. Especially when you’re a regular person trying to be nice and do good, value-add work. Idk. Thanks for your comment.
The reason this is lazy thinking in my view is because usually it’s not associated with the good (Apple example, nobody goes “dang they really MBA’d the price on that MacBook Pro that I love) and because when something “bad” occurs there’s no understanding or analysis of the situation that lead to the current state. Just a bunch of “that’s bad, must be MBAs screwing me”. You find similar issues with “those Silicon Valley engineers all screwing us and stealing our attention” and other common phrases. The MBA one I think is even less nuanced than the contrived Silicon Valley one.
If we go back to the MBA thing. Well. I have one. I don’t like fast fashion. I wouldn’t want to support it even if it made more money. The degree doesn’t make you do anything, your incentives and who you are as a person are much more powerful. There’s no class on fast fashion (or similar) where MBA students are trained to maximize profit at all costs or not think about sociological impact. At least at Ohio State (Fisher) that was the case in all classes I attended. We spent a lot more time learning about not doing such things and how they are bad for business and society in the long run. My classmates had a lot of empathy. Maybe it’s because like me they were/are regular people just trying to do better.
So I really hate seeing this. To the extent it can happen on an internet board I find it a little offensive and disrespectful. Not a big deal or something just saying if you joined some forum and everybody said all the bad decisions were because of software engineers, well you’d probably at least get tired of hearing about it. Especially when you’re a regular person trying to be nice and do good, value-add work. Idk. Thanks for your comment.
Perhaps you are taking it personally because you have an MBA. It's not meant as a personal attack on literal MBA's. I use the term as shorthand for the people who do the vital work of making a business run efficiently and profitably. When companies focus on that to the exclusion of the actual value-creating, bad things happen. The opposite case is when a startup does not find a market and only focuses on making a product. This, too, fails.
As an investor, I look for companies that do well on both ends of the spectrum.
As an investor, I look for companies that do well on both ends of the spectrum.
No, I wouldn’t say I’m taking it personally. My self-worth exists independent of a degree, of which is obtainable by many. What I find disrespectful* is lumping large groups of people in together based on a degree, and then saying “that group is responsible for all the bad decisions”. I have to imagine you can see why this is simply lazy thinking.
Let me give you another contrived example:
“Social media co is found to have withheld information that lead to bad social thing”
“This is what happens when companies become Software Engineered. They lose all focus on the customer and society just to create better algorithms”.
You don’t think that if we just constantly repeated something like this that would be a bad thing and might alienate people? Especially when it’s not true and ignores good things that people have done as well?
What I’ll say is this. It’ll stop being lazy and disrespectful when large groups here also give credit where credit is due instead of only blame without evidence.
* Note that I don’t actually care, I’m never at home offended by something, I’m just commenting on the nature of the action, which I would classify as disrespectful.
Let me give you another contrived example:
“Social media co is found to have withheld information that lead to bad social thing”
“This is what happens when companies become Software Engineered. They lose all focus on the customer and society just to create better algorithms”.
You don’t think that if we just constantly repeated something like this that would be a bad thing and might alienate people? Especially when it’s not true and ignores good things that people have done as well?
What I’ll say is this. It’ll stop being lazy and disrespectful when large groups here also give credit where credit is due instead of only blame without evidence.
* Note that I don’t actually care, I’m never at home offended by something, I’m just commenting on the nature of the action, which I would classify as disrespectful.
The problem with your counter example is that it doesn't recognize prevailing power dynamics. In the vast majority of cases, software engineers, designers, product managers, and other people hands-on in the business of creating commercial software products, are outranked and have less authority than MBAs within their sphere of interaction. Many of us have been forced to be party to terrible decisions made by someone who has focused on an executive career path with no skill-based qualifications, and a deficient moral compass. Very often, these type of individuals happen to have an MBA, and so the stereotype was born. While it certainly isn't fair to tar all individuals with that brush, the short-hand has been earned by the actions of many MBAs over the decades. Whether you agree with that or not, the bottom line is you're simply not going to get much sympathy around here for the plight of the poor maligned MBA.
You are just doubling down on intellectual laziness and stereotypes which I thought we were supposed to disregard.
I guess those Silicon Valley software engineers have earned the title of bad actors with all the addicting software they write! There isn’t much sympathy around here for the plight of the poor maligned Software Engineer. After all you make a killing ruining people’s lives and destroying their ability to interact with their community with your addicting algorithms and your advertisements. You wait until a company relies on your cloud software or tools and then you raise the price just to squeeze every last drop of revenue. You have no moral compass and if you did, you wouldn’t build this stuff. I mean all you care about is career advancement. Build and ship a product and then move on before it gets shut down for not being viable. Skills? Hardly. You run easy pipelines and use software tools only you can afford to invest in to make you feel super productive while you ruin people’s lives. All in the name of getting enough “I shipped that” to put you on the executive CTO track before you dump dog shit companies on public equity markets. *
Same song different dance. Not buying it.
* I don’t actually believe this, nor do I believe similar lazy comments about any degree or profession because they are dumb and lazy intellectual positions.
I guess those Silicon Valley software engineers have earned the title of bad actors with all the addicting software they write! There isn’t much sympathy around here for the plight of the poor maligned Software Engineer. After all you make a killing ruining people’s lives and destroying their ability to interact with their community with your addicting algorithms and your advertisements. You wait until a company relies on your cloud software or tools and then you raise the price just to squeeze every last drop of revenue. You have no moral compass and if you did, you wouldn’t build this stuff. I mean all you care about is career advancement. Build and ship a product and then move on before it gets shut down for not being viable. Skills? Hardly. You run easy pipelines and use software tools only you can afford to invest in to make you feel super productive while you ruin people’s lives. All in the name of getting enough “I shipped that” to put you on the executive CTO track before you dump dog shit companies on public equity markets. *
Same song different dance. Not buying it.
* I don’t actually believe this, nor do I believe similar lazy comments about any degree or profession because they are dumb and lazy intellectual positions.
> “This is what happens when companies become Software Engineered"
But... people do use a very similar term, overengineered. Quite appropriately. You are absolutely allowed, encouraged, to call out someone specifying a product to the nines because they can. See Juicero, I'd argue Peloton, a.. decent proportion of products that involve Heroku or Kubernetes.
But so are engineers allowed to call out someone playing financial find-the-lady to obscure what they're really doing: using trust relationships built over decades, if not centuries, to fuck over customers.
But... people do use a very similar term, overengineered. Quite appropriately. You are absolutely allowed, encouraged, to call out someone specifying a product to the nines because they can. See Juicero, I'd argue Peloton, a.. decent proportion of products that involve Heroku or Kubernetes.
But so are engineers allowed to call out someone playing financial find-the-lady to obscure what they're really doing: using trust relationships built over decades, if not centuries, to fuck over customers.
[deleted]
> At least at Ohio State (Fisher) that was the case in all classes I attended. We spent a lot more time learning about not doing such things and how they are bad for business and society in the long run.
Well that's good that you were in a humane class ; from the people i know in France who received "MBA"-like education, it sounds like the exception, though. Are you familiar with critiques of neoliberal micromanagement, or as David Graeber's put it manageurial feudalism? How else would you explain the rise of bureaucracy ruling even non-profits (!) and ruining everything for everyone who cares about what they do?
> My classmates had a lot of empathy. Maybe it’s because like me they were/are regular people just trying to do better.
Cool, but how can you change the system by following its own rules? Do you feel that as an MBA working in a company you can go against the stream of anti-social control-based measures? I know as a random worker it doesn't work (which is why we have unions and cooperatives) but maybe you have a different perspective to share.
> Not a big deal or something just saying if you joined some forum and everybody said all the bad decisions were because of software engineers, well you’d probably at least get tired of hearing about it.
Well, the thing is as a class both we software people and you business people are ruining the lives of literally billions of people. So we're bound to get some resentment. Still, as Nabil Hassein points out in his talk "Computing, Climate Change, and All our Relationships", it's very mild. (paraphrasing) Given the evil we do to society as a whole, and the fate that's usually reserved to collaborators of oppressive regimes, angry messages on forums and stoning Silicon Valley buses is just the beginning and we should be very careful whose side of the barricade we are on when the revolution does come. I strongly recommend to watch the rest of the talk :)
Well that's good that you were in a humane class ; from the people i know in France who received "MBA"-like education, it sounds like the exception, though. Are you familiar with critiques of neoliberal micromanagement, or as David Graeber's put it manageurial feudalism? How else would you explain the rise of bureaucracy ruling even non-profits (!) and ruining everything for everyone who cares about what they do?
> My classmates had a lot of empathy. Maybe it’s because like me they were/are regular people just trying to do better.
Cool, but how can you change the system by following its own rules? Do you feel that as an MBA working in a company you can go against the stream of anti-social control-based measures? I know as a random worker it doesn't work (which is why we have unions and cooperatives) but maybe you have a different perspective to share.
> Not a big deal or something just saying if you joined some forum and everybody said all the bad decisions were because of software engineers, well you’d probably at least get tired of hearing about it.
Well, the thing is as a class both we software people and you business people are ruining the lives of literally billions of people. So we're bound to get some resentment. Still, as Nabil Hassein points out in his talk "Computing, Climate Change, and All our Relationships", it's very mild. (paraphrasing) Given the evil we do to society as a whole, and the fate that's usually reserved to collaborators of oppressive regimes, angry messages on forums and stoning Silicon Valley buses is just the beginning and we should be very careful whose side of the barricade we are on when the revolution does come. I strongly recommend to watch the rest of the talk :)
Would another spin on this be: if the connotation of MBA includes "bad" in it, then applying this label to bad stuff is tautological and doesn't add information?
Here's another example: made in China has a connotation of cheap and low quality, despite the fact that the iPhone and all the other high quality electronic products are made in China too. But if someone says "made in china" we know they're referring to the cheap stuff.
Here's another example: made in China has a connotation of cheap and low quality, despite the fact that the iPhone and all the other high quality electronic products are made in China too. But if someone says "made in china" we know they're referring to the cheap stuff.
Yea I’d say that’s a nice and concise way to summarize a lot of the issues here.
Isn't it ironic that this comment thread was originally about devices not lasting long enough and you bring up Apple, who purposefully crippled old phones and created AirPods to generate enormous amounts of e-waste, as an example of MBA types doing a good thing?
Have you actually looked at the competition and see how long android phones last and/are maintained?
Apple also has a pretty accessible recycling program but more importantly Apple products hold their value more, leading to a pretty good used market. No doubt this is bolstered by Apple’s fairly generous global warranty policy that is also transferrable.
Btw the “crippling” you referred to was apple throttling phones so weakened batteries were able to supply enough voltage to prevent the phone from randomly shutting off. It was not some secret attempt to blanket slow down old phones. If you replaced old batteries the problem would not happened. It was just bad communication and built up sentiment that old phones kept getting slower with each new update.
Apple also has a pretty accessible recycling program but more importantly Apple products hold their value more, leading to a pretty good used market. No doubt this is bolstered by Apple’s fairly generous global warranty policy that is also transferrable.
Btw the “crippling” you referred to was apple throttling phones so weakened batteries were able to supply enough voltage to prevent the phone from randomly shutting off. It was not some secret attempt to blanket slow down old phones. If you replaced old batteries the problem would not happened. It was just bad communication and built up sentiment that old phones kept getting slower with each new update.
> Have you actually looked at the competition and see how long android phones last and/are maintained?
Yes the Fairphone are doing well thank you. Very easy to tear apart, setup the system of your choice, and find replacement parts for.
> Apple products hold their value more, leading to a pretty good used market.
What does that mean? Money is just imaginary numbers. A phone is a phone: either it works good or it doesn't, how much and why it's valued by people brainwashed into a commercial cult [0] matters little in the equation.
> No doubt this is bolstered by Apple’s fairly generous global warranty policy that is also transferrable.
Kudos for them to respect the law. Although i must point out that for some years, at least in France, they were obviously breaking EU laws by saying their phones had only 1y warranty (2y minimum by law) and selling people "upgrades" to get the 2 years.
> It was not some secret attempt to blanket slow down old phones. If you replaced old batteries the problem would not happened.
Do you have a source for this? It's the first time i hear that explanation, and it certainly was not put forward by Apple in their update log at the time (suggesting malice). Also worth noting that Apple makes it harder than it should to crack your phone open to replace the battery, so i don't think that's a strong argument in their defense.
[0] https://www.techspot.com/news/43884-neurologists-apple-is-li...
Yes the Fairphone are doing well thank you. Very easy to tear apart, setup the system of your choice, and find replacement parts for.
> Apple products hold their value more, leading to a pretty good used market.
What does that mean? Money is just imaginary numbers. A phone is a phone: either it works good or it doesn't, how much and why it's valued by people brainwashed into a commercial cult [0] matters little in the equation.
> No doubt this is bolstered by Apple’s fairly generous global warranty policy that is also transferrable.
Kudos for them to respect the law. Although i must point out that for some years, at least in France, they were obviously breaking EU laws by saying their phones had only 1y warranty (2y minimum by law) and selling people "upgrades" to get the 2 years.
> It was not some secret attempt to blanket slow down old phones. If you replaced old batteries the problem would not happened.
Do you have a source for this? It's the first time i hear that explanation, and it certainly was not put forward by Apple in their update log at the time (suggesting malice). Also worth noting that Apple makes it harder than it should to crack your phone open to replace the battery, so i don't think that's a strong argument in their defense.
[0] https://www.techspot.com/news/43884-neurologists-apple-is-li...
The first sentence of the wikipedia article explaining the debacle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batterygate
Transferrable warranties are very much not the law in the US. This, along with a healthy used/refurbished market mean that old devices stay in use longer. The saying is reduce, reuse, and THEN recycle. But the impact in reduce and reuse is much better than recycling.
I’m not sure what you mean “a phone just works or it doesn’t.” I’ve never heard of the Fairphone but I’m sure if it has good usability it would be catching on. I had in fact switched to Android for a year before and went back to iPhone after countless both hardware and software based quality issues.
Apple is not a religion, at least it does not affect me in that way. While I use a macbook and iPhone, I am fairly against their other products (like unnecessary icloud usage, apple watch).
If anything it sounds more like users of esoteric android feature phones (where the feature is some arbitrary definition of sustainability) is under some cult or religion.
The Fairphone you mentioned has lukewarm reviews, is objectively an inferior phone aside from its more sustainable materials. https://www.theverge.com/22716194/fairphone-4-review
If you look at mass market phones with actual market share, Apple does way better on the sustainability side by simply *keeping old phones usable.” If you want to be sustainable reduce first. Then reuse. An old iphone being resold or handed down is by definition made out of 100% recycled parts.
Transferrable warranties are very much not the law in the US. This, along with a healthy used/refurbished market mean that old devices stay in use longer. The saying is reduce, reuse, and THEN recycle. But the impact in reduce and reuse is much better than recycling.
I’m not sure what you mean “a phone just works or it doesn’t.” I’ve never heard of the Fairphone but I’m sure if it has good usability it would be catching on. I had in fact switched to Android for a year before and went back to iPhone after countless both hardware and software based quality issues.
Apple is not a religion, at least it does not affect me in that way. While I use a macbook and iPhone, I am fairly against their other products (like unnecessary icloud usage, apple watch).
If anything it sounds more like users of esoteric android feature phones (where the feature is some arbitrary definition of sustainability) is under some cult or religion.
The Fairphone you mentioned has lukewarm reviews, is objectively an inferior phone aside from its more sustainable materials. https://www.theverge.com/22716194/fairphone-4-review
If you look at mass market phones with actual market share, Apple does way better on the sustainability side by simply *keeping old phones usable.” If you want to be sustainable reduce first. Then reuse. An old iphone being resold or handed down is by definition made out of 100% recycled parts.
Does Apple do any good things?
They had some interesting UX in early apps like Hypercard. Too bad none of it was free software so it's lost in this day and age.
I’ve heard it used in conversation previously, fwiw.
Ad-hoc verbing of nouns is a normal feature of the English language (at least in casual usage), it doesn’t necessarily mean that a term is being coined or has been coined.
Maybe I’m weird but I never had faith in them.
I don’t know when I learned it, but I’ve looked it up a few times to be sure I’m not day dreaming; after the WW2, declassified propaganda research became the basis for ad and marketing programs in university.
It’s always been about establishing a mood and inserting a meme to go with it. Maybe that’s “gotten worse” as we whittle stats looking for growth. I think people are just aware of what’s always been true.
Somewhere along the way it became blind allegiance to a certain kind of agency, like a religion. We’re all busy FOMOing, being ourselves, like the Sprite commercials told us, we miss that we’re just shuffling along the same old routine as dad and grandpa, feeling too unique to be required to grow a potato or sew a pillow.
I don’t know when I learned it, but I’ve looked it up a few times to be sure I’m not day dreaming; after the WW2, declassified propaganda research became the basis for ad and marketing programs in university.
It’s always been about establishing a mood and inserting a meme to go with it. Maybe that’s “gotten worse” as we whittle stats looking for growth. I think people are just aware of what’s always been true.
Somewhere along the way it became blind allegiance to a certain kind of agency, like a religion. We’re all busy FOMOing, being ourselves, like the Sprite commercials told us, we miss that we’re just shuffling along the same old routine as dad and grandpa, feeling too unique to be required to grow a potato or sew a pillow.
You might have learned it from here or similar to:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
I want to say it was during college years which for me was mid 90s. My focus latched onto anything I could apply elastic structures to; advertising/marketing and it’s effects on economics.
Circling high minded wisdom isn’t new. Tribal chieftains, god kings, preachers, now the nerds promising human longevity and prosperity for all-time to come… if we all just follow this model, it’s ours for the taking! Not so new.
I’m still waiting to be impressed.
Onward with the next generation rug pull. They got pensions in the 80-90s. It was reported Trump and co were looking into leveraging 401ks for gambling, but they used covid to hand over stacks of cash without question to leverage the average workers debtors prison they find themselves in.
It’s the circle of life, Simba.
Circling high minded wisdom isn’t new. Tribal chieftains, god kings, preachers, now the nerds promising human longevity and prosperity for all-time to come… if we all just follow this model, it’s ours for the taking! Not so new.
I’m still waiting to be impressed.
Onward with the next generation rug pull. They got pensions in the 80-90s. It was reported Trump and co were looking into leveraging 401ks for gambling, but they used covid to hand over stacks of cash without question to leverage the average workers debtors prison they find themselves in.
It’s the circle of life, Simba.
There's already a law that covers it. IANAL but my here's my understanding of things:
When you buy something in the UK/Europe, anything really, it needs to meet 3 criteria[0]:
1. Fit for purpose: i.e. if it says "running shoes", then shoes should be suitable for running. If you use them to hammer nails, then it's on you.
2. As described: match the description, model number, etc
3. Satisfactory quality: this is the key ... and it depends on the product, but generally it relies on common sense. i.e. if you bought a washing machine for 2000EUR, you can expect it to last, let's say, 20 years of regular family use... If you bought a 2nd hand washing machine for 50EUR, probably can't expect it to last more than a year...
The problem is not with the law, but generally speaking, companies don't give a toss. Nobody's going to fine them... And worse, consumers are easily misled by warranty periods and just don't expect the protection. Even if they paid 2000EUR for a washing machine and it failed after 2 years, they are more likely to just get a new one. Even if legally they can require the retailer (not even the manufacturer) to replace or repair it because the product wasn't of sufficient quality. The burden of proof is usually on the consumer though, which kinda makes it harder though.
[0] https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/getting-help-and-advice/co...
When you buy something in the UK/Europe, anything really, it needs to meet 3 criteria[0]:
1. Fit for purpose: i.e. if it says "running shoes", then shoes should be suitable for running. If you use them to hammer nails, then it's on you.
2. As described: match the description, model number, etc
3. Satisfactory quality: this is the key ... and it depends on the product, but generally it relies on common sense. i.e. if you bought a washing machine for 2000EUR, you can expect it to last, let's say, 20 years of regular family use... If you bought a 2nd hand washing machine for 50EUR, probably can't expect it to last more than a year...
The problem is not with the law, but generally speaking, companies don't give a toss. Nobody's going to fine them... And worse, consumers are easily misled by warranty periods and just don't expect the protection. Even if they paid 2000EUR for a washing machine and it failed after 2 years, they are more likely to just get a new one. Even if legally they can require the retailer (not even the manufacturer) to replace or repair it because the product wasn't of sufficient quality. The burden of proof is usually on the consumer though, which kinda makes it harder though.
[0] https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/getting-help-and-advice/co...
Quebec, a province in Canada, passed a law a few years back. Essentially, the language states that the product must last "a reasonable period of time" for its usage case. This is the new province wide, legislated warranty.
Buy a washer, are a single man, use it once a week? It breaks in 15 years? Covered.
Are a family of 8, wash 2x daily, it breaks after manufacture's stated warranty? Probably, not covered.
This helps, because it stops parts that are designed to fail due to time, instead of usage, from destroying the product.
There are a few government agencies which will help you with this too, instead of going to court, by merely a form to fill out.
Buy a washer, are a single man, use it once a week? It breaks in 15 years? Covered.
Are a family of 8, wash 2x daily, it breaks after manufacture's stated warranty? Probably, not covered.
This helps, because it stops parts that are designed to fail due to time, instead of usage, from destroying the product.
There are a few government agencies which will help you with this too, instead of going to court, by merely a form to fill out.
> Are a family of 8, wash 2x daily, it breaks after manufacture's stated warranty? Probably, not covered.
That sounds fair, until it's not. It's perfectly normal that a washer as a whole fails after 15 years: the thing is the belt is the only part that should fail and it should be easy to replace. Like with IT parts, manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure parts are incompatible with one another and hard to replace.
Most electro-mechanic devices i've seen fail in the past two/three decades were due to electronics: heater thermostat (not the IoT kind, the dumb kind), washing machine program selector (also dumb kind), etc. Likewise in auto industry it was reported that most vehicles being recalled in the past years in USA were due to electronics failing, not mechanics.
I personally find that outrageous and bet everyone would be better off if consumer products had standard bodies mandating use of specific interchangeable parts (like we have for electric/USB sockets or lightbulbs), and if it was illegal to sell hard-to-repair products (no glue breaking the device when you tear it apart).
Mandating a >20y warranty and duty of available spare parts is in my view the path of least effort for regulators: it will significantly raise the overall price of pushing out new incompatible models. Manufacturers would only release a device once every decade once they have achieved some significant efficiency/usability gains, instead of releasing parts-incompatible new designs for bad products every month just to profit. If you add in some standards regulations dictating interoperable formats for specific parts, that would start to look like an eco-friendly user-benefiting regulation.
Of course amateur industry like Pine64 needs to be exempt from such regulations to allow for innovation, but customer devices are a currently a nightmare destroying our planets and ruining our lives and wallets. I applaud Quebec for taking those steps, but they simply won't cut it.
PS: How is IoT even legal? In 99% of cases, it introduces unnecessary complexity and fragility, and in most cases has glaring security concerns.
That sounds fair, until it's not. It's perfectly normal that a washer as a whole fails after 15 years: the thing is the belt is the only part that should fail and it should be easy to replace. Like with IT parts, manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure parts are incompatible with one another and hard to replace.
Most electro-mechanic devices i've seen fail in the past two/three decades were due to electronics: heater thermostat (not the IoT kind, the dumb kind), washing machine program selector (also dumb kind), etc. Likewise in auto industry it was reported that most vehicles being recalled in the past years in USA were due to electronics failing, not mechanics.
I personally find that outrageous and bet everyone would be better off if consumer products had standard bodies mandating use of specific interchangeable parts (like we have for electric/USB sockets or lightbulbs), and if it was illegal to sell hard-to-repair products (no glue breaking the device when you tear it apart).
Mandating a >20y warranty and duty of available spare parts is in my view the path of least effort for regulators: it will significantly raise the overall price of pushing out new incompatible models. Manufacturers would only release a device once every decade once they have achieved some significant efficiency/usability gains, instead of releasing parts-incompatible new designs for bad products every month just to profit. If you add in some standards regulations dictating interoperable formats for specific parts, that would start to look like an eco-friendly user-benefiting regulation.
Of course amateur industry like Pine64 needs to be exempt from such regulations to allow for innovation, but customer devices are a currently a nightmare destroying our planets and ruining our lives and wallets. I applaud Quebec for taking those steps, but they simply won't cut it.
PS: How is IoT even legal? In 99% of cases, it introduces unnecessary complexity and fragility, and in most cases has glaring security concerns.
"It was illegal to sell hard-to-repair products (no glue breaking the device when you tear it apart)."
To please the 'mah free market' types, we shouldn't make it illegal - we should ship broken good back to the manufacturer and have them disasemble the device into pristine materials for perfect recylcing. Breach of recycling laws shiould be a criminal offence - if I litter on the streets, I can literally go to jail, so why is a company above the law in this regard? (and so many others)
It will be so expensive to do, the effect will be the same
To please the 'mah free market' types, we shouldn't make it illegal - we should ship broken good back to the manufacturer and have them disasemble the device into pristine materials for perfect recylcing. Breach of recycling laws shiould be a criminal offence - if I litter on the streets, I can literally go to jail, so why is a company above the law in this regard? (and so many others)
It will be so expensive to do, the effect will be the same
As long as everyone is arrested for not recycling I am pleased. So if anyone puts one of these products into the trash rather than mailing them back to the original manufacturer they should be jailed.
Right after we execute whoever invented resign codes, so that I have to check which part of plastic packaging from the super market uses which exact type of plastic, and have to cross-refrence if that plastic is reprocessed by my particular local authority.
After that we have to get the people that get government subsidied for reprocessing, but their reprosessing is to ship our plastic illegally to poor nations where they are dumpled in the ocean
After that we have to get the people that get government subsidied for reprocessing, but their reprosessing is to ship our plastic illegally to poor nations where they are dumpled in the ocean
I say we nuke the whole industry from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
For most consumer appliances, it’s vastly more wasteful and energy intensive to run them for 20 years than to replace them at ten. That’s true for cars, refrigerators, washing machines, and obviously IT.
That’s because energy efficiency does tend to improve.
The lack of appliances that last this long is itself a result of better production: if you have some large number of components, each one must have a 50 year expected lifetime if you want a chance for the machine to work for even a decade.
It’s improvements in precision and knowledge of materials that tightened down the variability for individual components, making it possible to construct something that is likely to survive the decade, then see everything failing at around the same time. Cutting down on over-provisioning in this manner obviously saves resources and costs, as well.
That’s because energy efficiency does tend to improve.
The lack of appliances that last this long is itself a result of better production: if you have some large number of components, each one must have a 50 year expected lifetime if you want a chance for the machine to work for even a decade.
It’s improvements in precision and knowledge of materials that tightened down the variability for individual components, making it possible to construct something that is likely to survive the decade, then see everything failing at around the same time. Cutting down on over-provisioning in this manner obviously saves resources and costs, as well.
> For most consumer appliances, it’s vastly more wasteful and energy intensive to run them for 20 years than to replace them at ten.
That might be true in terms of CO2 and energy efficiency, although the only sources i've found on the topic gave very opposite results. But no study that i know of accounts for pollution (waste water and polluted surroundings of extraction sites, refinement sites, assembly sites, and "recycling" sites) so i'm tempted to argue that anything we don't manufacture is better for the environment than better efficiency.
> The lack of appliances that last this long is itself a result of better production: if you have some large number of components, each one must have a 50 year expected lifetime if you want a chance for the machine to work for even a decade.
I strongly disagree with this interpretation. First, because industry routinely employs bad parts and bad design on purpose (planned obsolescence, eg. televisions placing heat-sensitive capacitors near heat sources). But also because an individual part failing is in my view OK as long as this part is standard and easy to source.
There are some environmental/logistic concerns if you want to repair old devices given the gazillion incompatible spare parts they each use. But if they all used standard parts, we could and should have repair shops run as a free public service to avoid throwing stuff away. This in itself would do more for the environment than any "green new deal" would ever do.
That might be true in terms of CO2 and energy efficiency, although the only sources i've found on the topic gave very opposite results. But no study that i know of accounts for pollution (waste water and polluted surroundings of extraction sites, refinement sites, assembly sites, and "recycling" sites) so i'm tempted to argue that anything we don't manufacture is better for the environment than better efficiency.
> The lack of appliances that last this long is itself a result of better production: if you have some large number of components, each one must have a 50 year expected lifetime if you want a chance for the machine to work for even a decade.
I strongly disagree with this interpretation. First, because industry routinely employs bad parts and bad design on purpose (planned obsolescence, eg. televisions placing heat-sensitive capacitors near heat sources). But also because an individual part failing is in my view OK as long as this part is standard and easy to source.
There are some environmental/logistic concerns if you want to repair old devices given the gazillion incompatible spare parts they each use. But if they all used standard parts, we could and should have repair shops run as a free public service to avoid throwing stuff away. This in itself would do more for the environment than any "green new deal" would ever do.
The mechanism I described isn't one to disagree or agree with. It's math: For <x> even parts with chance of failure on any given day <y> (including some variability <z>), the expected first failure is at some point long before <y>, because
P(no parts fail within the first two years) =
1 - P(<y>)^((number of parts) * (number of days))
What you provided isn't (just) maths, it's a modelling assertion: that failures are independent from part to part, and independent from day to day.
I'm skeptical about your first assertion -- think of the effect of a power surge. I don't agree with your second assertion at all, from my experience of cheap devices that fail not long after their warranty expires.
I'm skeptical about your first assertion -- think of the effect of a power surge. I don't agree with your second assertion at all, from my experience of cheap devices that fail not long after their warranty expires.
> The mechanism I described isn't one to disagree or agree with.
And yet you failed to account for the embodied energy in building the product and the fact that maintaining any appliance or equipment requires repairs. So there is quite a bit to disagree with.
It is much more wasteful to build a product with no methods of repair, noting that a large number of components will statistically fail due to variability of tolerances or usage patterns.
A 50 yr product requires maintenance, replaceable parts and access to documentation. All of these are lacking in our modern consumer environment. You can blame this on complexity, or designs towards sleekness or what not but the truth is that product failure after a short amount of time (planned obsolescence) creates a reoccurring customer base, and the ability to pass off cheaper parts that don't need to be able to handle removal (glue vs. screws, etc.).
And yet you failed to account for the embodied energy in building the product and the fact that maintaining any appliance or equipment requires repairs. So there is quite a bit to disagree with.
It is much more wasteful to build a product with no methods of repair, noting that a large number of components will statistically fail due to variability of tolerances or usage patterns.
A 50 yr product requires maintenance, replaceable parts and access to documentation. All of these are lacking in our modern consumer environment. You can blame this on complexity, or designs towards sleekness or what not but the truth is that product failure after a short amount of time (planned obsolescence) creates a reoccurring customer base, and the ability to pass off cheaper parts that don't need to be able to handle removal (glue vs. screws, etc.).
Sure but its fine for individual parts to fail if the manufacturer will repair/replace that part. Spares of easily user-replaceable parts can even be included with the product, like spare fuses often were.
It's not necessary to achieve zero failures, but it creates incentives for manufactures to use higher quality parts.
I am supportive of setting minimum lifespans for certain classes of products and to expwct manufacturers to be liable for that performance.
It's not necessary to achieve zero failures, but it creates incentives for manufactures to use higher quality parts.
I am supportive of setting minimum lifespans for certain classes of products and to expwct manufacturers to be liable for that performance.
it is not the main point but requiring the manufacturers to repair an item after 50 years cannot be done.
the factory that built that refrigerator heat pump from the 70' is unlikely to still be making it.
as of today it would be already a big improvement if the was a law saying: "if a part is no longer produced or sold by the IP owner then it is legal to recreate and sell clones of that part"
the factory that built that refrigerator heat pump from the 70' is unlikely to still be making it.
as of today it would be already a big improvement if the was a law saying: "if a part is no longer produced or sold by the IP owner then it is legal to recreate and sell clones of that part"
> the factory that built that refrigerator heat pump from the 70' is unlikely to still be making it.
Yes but why? Why do we have 400 different models of heat pump for every fridge out there? I can understand that once every decade or so a new tech comes out that's worthy of developing parts from. But even then the new parts could be retrofitted into existing designs.
> "if a part is no longer produced or sold by the IP owner then it is legal to recreate and sell clones of that part"
That would be a huge improvement. What would be an even better improvement would be to abolish so-called IP entirely and to mandate actual durability for all parts sold. Think about lightbulbs: the parts/socket are standard (no IP involved), every factory can produce them, and yet we still have crazy bad durability.
Yes but why? Why do we have 400 different models of heat pump for every fridge out there? I can understand that once every decade or so a new tech comes out that's worthy of developing parts from. But even then the new parts could be retrofitted into existing designs.
> "if a part is no longer produced or sold by the IP owner then it is legal to recreate and sell clones of that part"
That would be a huge improvement. What would be an even better improvement would be to abolish so-called IP entirely and to mandate actual durability for all parts sold. Think about lightbulbs: the parts/socket are standard (no IP involved), every factory can produce them, and yet we still have crazy bad durability.
> it’s vastly more wasteful and energy intensive to run them for 20 years than to replace them at ten
I am very skeptical: Washing machine has two functions: Spinning and heating water. heating is 99% efficient, and electric motors are like 95% efficient - where is the improvement coming from? Is is smart features? What do they do, instead of spinning left it spins right?
What about an oven or a kettle, there is no possible improvement, and I bet the shoddily made ones are actualyl less efficient and worse insulated.
I am very skeptical: Washing machine has two functions: Spinning and heating water. heating is 99% efficient, and electric motors are like 95% efficient - where is the improvement coming from? Is is smart features? What do they do, instead of spinning left it spins right?
What about an oven or a kettle, there is no possible improvement, and I bet the shoddily made ones are actualyl less efficient and worse insulated.
Washing machines continue to evolve—they're gentler on clothes and more efficient than ever, and they use 70 percent less energy than they did in 1990
The most water-efficient models in our ratings use an average of 10 gallons of water, 75 percent less than older models.
https://www.consumerreports.org/washing-machines/best-eco-fr...
The most water-efficient models in our ratings use an average of 10 gallons of water, 75 percent less than older models.
https://www.consumerreports.org/washing-machines/best-eco-fr...
This is just the amount of power the washing machine uses while it is on. You need to know the energy required to manufacture all of the components and the duty cycle, to know if it makes sense to replace an appliance for a more efficient one or not.
For example even if my phone charger were to get twice as efficient, it’s drawing very little power, given that it spends most of its time unplugged: it uses a fraction of a watt. That means that I would have to use it for an extremely long time to get near to the amount of energy used to manufacture a new one.
For example even if my phone charger were to get twice as efficient, it’s drawing very little power, given that it spends most of its time unplugged: it uses a fraction of a watt. That means that I would have to use it for an extremely long time to get near to the amount of energy used to manufacture a new one.
Washing machines pull considerable power and the power scales with the water usage: They use warm water, either from a tap or using a heating element. Heating water is energy intensive, and the hot water quite literally goes down the drain. Current machines use about 50liter per cycle, heating that from 10 to 30 degrees consumes around 1.2kWh, to 60 it’s ~3 kWh. Doubling the amount of water obviously doubles the energy needed. A machine for a small family may see around 100 cycles per year, so the savings are substantial.
This doesn’t take into account the savings in drinkable water which has most likely been through an energy-intensive process as well.
This doesn’t take into account the savings in drinkable water which has most likely been through an energy-intensive process as well.
Yet your washing machine does not need drinkable water specifically (can use rainwater), and your stats do not mention the energy/resource cost of manufacturing and shipping a new washing machine.
If you have collective washing machines as a public service running 24/7, the tradeoff may be worth it, but as a general rule it's certainly not the case. Extracting and refining materials for industrial processes consumes millions and millions of m³ of water and a lot of energy.
Our perception as consumers is skewed because the price we pay for electricity/water makes it economically more affordable to us to get newer devices, but from a resource usage perspective, that's certainly not a good deal for the planet. If we paid water/electricity the price that big industries do, we wouldn't even think getting a new device was a reasonable choice.
If you have collective washing machines as a public service running 24/7, the tradeoff may be worth it, but as a general rule it's certainly not the case. Extracting and refining materials for industrial processes consumes millions and millions of m³ of water and a lot of energy.
Our perception as consumers is skewed because the price we pay for electricity/water makes it economically more affordable to us to get newer devices, but from a resource usage perspective, that's certainly not a good deal for the planet. If we paid water/electricity the price that big industries do, we wouldn't even think getting a new device was a reasonable choice.
Washing machines consist mainly of materials that are easily recycled and very economical to do so. Metals, mainly, in a large package. Pure copper in the motor. All of which can be recycled to build a new washing machine.
What stops a washing machine made in year 2010 from using same amount of water as one made in 2025? Was that water never needed at all?
Did we discover new phisics of washing? Do we have any reason to believe further improvement is possible?
This is a physical process, you can't have infinite improvement - there is a certain minimum amount of water required to dissolve detergent, and it can be easilly calculated.
They don't do much, does anyone have a real explanation without any handwaving?
Did we discover new phisics of washing? Do we have any reason to believe further improvement is possible?
This is a physical process, you can't have infinite improvement - there is a certain minimum amount of water required to dissolve detergent, and it can be easilly calculated.
They don't do much, does anyone have a real explanation without any handwaving?
I replaced my washing machine and dryer a year or two ago. I was pretty skeptical that a new set would make any difference, so I held off until it broke.
The new machines are better. I'm not an expert, but I think the biggest differences are: sensors to stop adding water when it isn't necessary, a really powerful spinner in the washer that dries the clothes better, powerful spinner in the dryer. Btw, my washing machine is top load, fwiw.
Oh, and to answer a different question: why didn't we have this stuff years ago? I think, no one cared enough to do it.
The new machines are better. I'm not an expert, but I think the biggest differences are: sensors to stop adding water when it isn't necessary, a really powerful spinner in the washer that dries the clothes better, powerful spinner in the dryer. Btw, my washing machine is top load, fwiw.
Oh, and to answer a different question: why didn't we have this stuff years ago? I think, no one cared enough to do it.
Have you watched the cycle of a modern front loader versus an old top loader?
The old top loader basically filled up a big tub with hot water and sloshed it around a bit.
Modern front loaders just incrementally add the amount of water needed as determined by weight. Presumably wouldn’t have worked nearly as well with the available detergents of 50 years ago.
The old top loader basically filled up a big tub with hot water and sloshed it around a bit.
Modern front loaders just incrementally add the amount of water needed as determined by weight. Presumably wouldn’t have worked nearly as well with the available detergents of 50 years ago.
First, we should be talking about the next 20 years - after all we are talking about a law we will introduce today, not in the past, and noone it talking about appliances lasting a century.
Secondly, while I never used a top loader, from everything I've read, they are worse in every dimention, so the comparison seems inappropriate - you are introducing extra variables.
Also I am not clear why 'incrementally adding water' was not possible previously, People built a 'smart' toaster 70 years ago, that could sence how cooked your bread is, and it was purely mechanical:
https://www.theverge.com/22801890/sunbeam-radiant-control-to...
Secondly, while I never used a top loader, from everything I've read, they are worse in every dimention, so the comparison seems inappropriate - you are introducing extra variables.
Also I am not clear why 'incrementally adding water' was not possible previously, People built a 'smart' toaster 70 years ago, that could sence how cooked your bread is, and it was purely mechanical:
https://www.theverge.com/22801890/sunbeam-radiant-control-to...
Top loaders are basically an automated version of doing laundry but by hand. A 40-50 year old top loader which is probably what mine would have been today if it had kept working is much much simpler in many respects than a modern front loader. The spin cycle and it’s control is very different. I doubt you could build a modern washing machine with 1970 technology even if you knew what the end goal should be. And you need the right detergent too.
Added: And toasters still do a crap job of figuring out done-ness.
Added: And toasters still do a crap job of figuring out done-ness.
These are generally firmware updates, no? One could imagine the same chassis, hardware and drive system with only a few modifications to sensors and the control hardware (perhaps even just an update to the microcontroller's firmware) achieving the same output.
And front loaders at least spin out more water so drying is more efficient. I suspect there’s less of a difference with dryers.
Previous improvements are brushless DC motors with VFD, and using less water thus less heat required. Although one can argue that water usage has been similarly MBAified, either across the board, or at least for many crappy models that fail to get the job done.
A possible future improvement could be delayed start that communicates with time of use metering or something, although this would have to be implemented in such a way that the software itself wouldn't turn the machine into a piece of junk in 3 short years (eg libre software).
I suspect there are also many sensor-based improvements that could give machines more intelligent processing, but anyone who has repaired appliances knows that BOM cost rules all. So those would seemingly rely on less time-based manifest-destiny "innovation" and more on designing machines with more value in the first place.
A possible future improvement could be delayed start that communicates with time of use metering or something, although this would have to be implemented in such a way that the software itself wouldn't turn the machine into a piece of junk in 3 short years (eg libre software).
I suspect there are also many sensor-based improvements that could give machines more intelligent processing, but anyone who has repaired appliances knows that BOM cost rules all. So those would seemingly rely on less time-based manifest-destiny "innovation" and more on designing machines with more value in the first place.
Of course more sensors also equals more parts equals more complexity equals more failure modes. My furnace went mostly out this winter because of what turned out to be an outside temperature sensor which it used to optimize boiler temperature.
Most of this can be tamed with competent software, which libre software can converge on in a way that throwaway proprietary embedded stuff generally does not. For example, failure of your outside temperature sensor should have just resulted in your furnace acting like it was very cold, using a bit more energy and creating a bit larger temperature swing. Furthermore, an alert of the failure through open protocols would allow for lightweight notifications through software you already use, as contrasted with the currently common commercial surveillance rigmarole.
Except the outside sensor was reporting that it was something like 75 degrees F rather than the 20 degrees F it actually was. And the microcontroller was basically going “Why doesn’t the idiot just open a window?” Not sure what the failure mode of a completely dead sensor would be.
Certainly there not necessarily anything wrong with open source controller software but it’s no Panacea either.
And what surveillance? My heating system isn’t networked at all.
Certainly there not necessarily anything wrong with open source controller software but it’s no Panacea either.
And what surveillance? My heating system isn’t networked at all.
The firmware could see that the value was stuck at a constant, compare your outside temp to a local forecast, see that your internal temp continued to drop, or employ other strategies for determining bad sensor data. There's little incentive for Honeywell to add such functionality (cf the paradigm where you just call a professional who diagnoses your problem), but with libre software it might just scratch someone's itch at which point the functionality would be available to all. Libre software certainly isn't a panacea, but rather seemingly a necessary condition for embedded devices to not get stuck at whatever simplistic version of zip-source-control crapware they're shipped with.
By surveillance I'm referring to what would pass for "remote notifications" of system status (after the possible bad sensor was detected). The IoTrash solution would be to backhaul your system's data to a surveillance cloud, require you to sign up for email spam, install a bespoke app that would spam you with useless notifications, faux-consent to a ridiculous anti-privacy contract, etc. Whereas in the libre world, user-focused incentives are allowed to define functionality and that notification could be a simple single email.
Making the point in general, in order for complex software to not be some terrible black box, it needs to expose its internal state to users who want to see it. Libre software tends to do that (as many users are developers), while non-libre software tends to lock all that up and thus severely limits reliability xor complexity.
By surveillance I'm referring to what would pass for "remote notifications" of system status (after the possible bad sensor was detected). The IoTrash solution would be to backhaul your system's data to a surveillance cloud, require you to sign up for email spam, install a bespoke app that would spam you with useless notifications, faux-consent to a ridiculous anti-privacy contract, etc. Whereas in the libre world, user-focused incentives are allowed to define functionality and that notification could be a simple single email.
Making the point in general, in order for complex software to not be some terrible black box, it needs to expose its internal state to users who want to see it. Libre software tends to do that (as many users are developers), while non-libre software tends to lock all that up and thus severely limits reliability xor complexity.
I do not want my furnace second guessing the outside temperature based on a potentially unreliable local weather forecast. Yes I would generally prefer to trust verified industrial controller code from the manufacturer that trained service people are familiar with for what’s a critical system in many parts of the world.
Individuals are of course welcome to hack together what they want using Arduinos or whatever.
Again I very deliberately do not have a smart thermostat or other network connections to my heating so no surveillance is going on. I do have network-connected temperature sensor but it’s purely passive.
Individuals are of course welcome to hack together what they want using Arduinos or whatever.
Again I very deliberately do not have a smart thermostat or other network connections to my heating so no surveillance is going on. I do have network-connected temperature sensor but it’s purely passive.
That's not really addressing the core of my point. Sure, you personally can choose to be conservative and not adopt something promising the world based on "libre". And you probably shouldn't unless you want to tinker. But if it becomes common and shows to be more flexible and reliable, perhaps you will change your view.
I too critically rely on heating. As system complexity increases with things like outside temperature sensors, I would much rather have visibility into their workings than not. In the middle of the night, that could be the difference between a quick ten minute diagnose and override, or waiting some hours for an emergency service call.
I too critically rely on heating. As system complexity increases with things like outside temperature sensors, I would much rather have visibility into their workings than not. In the middle of the night, that could be the difference between a quick ten minute diagnose and override, or waiting some hours for an emergency service call.
Suppose the furnace gets the temperature wrong, what's the worst outcome? Surely the furmware should not allow absurd values like -100 or over 100?
While I don't know of any washers/dryers with them, heat pumps can be more than 200% efficient, so there's still potential for improvements there in theory.
Though to be honest I agree with your point. A lot of the low hanging fruit for massive gains in efficiency are gone. It's like cars, going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg is a huge difference. Going from 50 mpg to 60 mpg is a much smaller difference.
Though to be honest I agree with your point. A lot of the low hanging fruit for massive gains in efficiency are gone. It's like cars, going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg is a huge difference. Going from 50 mpg to 60 mpg is a much smaller difference.
"While I don't know of any washers/dryers with them, heat pumps can be more than 200% efficient"
But then the washer is stealing heat from your house? That seems questionable?
Seems like the right way to solve the problem is to provide hot water inlet, and that should provide it is whatever most efficient way you can?
But then the washer is stealing heat from your house? That seems questionable?
Seems like the right way to solve the problem is to provide hot water inlet, and that should provide it is whatever most efficient way you can?
Heat pump dryers don't exhaust air to the outside, which saves a lot of energy relative to what is pulled from the house.
(The water is either collected in a container or goes down a drain)
For modern top loading washers, the final temperature of the water is restricted by limiting the hot water let in, they don't have a heater.
(The water is either collected in a container or goes down a drain)
For modern top loading washers, the final temperature of the water is restricted by limiting the hot water let in, they don't have a heater.
Heat pump dryers are common in some places. Don't believe heart pumps are ever used in washers though.
> vastly more wasteful and energy intensive to run them for 20 years than to replace them at ten
I recently bought a new washing machine. It is twice as efficient as the old one that broke down irreparably after 12 years.
I chose it by summing machines' cost, and the projected cost of each one's electricity needs going 10 years in the future, if prices go up by 10% per year, and picking the cheapest total one.
The cost of the machine itself ended up being 1149 RON, and the cost of the electricity would be 938 RON, which is almost the cost of the machine entirely.
So it is indeed important to consider efficiency and updating an old machine, and compare with what you have.
As long as the improvement in power efficiency keeps up, it will not make sense to keep an appliance for 50 years. But once that improvement stops, so does the reason for replacing them.
I recently bought a new washing machine. It is twice as efficient as the old one that broke down irreparably after 12 years.
I chose it by summing machines' cost, and the projected cost of each one's electricity needs going 10 years in the future, if prices go up by 10% per year, and picking the cheapest total one.
The cost of the machine itself ended up being 1149 RON, and the cost of the electricity would be 938 RON, which is almost the cost of the machine entirely.
So it is indeed important to consider efficiency and updating an old machine, and compare with what you have.
As long as the improvement in power efficiency keeps up, it will not make sense to keep an appliance for 50 years. But once that improvement stops, so does the reason for replacing them.
Yes and no. Random pick - we have Braun kitchen blender that is running for 15 years, we use it daily, looks like new apart from few small scratches on plastics.
I see no reason to replace it, new stuff doesn't look better, doesn't work better and doesn't last more (probably the opposite). Tons of things are like that. Yes new fridge will save a bit more electricity (compared to already savvy one from 15 years ago) but the amount of energy and material that go into creating new one, and the amount of waste it produces when disposed of, are non-trivial and not handled well even in richest western societies.
I don't agree with 20 years warranty, many things like batteries and capacitors just don't last that long. But some form of longer warranty would definitely motivate manufacturers to focus more on quality.
I see no reason to replace it, new stuff doesn't look better, doesn't work better and doesn't last more (probably the opposite). Tons of things are like that. Yes new fridge will save a bit more electricity (compared to already savvy one from 15 years ago) but the amount of energy and material that go into creating new one, and the amount of waste it produces when disposed of, are non-trivial and not handled well even in richest western societies.
I don't agree with 20 years warranty, many things like batteries and capacitors just don't last that long. But some form of longer warranty would definitely motivate manufacturers to focus more on quality.
> I don't agree with 20 years warranty, many things like batteries and capacitors just don't last that long
Some capacitors can last just as long depending on their specs. For batteries, it's more complicated but longer warranty would probably incentivize R&D for durable batteries instead of smaller/stronger batteries, which would be a great win for the environment (see also: supercapacitors).
But the point is most devices are designed to be thrown away, not repaired. If your devices had apparent screws, and easy-to-replace parts, it could be repaired very easily by any skilled laborer (preferably as a public service, but it could also come from a local private workshop). Unfortunately, i don't know a single way to incentivize manufacturers to produce easy-to-repair products apart from extending warranty significantly: when they hold the responsibility to do repair on 100% of units not just the 0.1% people actually care to return (which will likely be replaced not repaired), they may be interested to make stuff easier to repair for everyone else.
Some capacitors can last just as long depending on their specs. For batteries, it's more complicated but longer warranty would probably incentivize R&D for durable batteries instead of smaller/stronger batteries, which would be a great win for the environment (see also: supercapacitors).
But the point is most devices are designed to be thrown away, not repaired. If your devices had apparent screws, and easy-to-replace parts, it could be repaired very easily by any skilled laborer (preferably as a public service, but it could also come from a local private workshop). Unfortunately, i don't know a single way to incentivize manufacturers to produce easy-to-repair products apart from extending warranty significantly: when they hold the responsibility to do repair on 100% of units not just the 0.1% people actually care to return (which will likely be replaced not repaired), they may be interested to make stuff easier to repair for everyone else.
Is this true? Manufacturing a new washing machine sounds resource intensive.
It probably is, but diminishing returns could make the difference negligible in the future. I expect cars to be a good example of that, the difference between a 2012 car and a 2022 car emission wise will not be that great.
For gas-only cars this is mostly true, but what if that 2012 car is gas powered and the 2022 is an electric or hybrid? (And compare the efficiency of electric or hybrid cars in 2012 vs in 2022)
Well, there was a revolution in electric cars in that time, so may e not the best pair of dates.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Of course I am talking about cars that use the same fuel type.
Of course I am talking about cars that use the same fuel type.
Right. More than ever you’re just paying for the brand, the quality is just as bad (or inconsistent) as the equivalent H&M selection.
They also need to start mandating transferrable warranties. There’s no sensible reason to block transfers except to suppress the used market.
I'm not a lawyer, but is non-transferrable warranties even a thing? I've never had a single product where they asked me for identity to use the warranty. At worst, they asked for a proof of purchase, which some second-hand sellers are happy to provide when they still have it.
Also worth noting: hardware manufacturers have found a better option to suppress the second hand market. Hardware locking (iCloud/Knox lock) is terribly efficient at this, essentially turning perfectly good devices into bricks. It's even "better" because they can advertise it as a security feature for gullible users who don't realize Apple/Samsung still has the master key and there's an entire corrupt grey market of company workers getting money under the table to defeat the lock in almost every phone store across the planet...
Also worth noting: hardware manufacturers have found a better option to suppress the second hand market. Hardware locking (iCloud/Knox lock) is terribly efficient at this, essentially turning perfectly good devices into bricks. It's even "better" because they can advertise it as a security feature for gullible users who don't realize Apple/Samsung still has the master key and there's an entire corrupt grey market of company workers getting money under the table to defeat the lock in almost every phone store across the planet...
Yes, many product segments have non-transferrable warranties. NVIDIA warranties are non-transferrable, as are Herman Miller warranties. That being said, you can have the original purchaser make the claim for you or you can pose as the original purchaser/doctor the receipts, but it creates a big hurdle for secondary markets.
I don't understand what you mean by iCloud/Knox lock. As far as iCloud lock is concerned, it is only for stolen devices in which the owner did not deactivate their own icloud account. Where are your sources for gray market of company workers defeating the lock? I'd imagine if an Apple activation lock is bypassed it would have to do with resetting the password on the iCloud account.
I don't understand what you mean by iCloud/Knox lock. As far as iCloud lock is concerned, it is only for stolen devices in which the owner did not deactivate their own icloud account. Where are your sources for gray market of company workers defeating the lock? I'd imagine if an Apple activation lock is bypassed it would have to do with resetting the password on the iCloud account.
One of the big issues in clothing and related is mostly market dynamics. The market used to be full of relatively niche brands (and stores) that sold genuinely differentiated, often higher quality, and typically somewhat more expensive clothing etc.
Over time, a lot of those companies got bought out by conglomerates and started selling the same Asian-made stuff as everyone else (for the most part; there can still be differences. Premium brands often manufacture in Asia as well).
It’s harder to charge a big premium for random clothing and soft goods. To pick a random example Lands’ End is a case in point.
Over time, a lot of those companies got bought out by conglomerates and started selling the same Asian-made stuff as everyone else (for the most part; there can still be differences. Premium brands often manufacture in Asia as well).
It’s harder to charge a big premium for random clothing and soft goods. To pick a random example Lands’ End is a case in point.
Yup. Why spend 2x more for a washer when it will crap out at the same rate?
What you are describing is what has happend to almost all markets which are primarily price sensitive over time; you end up with a bifurcation of quality such that there isn't a "middle" anomoyre. Another example is groceries (specifically, meat). You used to have almost an even distribution of meat quality, from the cheapest garbage, to fairly affordable and quality, up to the extremely high quality pampered stuff. You used to have independent butcher shops all over the place who could survive in the middle. Then, people got price concious and super markets sprang up, putting huge price pressure. Ultimately, in many areas you now only have one option, which is the cheapest possible meat produced in the worst possible conditions (slaughtered in the US, shipped to China for processing, shipped back. Really.), and maybe if you're lucky, you have access to extremely expensive gourmet meats costing 20X+ as much, with nearly nothing in-between.
Adding an example to this after reading down the front page more: Smart TVs are the same; you either get garbage which shows you ads, or you have to pay 10x more for a normal panel.
> This is all part of a larger phenomenon I like to call the "Amazon syndrome".
Say what you like about Amazon, but their no-quibble returns policy is second to none, even in places like Europe that have high-levels of consumer protection enshrined in law.
From my own personal experience:
Amazon: Bought an IT component on Amazon (sold by third-party, not "sold by Amazon"). Item that arrived was not as described (lower spec than promised). Filed a return on Amazon, Amazon paid for the return shipment and refunded me as soon as the courier scanned the collection barcode.
Third-party: Bought a new PC from a reputable reseller (with whom I'd dealt with before occasionally over the years). PC arrived, hardware was OK but the BIOS was completely FUBAR (corrupted beyond salvage). Requested a return and a refund. Despite consumer law being strong in my country, the seller made it so painful and was dragging out the process so much (no doubt so they could push me past the consumer law deadline) that I gave up. I now have an expensive doorstop that is completely unusable.
I still buy from third-parties, but generally only low-risk stuff or higher-risk if I've got recent prior really good experience (or if there's no choice, e.g. things that have to be bought from "authorised resellers"). Otherwise for random stuff, if Amazon stock it and its not outrageously above the going price, I'll just buy it on Amazon for the peace of mind.
Say what you like about Amazon, but their no-quibble returns policy is second to none, even in places like Europe that have high-levels of consumer protection enshrined in law.
From my own personal experience:
Amazon: Bought an IT component on Amazon (sold by third-party, not "sold by Amazon"). Item that arrived was not as described (lower spec than promised). Filed a return on Amazon, Amazon paid for the return shipment and refunded me as soon as the courier scanned the collection barcode.
Third-party: Bought a new PC from a reputable reseller (with whom I'd dealt with before occasionally over the years). PC arrived, hardware was OK but the BIOS was completely FUBAR (corrupted beyond salvage). Requested a return and a refund. Despite consumer law being strong in my country, the seller made it so painful and was dragging out the process so much (no doubt so they could push me past the consumer law deadline) that I gave up. I now have an expensive doorstop that is completely unusable.
I still buy from third-parties, but generally only low-risk stuff or higher-risk if I've got recent prior really good experience (or if there's no choice, e.g. things that have to be bought from "authorised resellers"). Otherwise for random stuff, if Amazon stock it and its not outrageously above the going price, I'll just buy it on Amazon for the peace of mind.
Amazon judges how quickly/whether to issue a return based on an algorithm weighted by your lifetime total value. If you shop a lot on Amazon, occasionally returning an item will be 0 hassle for you. If you don't shop on Amazon that often and get unlucky, they will hassle you about the return (you can google this for confirmation). Prime customers are also generally treated much better, obviously because they have a much higher LTV. That third-party seller probably gave you so much grief about the return because their sales volume is much lower, so individual returns cost them a much more significant % of their revenue.
Also, easy returns doesn't mean the items are being reused/the process is good for the environment. Industry surveys show around 25% of returns wind up in a landfill, and this number varies greatly based on what the item is - clothes are thrown away much more often.
Basically, Amazon and other high-volume low-quality retailers simply sell so many products at so high a markup that they can absorb the cost of throwing away some XX% of the products that get returned as a cost of doing business.
Also, easy returns doesn't mean the items are being reused/the process is good for the environment. Industry surveys show around 25% of returns wind up in a landfill, and this number varies greatly based on what the item is - clothes are thrown away much more often.
Basically, Amazon and other high-volume low-quality retailers simply sell so many products at so high a markup that they can absorb the cost of throwing away some XX% of the products that get returned as a cost of doing business.
Buy from large EU eshops like Alza (if it operates wherever you are, or the local alternative) - much better experience even than Amazon, in all things considered.
They aren't quite dropshippers. Aliexpress has something like 9 weeks wait for shipping.
I happily pay 4-5x the price for a $1 part because I'll actually have it in hand this week rather than 2 months from now.
I happily pay 4-5x the price for a $1 part because I'll actually have it in hand this week rather than 2 months from now.
They will ship much faster if you pay for e.g. DHL but this is cost prohibitive for most people unless ordering in bulk. But yes, it’s totally rational to pay a premium to get parts in 2 days versus 5 weeks.
What products are you talking about?
From my experience over the past 15 years, most electronics that were high quality and high price remained the same, however the cheaper alternatives have gone up in quality by a lot.
Imo, the midrange is still there. However the number of manufacturers have gone way up and it's really hard to find something that's quality.
You can't just look at the brand name, which seems to have become a worthless concept, companies will sell their name (and long term reputation) for pennies.
You need to look at the hardware itself and know some basics about what makes it good and what not. The vast majority of people can't do that.
Over time I found myself thinking "I gotta get a new one" more often than "I need to fix it" because there's an abundance of stuff.
From my experience over the past 15 years, most electronics that were high quality and high price remained the same, however the cheaper alternatives have gone up in quality by a lot.
Imo, the midrange is still there. However the number of manufacturers have gone way up and it's really hard to find something that's quality.
You can't just look at the brand name, which seems to have become a worthless concept, companies will sell their name (and long term reputation) for pennies.
You need to look at the hardware itself and know some basics about what makes it good and what not. The vast majority of people can't do that.
Over time I found myself thinking "I gotta get a new one" more often than "I need to fix it" because there's an abundance of stuff.
One of the tricky things is that the best of those low and midrange suppliers, particularly in the electronics space, are selling things that look visually similar to the cheap stuff. They're just better.
For example, if you go to buy a microphone arm, you're going to see three segments. There's the bottom tier of exposed hinges and tension springs, then there's the two-bar articulating models, and then at the top there's the unibody hinged ones from Blue, Rode, etc. which are surely nice but also a lot more expensive for not much more. Companies like Samson and Neewer sell into the bottom two categories. But even if you buy the bottom-tier mic arms, if you buy one from Neewer and buy one from another brand you'll immediately see that they look the same but the Neewer one works a lot better: better tension to hold the mic in place, ever-so-slightly better (and more pleasant to use) tightening knobs, that sort of thing. They can't be spending more than an extra fifty cents on the product but it works so much better that I preferentially buy from those brands even though it's still "cheap". And then you get into those midrange models, which for my money compete very favorably with the expensive stuff while being half the cost.
For example, if you go to buy a microphone arm, you're going to see three segments. There's the bottom tier of exposed hinges and tension springs, then there's the two-bar articulating models, and then at the top there's the unibody hinged ones from Blue, Rode, etc. which are surely nice but also a lot more expensive for not much more. Companies like Samson and Neewer sell into the bottom two categories. But even if you buy the bottom-tier mic arms, if you buy one from Neewer and buy one from another brand you'll immediately see that they look the same but the Neewer one works a lot better: better tension to hold the mic in place, ever-so-slightly better (and more pleasant to use) tightening knobs, that sort of thing. They can't be spending more than an extra fifty cents on the product but it works so much better that I preferentially buy from those brands even though it's still "cheap". And then you get into those midrange models, which for my money compete very favorably with the expensive stuff while being half the cost.
Neewer also sells camera type stuff and I'd agree with your overall assessment. It looks like the really cheap stuff but tends to be 'not bad' as far as fit/finish (as you point out, it's the knobs! Amazing what a (possibly metaphorical) extra decimal point of precision can get you.
Yeah, totally. Half my C-stands are Neewer, they're indistinguishable from more expensive. GVM is another example--they seem to pull nearly the same designs for their lights as Neewer.
> This is all part of a larger phenomenon I like to call the "Amazon syndrome".
You can validly blame Amazon for a lot of things, but the embrace of Chinese Chabuduo culture isn’t one of them. That is an international trade issue, which is to say a political responsibility of the federal government in the USA and evidently the EU in Europe.
You can validly blame Amazon for a lot of things, but the embrace of Chinese Chabuduo culture isn’t one of them. That is an international trade issue, which is to say a political responsibility of the federal government in the USA and evidently the EU in Europe.
To be fair, at least in EU, there are many cases from my experience when buying the same item from Amazon was actually cheaper than on Aliexpress. Plus 1-2 days shipping. It's always worth to check the item in several places.
What's an example of something on Amazon that's 4-5x cheaper shipped on Aliexpress?
I needed a way to charge multiple Nintendo Switch Joycons for the kids. On Amazon the charger was around $20. On AliExpress the same exact charger was $3. I wasn’t in a rush so I paid the $3 and it arrived in a little over a month.
Pretty much everything sold on amazon, which isn't name brand.
(Chinese products with made up brand names don't count.)
(Chinese products with made up brand names don't count.)
Show me a single example. Not to mention aliexpress shipping usually takes about 6-8 weeks.
There are no items where it’s 5 times as much for the same item with the same speed to your door.
I buy things in aliexpress all the time. You’re paying in unavailability. Much of the time orders are actually batched
There are no items where it’s 5 times as much for the same item with the same speed to your door.
I buy things in aliexpress all the time. You’re paying in unavailability. Much of the time orders are actually batched
Not quite 5x, but if you try to buy a HDMI cable off aliexpress, it takes about 2 months to get here. It's about half the price of similar length cable on amazon.
I was trying to buy a Flexi brand dog lead on Amazon yesterday, and despite my search including the brand name, and me filtering the results by brand "Flexi", more than half the results were sponsored listings for Chinese knockoffs that people are drop-shipping from Ali. I gave up and went to a shop.
[deleted]
The last thing I bought that fits this description was a new pair of ski goggles. The cheap $20 Chinese ones work great as far as I can tell. The local stores start at around $150. Am I missing something? I had a lot of fun with the $130 of easy money.
How do you know the Chinese ones provide you with UV protection? Eyewear is one of the things I won't buy online because I don't trust the online stores to check that their stock meets regulations.
There's some things that the $150 goggles might have that the cheap ones don't (anti-fogging, UV protection, durability etc). Or they're just marked up, who knows.
Presumably the brand name goggles are made by the same brands that sell $150 sunglasses. Are there differences? Probably. But they’ll probably also still fog at least based on my past experience. Maybe they’re better these days.
There are smaller brands that try to be and are a lot better. They deserve attention.
Trippen shoes from Germany make comfortable shoes that aren’t exactly main stream, but are repairable and used to offer a very reasonable refurbishment price (haven’t refurbished any for a bit). I have several pairs of 20+ years old shoes from them.
https://en.trippen.com/t/men
Nudie jeans offer free repairs at their shops and 10+% discount for new jeans if they are not repairable, as trade-in. If you trade in, and they are usable, they sell as second hand.
https://www.nudiejeans.com/repair-spots/#stores
Trippen shoes from Germany make comfortable shoes that aren’t exactly main stream, but are repairable and used to offer a very reasonable refurbishment price (haven’t refurbished any for a bit). I have several pairs of 20+ years old shoes from them.
https://en.trippen.com/t/men
Nudie jeans offer free repairs at their shops and 10+% discount for new jeans if they are not repairable, as trade-in. If you trade in, and they are usable, they sell as second hand.
https://www.nudiejeans.com/repair-spots/#stores
> Trippen shoes
You can just buy any Goodyear (or Blake) welted shoe to have rebuildable shoes, there are dozens of makers that offer more uh… conventional and mainstream styles of shoes anywhere from $200-$2500.
England: Loake, Alfred Sargent, C&J, Trickers, Church’s, Edward Green, Saint Crispins, John Lobb
US: Allen Edmonds, Alden, Rancourt, Red Wing, White’s, Nick’s, Grant Stone
Canada: Viberg
Spain: Meermin, Carmina
Hungary: Vass
You can just buy any Goodyear (or Blake) welted shoe to have rebuildable shoes, there are dozens of makers that offer more uh… conventional and mainstream styles of shoes anywhere from $200-$2500.
England: Loake, Alfred Sargent, C&J, Trickers, Church’s, Edward Green, Saint Crispins, John Lobb
US: Allen Edmonds, Alden, Rancourt, Red Wing, White’s, Nick’s, Grant Stone
Canada: Viberg
Spain: Meermin, Carmina
Hungary: Vass
Two brands that deserve a shoutout in this vein are Filson and Freitag. I have an Alaskan Guide shirt from Filson that's still in rotation after 25+ years.
My Freitag bag will no doubt outlast me. It's made from repurposed truck tarps and seat belts. Both companies will repair their products.
https://www.filson.com/stewardship.html
https://www.freitag.ch/en/manifesto
My Freitag bag will no doubt outlast me. It's made from repurposed truck tarps and seat belts. Both companies will repair their products.
https://www.filson.com/stewardship.html
https://www.freitag.ch/en/manifesto
Filson quality has dropped, and they make lots more of their stuff in China now.
There's also Patagonia (not a smaller brand) https://www.patagonia.com.au/pages/worn-wear
They'll not only repair their clothes for free, even if you've been careless and damaged it yourself, but also you can pay them to repair other brands in their shop.
They'll not only repair their clothes for free, even if you've been careless and damaged it yourself, but also you can pay them to repair other brands in their shop.
I see this line every so often that Patagonia will repair or replace damaged articles, but the one time I tried, I wasn't successful. I purchased a Tortentshell rain jacket and the laminate on the top of the hood started to peel after a year or so. I took it to a Patagonia store for inspection and they offered to recycle it for me. No repair, no free replacement, no offer of a discount on a replacement.
I wonder if this is a function of you bringing the item to a store. I contacted Patagonia online with a picture of the damage when I ripped my jacket on my chicken coop, and they had me send it in for a patch and restuff.
It's also possible that the type of damage to your gear (peeling laminate) was not repairable, but I would have at least expected a replacement.
It's also possible that the type of damage to your gear (peeling laminate) was not repairable, but I would have at least expected a replacement.
Ironically I was discussing my nudie jeans 30 minutes ago. Which makes this comment feel weird.
Nudie Jeans definitely honours their repair policy, but what I find is that their jeans wear much faster than others (Deisel Jeans being the most hard-wearing so far).
At some point your jeans look so janky from all the repairs (and they become uncomfortable as the crotch are gets patched and becomes double the thickness) that the utility, fit, comfort and look of the jeans is terrible, to the point where you probably don't want to wear them.
I have 5 pairs of nudie jeans, they all end up like this.
--
When it comes to Shoes I recommend R.M.Williams. I have a pair of their garden shoes, i have worn them every single day for the last year and they look almost new (save a few creases where my feet bend), they're also repairable and have passed many teardowns. https://www.rmwilliams.com.au/
Nudie Jeans definitely honours their repair policy, but what I find is that their jeans wear much faster than others (Deisel Jeans being the most hard-wearing so far).
At some point your jeans look so janky from all the repairs (and they become uncomfortable as the crotch are gets patched and becomes double the thickness) that the utility, fit, comfort and look of the jeans is terrible, to the point where you probably don't want to wear them.
I have 5 pairs of nudie jeans, they all end up like this.
--
When it comes to Shoes I recommend R.M.Williams. I have a pair of their garden shoes, i have worn them every single day for the last year and they look almost new (save a few creases where my feet bend), they're also repairable and have passed many teardowns. https://www.rmwilliams.com.au/
I have mostly been comparing to major brands like Levis. Which for me wear fast and don’t repair well. But maybe I bought the wrong stuff. :)
The trouble with Levi's is that when you buy, say, a pair of 501s, there are a bunch of things that factor into what you're getting. Bought them on eBay for a good deal? Solid chance they're counterfeit. Bought them at WalMart or Target? You're getting a variant that was manufactured for downmarket, price-sensitive consumers - thinner denim, cheaper manufacturing. Is it stretch denim, or 100% cotton? Shrink to fit? Levi's Premium? Or maybe you're splurging for something from the Made & Crafted line. Or if you're really looking to spend on Levi's, you've bought something from the Levi's Vintage Clothing line. (In the US, you can still sometimes find LVC and Made & Crafted items at TJ Maxx and Marshalls for a tenth of their retail price) Sometimes the fit is inconsistent, but if you buy from levi.com, you get free returns if you have an account with them, or if you can drop them off at a nearby Levi's store.
And that's just Levi's... I don't have the time or the energy to bother with the kind of denim fanaticism that blew up over the last decade or so.
Before they IPO'd, my trick to long-lasting Levi's was to wait until whatever seasonal collection they had with 'toughness' in mind went on sale or blowout, because they used to experiment more with fabrics. I've got a pair of 501s made with Dyneema, the stuff they make ropes for ships out of. The Skateboard line was marketed as being able to take more abuse than normal, and so far has lived up to that. For better or for worse, they've simplified their product line a lot since being publicly traded.
And if you want to get real weird, the other thing that I found helps is... that's right, not washing my jeans every time I wear them. There are exceptions, but I work from home, I'm generally not doing much to stink up my jeans. I have a rolling rack that I keep 10 pairs of jeans on, and I cycle through them, so that at the very most, any pair gets worn once every week and a half.
Anyway... I haven't had to buy new jeans in a long time, and I switched over to all-Levi's years ago - but It took a little trial and error to get a lay of the land.
And that's just Levi's... I don't have the time or the energy to bother with the kind of denim fanaticism that blew up over the last decade or so.
Before they IPO'd, my trick to long-lasting Levi's was to wait until whatever seasonal collection they had with 'toughness' in mind went on sale or blowout, because they used to experiment more with fabrics. I've got a pair of 501s made with Dyneema, the stuff they make ropes for ships out of. The Skateboard line was marketed as being able to take more abuse than normal, and so far has lived up to that. For better or for worse, they've simplified their product line a lot since being publicly traded.
And if you want to get real weird, the other thing that I found helps is... that's right, not washing my jeans every time I wear them. There are exceptions, but I work from home, I'm generally not doing much to stink up my jeans. I have a rolling rack that I keep 10 pairs of jeans on, and I cycle through them, so that at the very most, any pair gets worn once every week and a half.
Anyway... I haven't had to buy new jeans in a long time, and I switched over to all-Levi's years ago - but It took a little trial and error to get a lay of the land.
The problem I have is that I have burned through many pairs of Levi’s in under a year of use for each pair. I’m not sure how long they’re supposed to last but that is my experience.
I don’t was my jeans, I wear them a couple days a week and let them sit for the other few days. I wash them about every 2 months (though washing does take a noticeable toll).
I’m not sure the “no true Levi’s” can apply to me however; I bought them from the official Levi’s store in Malmö.
I don’t was my jeans, I wear them a couple days a week and let them sit for the other few days. I wash them about every 2 months (though washing does take a noticeable toll).
I’m not sure the “no true Levi’s” can apply to me however; I bought them from the official Levi’s store in Malmö.
Huh! Well, the other factors I can think of are body chemistry, and what you use to wash your clothes. I've got Levi's that are over a decade old, but the sweat from my wrists will erode the edge off a Macbook Pro in a couple of years. You win some, you lose some
Levi’s are my baseline; they seem to last 1.5x as long as Nudie jeans before getting holes in the thigh or crotch.
Levi’s seem to last well for me but I admittedly don’t wear jeans all that often.
Mizora [1] is a boutique Japanese brand producing woman's nightware out of recycled Kimono (silk) or Tencel. I purchased some for my partner, she loves them.
I thought it was such a cool concept. Everything is handmade to order, seems really well made.
[1] https://mizora.studio/
I thought it was such a cool concept. Everything is handmade to order, seems really well made.
[1] https://mizora.studio/
[deleted]
The trend I have seen with clothing brands is most often once they become popular, become a recognized "brand name" - often because of their high quality, good design, and relative affordability. Then the economies of scale "engineers" of business folks start to scale it by reducing costs (less quality control, lower quality materials, etc) to maximize profit per unit sold - milking the brand as quickly as possible to extract as much as they can as soon as they can. This leads towards killing the brand or where it just becomes at par with whatever the status quo ecosystem allows based on environmental costs like mall rental space, etc.
Executives seem to know or are making the bet that brands may not stay popular for long as it may be fad buying and not a sustainable trend, or they simply know they can make more money individually/selfishly if they use these tactics - and hire people who use these tactics; why make $15+ million over 20 years when you maybe could milk a brand to death and get $10+ million in 5 years?
What I wonder is though are there potential pitfalls of this for consumers?
Have they or anyone done a study on cost changes, e.g. will costs increase substantially in short-term but perhaps that is more than made up on the tail end with the durability?
Did they publish a list of known poor quality textiles, I imagine that would include such things as low thread count for the textile and perhaps for stitching as well?
Does this impact certain styles of clothing that say due to their sheer nature?
Executives seem to know or are making the bet that brands may not stay popular for long as it may be fad buying and not a sustainable trend, or they simply know they can make more money individually/selfishly if they use these tactics - and hire people who use these tactics; why make $15+ million over 20 years when you maybe could milk a brand to death and get $10+ million in 5 years?
What I wonder is though are there potential pitfalls of this for consumers?
Have they or anyone done a study on cost changes, e.g. will costs increase substantially in short-term but perhaps that is more than made up on the tail end with the durability?
Did they publish a list of known poor quality textiles, I imagine that would include such things as low thread count for the textile and perhaps for stitching as well?
Does this impact certain styles of clothing that say due to their sheer nature?
This happens in other industries as well. Mass-market beer comes to mind. The solution, as I see it, starts with owners demanding long term stability in earnings; and a broader quality over quantity philosophy spreading generally.
This would horrify some friends. But mass market beer is a very predictable and relatively inexpensive product that 95% or whatever of the market likes. I do not and am grateful there are so many alternatives that didn’t exist a few decades ago. But it’s not a low quality just because us beer at least somewhat snobs prefer something different.
No, I mean that they started out with a product and gradually watered it down, as it were. The ingredients being used have changed over the years from natural plants and water into powders and potions that are... chemically similar. The product can still be legally called beer, but it is not the same anymore.
There are a few excellent UK-made brands out there, although it's on the expensive side it's definitely quality stuff that lasts : Mackintosh, Drake's, Barbour (depending on the price range), Sunspel, Private White V.C., John Smedley, Colhay's etc. I'm personally a huge fan of S.E.H Kelly.
And of course there are still the venerable shoe makers of Northampshire which in my opinion remain the best industrial ready-to-wear shoemaking in the world (with a few exceptions, namely Carmina and J.M. Weston) : Edward Green, Crockett & Jones, Cheaney, Church's, Grenson etc. I'm myself a regular Crockett & Jones customer as they make the only size + width combination I've found in ready-to-wear that matches my feet really well.
Of course it's a rather militant way of looking at clothing and it's all pretty expensive stuff but :
- Frankly it's affordable if you've got an engineer's comp.
- It keeps its value well on the second-hand market.
And of course there are still the venerable shoe makers of Northampshire which in my opinion remain the best industrial ready-to-wear shoemaking in the world (with a few exceptions, namely Carmina and J.M. Weston) : Edward Green, Crockett & Jones, Cheaney, Church's, Grenson etc. I'm myself a regular Crockett & Jones customer as they make the only size + width combination I've found in ready-to-wear that matches my feet really well.
Of course it's a rather militant way of looking at clothing and it's all pretty expensive stuff but :
- Frankly it's affordable if you've got an engineer's comp.
- It keeps its value well on the second-hand market.
But then if someone hears what a pair of Edward Green shoes or SEH Kelly coat costs they’d look at you like you’re insane.
PS my C&J Islays are probably my favourite boots, and I’ve got a ventile raincoat from Private White. Some day I’ll def buy something from SEH Kelly, although most of their stuff might be too warm for Spain.
PS my C&J Islays are probably my favourite boots, and I’ve got a ventile raincoat from Private White. Some day I’ll def buy something from SEH Kelly, although most of their stuff might be too warm for Spain.
The heuristic seems to be: have a brand name but *not* one you'll see on the high street.
If it is on the high street, it's expensive in order to fund advertising, not higher quality.
If it is on the high street, it's expensive in order to fund advertising, not higher quality.
You've basically got it right when it comes to marking. All the brands I've mentionned, and really all the reputable clothing / shoeing companies, have a production cost that's around 50% of the retail price. Add in all the miscelanous costs and the final margin isn't that high. For the largest of them "marketing" is having a few stores in key areas (London, Paris, NY) and a stall at some events.
If you take that formula and input marketing, you've got luxury companies : great craftsmanship at inflated prices.
If you take that formula and input marketing, you've got luxury companies : great craftsmanship at inflated prices.
In the UK I still think Marks and Spencer (M&S) offer quality clothing at reasonable prices. They don't compete fully with 'fast fashion' prices but they have been affected by competition from other fast fashion retailers by offering their own 'value' lines.
If you avoid the cheapest clothing lines at M&S, their mid-priced clothing is generally of longer-lasting and better quality.
For example, you can buy organic cotton chinos and jeans in the price range £25-35 (approximately $35-45/€30-40). These are reasonable prices given the premium typically charged for organic clothing.
If you avoid the cheapest clothing lines at M&S, their mid-priced clothing is generally of longer-lasting and better quality.
For example, you can buy organic cotton chinos and jeans in the price range £25-35 (approximately $35-45/€30-40). These are reasonable prices given the premium typically charged for organic clothing.
Yep, it is an odd comment because M&S have a relatively good supply chain. I think people assume that if anything breaks, it must have been made in a sweatshop.
In reality, the reason why "fast fashion" exists isn't related to quality at all. You can buy t-shirts that cost £3 that will be as long lasting as anything 10x or 100x the price. I am not sure how people think t-shirts are made, there isn't some hidden secret of durability known only to companies that charge a lot.
The reason "fast fashion" exists is because most retailers provide terrible value for money. Fast fashion charge significantly less for clothes made in the same factory, with the same materials and labour. That is it.
So it is unsurprising this is occurring in Europe: luxury goods manufacturers there successfully lobbied for exemptions from Russian sanctions, they are a formidable lobbying force in Brussels, the aim of this is to stop competition from non-EU manufacturers (particularly from the UK and China). Classic EU. If you can't win, cheat.
If you want to do more about this issue, just improve recycling...that is it. Done.
In reality, the reason why "fast fashion" exists isn't related to quality at all. You can buy t-shirts that cost £3 that will be as long lasting as anything 10x or 100x the price. I am not sure how people think t-shirts are made, there isn't some hidden secret of durability known only to companies that charge a lot.
The reason "fast fashion" exists is because most retailers provide terrible value for money. Fast fashion charge significantly less for clothes made in the same factory, with the same materials and labour. That is it.
So it is unsurprising this is occurring in Europe: luxury goods manufacturers there successfully lobbied for exemptions from Russian sanctions, they are a formidable lobbying force in Brussels, the aim of this is to stop competition from non-EU manufacturers (particularly from the UK and China). Classic EU. If you can't win, cheat.
If you want to do more about this issue, just improve recycling...that is it. Done.
The trouble is not only finding quality goods now, its that once you do they are way more expensive than they used to be since they now serve a smaller market. Not only are they trying to stay afloat with a smaller customer base, they're losing some of the economies of scale, so prices go up or quality goes down.
This is a trade-off like for everything else.
Fashion changes fast and therefore does it make sense to sell more expensive clothes that last? Many people want what is fashionable this season, not wear the same things for years.
In terms of environmental impact and use of resources I suspect that there is a sweet spot between not lasting at all and very long lasting (like there probably is for appliances and about everything else that people will replace after x months/years anyway) Likewise, "fixable" may incur overheads that actually negate the a priori benefit.
Fashion changes fast and therefore does it make sense to sell more expensive clothes that last? Many people want what is fashionable this season, not wear the same things for years.
In terms of environmental impact and use of resources I suspect that there is a sweet spot between not lasting at all and very long lasting (like there probably is for appliances and about everything else that people will replace after x months/years anyway) Likewise, "fixable" may incur overheads that actually negate the a priori benefit.
I once went to a cloth repair shop and asked what brand was better for long term. “None”, they said, “all of them are equally bad nowadays“. So no chance much to make it work over the market it seems.
I’ve noticed this even with “nice” clothing brands like Banana Republic. I bough a shirt, and within two months it was ready for the garbage pile.
I’ve since switched over to the even more expensive Lululemon, which seems vastly better. Time will tell.
I’d rather have three very expensive shirts that fit great and last a decade than a tidal wave of garbage that costs the same in the end.
I’ve since switched over to the even more expensive Lululemon, which seems vastly better. Time will tell.
I’d rather have three very expensive shirts that fit great and last a decade than a tidal wave of garbage that costs the same in the end.
Timberland suckered me with their sustainable-fairtrade-robust vibe. I have never seen a pair of trousers disintegrate so fast in the wash, or a pair of jeans wear though at the knees so rapidly.
As much as I share your sentiment, my daughters disagree.
They buy quality handbags, jewellery and jackets, but everything else is a consumable. They do share their clothing amongst each other and a couple of close friends, but otherwise will hardly wear a combination more than once (outside that is).
Here I am, buying all my cloths in 5 fold, since I do not like matching different items.
They buy quality handbags, jewellery and jackets, but everything else is a consumable. They do share their clothing amongst each other and a couple of close friends, but otherwise will hardly wear a combination more than once (outside that is).
Here I am, buying all my cloths in 5 fold, since I do not like matching different items.
I wonder if consumable fashion is mostly a women's clothes issue??? I see this narrative told often, but I bought a couple pair of carharts and a few pair of jeans, a couple flannel shirts, and own 6 or 7 gildan cotten t-shirts. All of these I have owned more than 3 years and use one or two times a week. The t shirts are also my gym shirts. I have two pair of running shorts that have lost an almost unbelievably long time given the fact that I wear one or the other almost every day.
None of my clothes look like they need replacing anytime soon. Except for socks, which for whatever mystery known but to god periodically vanish. My wife's clothing situation much more resembles your daughters
I'm curious if other men here have cycle through clothes continously, and if so, how?
Edit: spelling
None of my clothes look like they need replacing anytime soon. Except for socks, which for whatever mystery known but to god periodically vanish. My wife's clothing situation much more resembles your daughters
I'm curious if other men here have cycle through clothes continously, and if so, how?
Edit: spelling
> I wonder if consumable fashion is mostly a women's clothes issue?
It’s an open secret that it is. It’s less of an issue for men because they are simply less subjected to fashion. Just look at what is considered formal attire for men and women. I can survive at the office with a rotation of three suits and ten shirts. That’s impossible for a woman.
It’s an open secret that it is. It’s less of an issue for men because they are simply less subjected to fashion. Just look at what is considered formal attire for men and women. I can survive at the office with a rotation of three suits and ten shirts. That’s impossible for a woman.
I haven't bought a new pair of pants in over five years, the ones I have now have held up rather well. I buy new shirts maybe every year or two. Many of my shirts are over ten years old.
My wife would love to have the same arrangement with her work clothes. I think part of the problem is that women's clothing is made to not be as durable, although I think it could be. Most women would probably be happy to wear a fancy scarf over something basic and call it a day.
There doesn't seem to be a good standard for women's professional work attire that isn't at risk of soon falling out of fashion. Because it isn't 'designed' to last for six months it doesn't.
My wife would love to have the same arrangement with her work clothes. I think part of the problem is that women's clothing is made to not be as durable, although I think it could be. Most women would probably be happy to wear a fancy scarf over something basic and call it a day.
There doesn't seem to be a good standard for women's professional work attire that isn't at risk of soon falling out of fashion. Because it isn't 'designed' to last for six months it doesn't.
it’s not men and women issue
the issue is social media addiction which encourages the said behaviors
“influencers” make a living advertising fast fashion brands
the issue is social media addiction which encourages the said behaviors
“influencers” make a living advertising fast fashion brands
It's disingenuous to pretend that women aren't way more affected by this, from the material women's clothing is made out of all the way to social factors
[deleted]
The only clothes I need to renew are socks and underwear. I have enough smart, casual wear to last me the next decade at least.
Lets be honest: your daughters are a victim of the cheap fashion brands and their succesful campaigns to brainwash people into thinking you need to have new clothed every week.
they are victims of social media influencers, who encourage this behavior
unsustainable and wasteful consumption
the reason fast shopping exists, kids can’t afford new fashion item every week, but SHEIN and others make it so cheap and nice looking that makes this behavior possible
unsustainable and wasteful consumption
the reason fast shopping exists, kids can’t afford new fashion item every week, but SHEIN and others make it so cheap and nice looking that makes this behavior possible
Maybe, but the social media influences I've seen are just as much victims as anyone else. The difference is they've embraced it more fully and figured out how to make money off it.
My whole generation is brainwashed with a shopping addiction.
Your generation? I think most living generations have this addiction. :(
I also think this is not at all a gender-related issue - if any, an age related or a zeitgeist related one.
When there is no more fast fashion, people will just look in their wardrobe instead of shopping site xyz. And instead of "look what I found on xyz", they will say, "look what I found in my wardrobe".
After a short time of friction, this fast-fashion behaviour will be unlearned. Especially if the new situation applies to everyone, so there is no peer pressure going on.
When there is no more fast fashion, people will just look in their wardrobe instead of shopping site xyz. And instead of "look what I found on xyz", they will say, "look what I found in my wardrobe".
After a short time of friction, this fast-fashion behaviour will be unlearned. Especially if the new situation applies to everyone, so there is no peer pressure going on.
Marks and Spencer are one of many brands that pivoted from quality to crap yet saw no significant decrease in customer loyalty.
If I was making policies I would oblige manufacturers of anything to take back and recycle their product at the end of life. This would make sure products/packagings are made to be recyclable and/or biodegradable.
This should be applied not only to clothing, but really everything. I would expect the first result would be no single use plastics anywhere.
Obviously the cost of the change would be transferred to consumers on the purchase price. However we are already paying it in a deferred manner with the degradation of the natural world.
This should be applied not only to clothing, but really everything. I would expect the first result would be no single use plastics anywhere.
Obviously the cost of the change would be transferred to consumers on the purchase price. However we are already paying it in a deferred manner with the degradation of the natural world.
Yeah — I think a “you sell it, you scrap it” law would de-externalize a lot of really harmful end-user sales: not just for source manufacturers, but every middle-man in between.
Not sure if that is enough given that most product returns are destroyed - from iPads to brand new clothes. So than that rule is already out I think?
Though an extension that that is forbidden in some sense should be fair. Or a rule that forbids the relative amount of trash produced by a company?
Here in Norway we have a law to handle recycling and waste handling of electrical equipment[1].
It requires importers and producers of electrical and electronic equipment to be a member of a return company like Norsirk or RENAS[2], directly funding the collection, recycling and waste handling.
Something similar could be introduced for other product groups as well like clothes.
[1]: https://norsirk.no/produsentansvar/lover-og-regler/om-avfall...
[2]: https://renas.no/
It requires importers and producers of electrical and electronic equipment to be a member of a return company like Norsirk or RENAS[2], directly funding the collection, recycling and waste handling.
Something similar could be introduced for other product groups as well like clothes.
[1]: https://norsirk.no/produsentansvar/lover-og-regler/om-avfall...
[2]: https://renas.no/
The customer ends up holding the negative exernality with little ability to affect the upstream pipeline. By sending the waste "back up the pipe" it becomes each middle-company's problem. The point being that each company now has to consider how to get rid of their own generated waste. It de-externalizes the waste problem.
If they choose to put the waste in to a landfill, then so be it: they have to pay to do that.
If they choose to put the waste in to a landfill, then so be it: they have to pay to do that.
I provided ecommerce services for a wide variety of U.K. and European fashion brands from 2006-2016, and one thing that always stood out was that about 10% of the customers of each brand would make up >50% of the revenue - be it shoes, garments, or accessories. This applied across other verticals, too, but in fashion the concentration was far more pronounced.
The reason these customers had a higher per capita revenue was that they bought something pretty much every week of the year.
The thing is, this kind of behaviour is akin to addiction - I recall in more than a few cases concerned partners or parents requesting intervention, and blocking or limiting of accounts - it was up to the retailer how they handled that - we just heard about the ones where they wanted us to do something.
So - clamping down on fast fashion is no bad thing, however it addresses a symptom rather than a root cause, which is principally addictive shopping behaviours bought about by saturated and predatory marketing and depressed populations seeking solace in that momentary rush of dopamine when they hit purchase, waiting for a parcel to arrive like an addict waiting for a fix.
I mean, hell, I’ve lived the behaviour. Never to the extremes that I’ve seen, but compulsive consumption is an easy if temporary quick fix for a hole in the soul. Fashion is the pinnacle of this, as it gives you not just the purchase rush, but the potential esteem boost from wearing your new garments.
The problem remains elsewhere, and more fundamental.
The reason these customers had a higher per capita revenue was that they bought something pretty much every week of the year.
The thing is, this kind of behaviour is akin to addiction - I recall in more than a few cases concerned partners or parents requesting intervention, and blocking or limiting of accounts - it was up to the retailer how they handled that - we just heard about the ones where they wanted us to do something.
So - clamping down on fast fashion is no bad thing, however it addresses a symptom rather than a root cause, which is principally addictive shopping behaviours bought about by saturated and predatory marketing and depressed populations seeking solace in that momentary rush of dopamine when they hit purchase, waiting for a parcel to arrive like an addict waiting for a fix.
I mean, hell, I’ve lived the behaviour. Never to the extremes that I’ve seen, but compulsive consumption is an easy if temporary quick fix for a hole in the soul. Fashion is the pinnacle of this, as it gives you not just the purchase rush, but the potential esteem boost from wearing your new garments.
The problem remains elsewhere, and more fundamental.
I don't disagree, but it's not an exclusive choice: we can treat the symptom AND we can treat the cause, as separate items. Particularly because the latter is difficult, very individual in nature, and without easy solution.
> principally addictive shopping behaviours bought about by saturated and predatory marketing and depressed populations seeking solace in that momentary rush of dopamine when they hit purchase, waiting for a parcel to arrive like an addict waiting for a fix.
Some of us just like looking good and having variety of clothes o.O.
Some of us just like looking good and having variety of clothes o.O.
I think consumerist isn't limited to fashion.
It isn’t, by any means, but it’s almost as concentrated in fashion as it is in gambling - you tend to have a fatter long tail and smaller ramp for other verticals. Shoes are the most “Pareto” category in consumer goods that I’ve seen. There are entire brands being propped up by a hard core who spend tens of thousands a year each on shoes.
i have this sort of hole-filling shopping too, yet the items i desire were expensive and made to last a lifetime
Somebody should setup the uncool and reliable brand of male clothing. I want the Toyota Corolla of male clothing. I do not care about fashion. I want to wear timeless long lasting clothes. Don't care about branding either.
Just somebody please setup a shop where I do not have to worry about quality, but is also not a shop that pretends that every item of clothing is hand tailored by an Italian craftsman and costs half a thousand euros.
LL Bean used to make the "timeless and long lasting" clothes you're looking for, but sadly has gone downhill in recent years. It's still noticeably better quality than J.Crew or Banana Republic, but many things are much thinner than they used to be.
Avoid outlets or "factory" stores (clothes are made specifically for outlets.) Avoid J.Crew, Brooks Brothers, Banana Republic, H&M, TJ Maxx, the Gap. Avoid anything that's gone bankrupt, or been acquired (JC Penney.) Avoid pretty much everything on Amazon.
One decent sign of quality is the thickness of the materials. Some manufacturers will actually note the weight (in gsm or grams per m2.) I have the exact t-shirt in 160gsm and 300gsm from the same company and the 300gsm feels way more substantial/high quality/will last longer. It's also the only t-shirt I've ever gotten compliments on. Of course, higher weights are also warmer. Another decent sign is the materials themselves. Avoid anything plastic-based (nylon, polyester, acrylic, microfiber, etc.) Some materials I love and would recommend in some cases (cashmere, silk, merino wool) but are less durable, so avoid those if you're going for uncool and reliable. High quality cotton and wool, depending on how it's woven, can last forever. Leather starts to age, but if you take care of it it can be a good look.
Also, don't have unrealistic expectations. Even the "best overall running shoe of 2022" from RunRepeat (who do serious running shoe reviews, tear them down etc) - is only expected to last 400-500 miles. Things have a finite lifespan.
You can also make a significant difference by how you wash your clothes. Washing gentle on cold (or hand washing) can make some clothes last several times longer, easily.
If you do all those things (buy high quality to start, made from wool/cotton/leather, wash gentle on cold) you can get 10 years out of a piece of clothing if you don't wear it too often. I've gotten a couple hundred wears over 10+ years out of several LL Bean shirts myself.
Avoid outlets or "factory" stores (clothes are made specifically for outlets.) Avoid J.Crew, Brooks Brothers, Banana Republic, H&M, TJ Maxx, the Gap. Avoid anything that's gone bankrupt, or been acquired (JC Penney.) Avoid pretty much everything on Amazon.
One decent sign of quality is the thickness of the materials. Some manufacturers will actually note the weight (in gsm or grams per m2.) I have the exact t-shirt in 160gsm and 300gsm from the same company and the 300gsm feels way more substantial/high quality/will last longer. It's also the only t-shirt I've ever gotten compliments on. Of course, higher weights are also warmer. Another decent sign is the materials themselves. Avoid anything plastic-based (nylon, polyester, acrylic, microfiber, etc.) Some materials I love and would recommend in some cases (cashmere, silk, merino wool) but are less durable, so avoid those if you're going for uncool and reliable. High quality cotton and wool, depending on how it's woven, can last forever. Leather starts to age, but if you take care of it it can be a good look.
Also, don't have unrealistic expectations. Even the "best overall running shoe of 2022" from RunRepeat (who do serious running shoe reviews, tear them down etc) - is only expected to last 400-500 miles. Things have a finite lifespan.
You can also make a significant difference by how you wash your clothes. Washing gentle on cold (or hand washing) can make some clothes last several times longer, easily.
If you do all those things (buy high quality to start, made from wool/cotton/leather, wash gentle on cold) you can get 10 years out of a piece of clothing if you don't wear it too often. I've gotten a couple hundred wears over 10+ years out of several LL Bean shirts myself.
American Giant. Period.
Made in USA, absolutely amazing quality. The entire end-to-end supply chain from cotton to thread in the USA.
https://www.american-giant.com/
Made in USA, absolutely amazing quality. The entire end-to-end supply chain from cotton to thread in the USA.
https://www.american-giant.com/
I've been liking Duckworth recently, especially their all-wool lines. Pricey, but the shirts appear to be holding up better than Icebreaker and Wooley, and they're made entirely in the US, from wool to shirt. Shame about LL Bean, I've been noticing this about them too, especially since they dropped their legendary warranty.
When you find a good quality item that you like a lot go back and get extras! Different colors or just some to store away for when your current copy wears out.
There's quite a bit of that. Pendleton, Duluth Trading, Lands End to name a few in the US. A lot of them offer very boxy fits, but whole categories like workwear are basically "durable and reliable clothing" - or at least pretending to be. A problem arises when you want modern fit + durable + fashionable; that's when you start to see huge price tags.
Not anymore. Pendleton moved production to China a few years back. Duluth has gone far, far downhill (and killed their lifetime warranty.) Lands End is also a shadow of what it was. You only need to hold the new next to the old to see.
The same goes for LL Bean (killed their lifetime warranty, product quality went way downhill) and Filson (they even killed their slogan "Might as Well Have the Best".)
I'm not sure what's left, to be honest; let me know if anyone knows if high quality clothes still exist anymore.
The same goes for LL Bean (killed their lifetime warranty, product quality went way downhill) and Filson (they even killed their slogan "Might as Well Have the Best".)
I'm not sure what's left, to be honest; let me know if anyone knows if high quality clothes still exist anymore.
Pendleton still manufactures fabric in the US - although some product lines are probably made in China these days. The fact is none of these companies have much in the way of margins, if you want higher quality, you just have to spend more.
You’re correct that they don’t have high margins, but what you imply by it is wrong. People commonly confuse margin and markup. Markup is the difference between the cost of the goods and their sale price. (Net) margin is unrelated to the cost of goods and is simply the profit generated as a percentage of revenue.
These businesses have extremely high markups because they spend lots of money on marketing or marketing-adjacent things, plain and simple. It’s typically quite easy to see - around the same time that they’ll shift from made in the USA with a lifetime warranty they’ll start paying “influencers”, hiring marketers, sending things to blogs, maintaining a beefed-up social media presence, increasing ad spend etc. They simultaneously cut material costs by outsourcing and raise marketing spend. Their profit margin may not even be changed - but with the higher growth rates that the marketing spend brings the business is more appealing.
There’s no reason you can’t get quality goods at reasonable prices. LL Bean, although not cheap, was reasonably priced before they slashed quality a few years ago. Darn Tough is not cheap but the prices aren’t crazy and they’re made in the USA with a lifetime guarantee. American Apparel was 100% made in the USA until some years back and was solid quality. Los Angeles Apparel is 100% MiUSA and solid quality, prices are fairly reasonable. Clothing just doesn’t cost that much to make; MiUSA and good quality is possible, it just needs to make a comeback.
These businesses have extremely high markups because they spend lots of money on marketing or marketing-adjacent things, plain and simple. It’s typically quite easy to see - around the same time that they’ll shift from made in the USA with a lifetime warranty they’ll start paying “influencers”, hiring marketers, sending things to blogs, maintaining a beefed-up social media presence, increasing ad spend etc. They simultaneously cut material costs by outsourcing and raise marketing spend. Their profit margin may not even be changed - but with the higher growth rates that the marketing spend brings the business is more appealing.
There’s no reason you can’t get quality goods at reasonable prices. LL Bean, although not cheap, was reasonably priced before they slashed quality a few years ago. Darn Tough is not cheap but the prices aren’t crazy and they’re made in the USA with a lifetime guarantee. American Apparel was 100% made in the USA until some years back and was solid quality. Los Angeles Apparel is 100% MiUSA and solid quality, prices are fairly reasonable. Clothing just doesn’t cost that much to make; MiUSA and good quality is possible, it just needs to make a comeback.
I appreciate the discussion, but I don't really see the evidence in the numbers for these companies over the last decade or so, maybe it appears on a 20-30 year timeframe. Their gross margins and SG&A haven't changed significantly, although they have for others like Columbia Sportswear. American Apparel, just to pick out one of your examples, was bankrupted with MiUSA.
I'm wondering about the impact of ecommerce now though, especially higher return rates.
I'm wondering about the impact of ecommerce now though, especially higher return rates.
I'm not sure who you're finding data for, but most of these businesses are private and you have to look at other indicators. For LL Bean, for example, I was a loyal customer for years and paid close attention to their website, stores and social media. It was obvious when they dramatically cut the quality of their clothing and increased the gloss and marketing, to the point that an employee at a local store commented on it to me. You can't just cut quality and rest on your laurels, or the brand will slowly die (see American Apparel) - you have to cut quality and increase marketing spend, exploiting your former good name (see LL Bean - quality far down, but revenue way up.)
I don't think that American Apparel was bankrupted by MiUSA - now that they've switched away from MiUSA they seem to be a shadow of their former self. In any case, from 1989 to 2014 was a solid run, and their 2014 demise was quickly followed by other MiUSA companies copying a similar model. I think MiUSA can work - Darn Tough, LA Apparel, New Balance, Allen Edmonds, etc.
I think you may have a point with return rates - with lower markups you'd be more affected.
I don't think that American Apparel was bankrupted by MiUSA - now that they've switched away from MiUSA they seem to be a shadow of their former self. In any case, from 1989 to 2014 was a solid run, and their 2014 demise was quickly followed by other MiUSA companies copying a similar model. I think MiUSA can work - Darn Tough, LA Apparel, New Balance, Allen Edmonds, etc.
I think you may have a point with return rates - with lower markups you'd be more affected.
I've been going shopping for shirts/jeans for 30 years now, and when I see something I like I always pinch it between my fingers to check the fabric. Had a fabulous 100% cotton Polo RL shirt that lasted me 10 years until creases around cuffs and the collar literally disintegrated. Went to the same section just last month and the most expensive, fancy shirt there was as thin as rice paper. You could see through it!
I'm not sure what to do. It might be time to switch to an online source, but then I can't "pinch the fabric" as easily - have to return what I don't like. Wish there was a source with fabric specs, but I have little hope. As it is you can barely get the manufacturers to fess up the material blend, hiding it in between a bunch of other tags in fine print or in weird spots.
I'm not sure what to do. It might be time to switch to an online source, but then I can't "pinch the fabric" as easily - have to return what I don't like. Wish there was a source with fabric specs, but I have little hope. As it is you can barely get the manufacturers to fess up the material blend, hiding it in between a bunch of other tags in fine print or in weird spots.
The combination of fashionable and durable doesn't make sense: fashions change quickly, so why should an article of clothing outlive the fashion it was meant to serve? To embrace durability in clothing — which I would far rather remain a choice rather than be mandated — you have to embrace social durability, that is, looks that are socially acceptable but not fashionable.
Uni-Qlo.
from the Wikipedia page on Uniqlo...
>> In January 2021, Uniqlo shirts were blocked at the US border over concerns of violations related to a ban on cotton products produced in the Xinjiang region of China due to reports of forced labour. A protest was filed by Uniqlo's parent company Fast Retailing, but was denied.
>> In March 2022, Fast Retailing decided to remain in the Russian market despite Russia's attack on Ukraine saying that clothing is a "necessity of life".
>> In January 2021, Uniqlo shirts were blocked at the US border over concerns of violations related to a ban on cotton products produced in the Xinjiang region of China due to reports of forced labour. A protest was filed by Uniqlo's parent company Fast Retailing, but was denied.
>> In March 2022, Fast Retailing decided to remain in the Russian market despite Russia's attack on Ukraine saying that clothing is a "necessity of life".
Uniqlo's better than most fast fashion brands, but it's still pretty mediocre and made in deplorable conditions.
I haven't tried any other items from them, but I own one sweater from them and I have no bad words to say about it. The quality is superb and it has lasted me a long time. Anecdotal experience, but so far a good one.
> lasted me a long time
That only indicates what the quality was a long time ago. I’ve seen far too many brands and products go from good quality to poor quality over the years. Good quality sold N years ago says nothing about the quality currently sold, unfortunately.
That only indicates what the quality was a long time ago. I’ve seen far too many brands and products go from good quality to poor quality over the years. Good quality sold N years ago says nothing about the quality currently sold, unfortunately.
I found their jeans to not be good quality. I had a pair get holes after one year of use.
One year? That's pretty good by my standards. I suffer a crotch blowout roughly every 3 months or so. Jeans, apparently, are not made for people with thighs, nor for people who enjoy sitting cross legged. And certainly not both.
As a guy with lifter's legs, I can recommend American Eagle's flex line jeans, whatever they're currently called by their branding department. They come in a wide range of sizes so you can easily match what you need, and also different fits. I used to have the problem you described and no longer do.
[deleted]
Filson, Bastong and Arc'teryx should be right up your alley.
I found Arc'teryx quality to be decreasing in the last couple of years.
If their quality is no longer up to snuff there's always veilance.
[deleted]
My two cents:
Bonobos for shirts and jeans
Pt01 and Pt05 for pants (sales are up to 50%)
Pure Waste for t-shirts and colleges
Asket and Everlane for everything else
Bonobos for shirts and jeans
Pt01 and Pt05 for pants (sales are up to 50%)
Pure Waste for t-shirts and colleges
Asket and Everlane for everything else
American Giant
In Europe you should be able to find:
- We (their men stores)
- Uniqlo
- We (their men stores)
- Uniqlo
Uniqlo and Carhartt
As a side-effect this will also increase the prices of the cheapest clothes available on the market, and as such would in effect be a regressive tax.
Not so sure about that.
First, this will revive the second-hand market, which is where you got clothes for cheap in the past.
Second, The absolute price for a clothing item is not really relevant without considering its lifespan.
A metric of sorts "square meter of fabric per year" per capita would be more useful, and the super cheap clothes don't look good at all here. Even poor people will not wear a super cheap shirt for years, when other people throw it away after 2 weeks.
First, this will revive the second-hand market, which is where you got clothes for cheap in the past.
Second, The absolute price for a clothing item is not really relevant without considering its lifespan.
A metric of sorts "square meter of fabric per year" per capita would be more useful, and the super cheap clothes don't look good at all here. Even poor people will not wear a super cheap shirt for years, when other people throw it away after 2 weeks.
> Second, The absolute price for a clothing item is not really relevant without considering its lifespan.
With the exception of children's clothes. These unfortunately get hit with all issues: 1. Kids are more active and will stain/tear them more often than adults. 2. They grow out quickly, limiting initial lifespan. 3. Due to point 1, it's hard to resell things past the baby stage.
With the exception of children's clothes. These unfortunately get hit with all issues: 1. Kids are more active and will stain/tear them more often than adults. 2. They grow out quickly, limiting initial lifespan. 3. Due to point 1, it's hard to resell things past the baby stage.
A significant portion of kids inherit clothes from their older siblings when I grew up, and I still see it happening today. If clothes are more durable more items will survive to be inherited or re-sold.
Also, second-hand markets here are already large and could become even larger. Searching for "used kids clothes" on Ebay shows 350k results.
Also, second-hand markets here are already large and could become even larger. Searching for "used kids clothes" on Ebay shows 350k results.
I agree and should've phrased it better - there's a second hand market, but it would be significantly larger since the kids clothes get more damaged than adult.
The best part is giving them away to friends and family, if they have kids few years younger it tends to work well for the higher quality clothes. Higher quality materials (and seams) does help preserving them too.
It will also mean a healthier used market with modern garments that will last years and years.
New cars are disproportionately expensive too. Shrugs. I think it's okay that not everyone can afford everything new, as long as they can afford enough to not be further disadvantaged.
New cars are disproportionately expensive too. Shrugs. I think it's okay that not everyone can afford everything new, as long as they can afford enough to not be further disadvantaged.
I too think the poor should be driving clapped out beaters and wearing secondhand clothes. It builds character!
There's a facetiousness to your reply that really doesn't help the discussion. My response requires thinking about clothes in a different way, but that's the sort of thinking we all need to engage with.
Since the 50s we've seen races to the bottom with clothes, homeware, furniture. It's all lovely shiny and new and when we've decided we need to change it, we burn or throw into a hole in the ground. Fashion has invented its own mechanisms and sub-industry to make sure things aren't just disposable, but that people want to throw them away. It's disgusting.
We don't do that with cars. We demand that cars are serviceable. Older cars doesn't carry stigma (unless they're clapped out). We need to start demanding the same from everything we buy.
Since the 50s we've seen races to the bottom with clothes, homeware, furniture. It's all lovely shiny and new and when we've decided we need to change it, we burn or throw into a hole in the ground. Fashion has invented its own mechanisms and sub-industry to make sure things aren't just disposable, but that people want to throw them away. It's disgusting.
We don't do that with cars. We demand that cars are serviceable. Older cars doesn't carry stigma (unless they're clapped out). We need to start demanding the same from everything we buy.
This an extremely obvious side effect and this regulation will directly and very negatively affect the quality of life of Europe's poorest citizens. I'm glad you brought it up.
[deleted]
While there is an issue to be addressed, there's a better way to do it.
Create a standardised quality ranking of cloth longevity/repairability and force the manufacturers to display it prominently and accurately.
Why would the law prohibit me from buying a $1 shirt that lasts 1 week and instead buy a $50 shirt that lasts a year?
The effect will be identical to that achieved by reusable grocery store bag laws. Tons and tons of extra waste, as well as taxing the poor more.
Create a standardised quality ranking of cloth longevity/repairability and force the manufacturers to display it prominently and accurately.
Why would the law prohibit me from buying a $1 shirt that lasts 1 week and instead buy a $50 shirt that lasts a year?
The effect will be identical to that achieved by reusable grocery store bag laws. Tons and tons of extra waste, as well as taxing the poor more.
> Why would the law prohibit me from buying a $1 shirt that lasts 1 week and instead buy a $50 shirt that lasts a year?
Because society has to bear the cost of the environmental degredation of manufacturing and disposing of that $1 shirt. The price signal doesn't include the externalities.
Because society has to bear the cost of the environmental degredation of manufacturing and disposing of that $1 shirt. The price signal doesn't include the externalities.
naoqj(2)
Fast fashion sucks but this is an odd thing to prioritize given the situation Europe now finds itself in. With a massive energy shortfall, Europe is likely entering the worst economic period since WWII. I am proud of them for sticking to their principles, I just think they should be focused on the existential threats they are currently facing.
I’d argue addressing things like fast fashion is focusing on the existential threat that we are all facing. It’s just one of the many things in society that needs to be curtailed if we want to bring our usage of planetary resources back into safe boundaries.
Legislative systems are massive and employ a small army of people, and such proposals take years to develop. Their current focus will become apparent in a few years.
Developing legislation like this one on fast-fashion has little to do with management of current events. It’s a very slow and long process done in the background and doesn’t take away focus from energy and economical issues.
I feel like the biggest hole, companies operating bins claiming that they will recycle clothes while they will send them to third-world country to be landfilled or burned, isn’t addressed in that law.
Firstly, Europe leading the way as ever in legislation and regulations on ESG.
Secondly, fast fashion has severe social and compliance impacts and that is often overlooked (the environmental and climate piece is well understood).
Whats needed is a more homogeneous way to measure climate and labor impact especially in fashion. Newer, sustainable-focussed brands are taking charge and measuring and publishing their impacts.
It kinda starts to look like that the EU is cleaning up with laws behind USA's turbo capitalism mess. They could start to optimize this ritual a bit...
There's a big part of me that agrees with this. I am a bit worried though that we're making it harder and harder for new people coming into the world to make new startups, with more and more rules like this imposing a higher entry cost. Feels like we're just going to have massive companies in the future who are able to navigate all this, and too high a barrier of entry for new companies.
That's because we are.
This helps no one.
This helps no one.
Fast fashion isn’t the only type of clothing that exists today. I think it’s shortsighted to deride fast fashion without understanding why it’s so popular.
Every consumer in the EU, today, has the choice to pay for higher quality and more sustainable clothing. Fashion is unsustainable because the average consumer doesn’t care about the sustainability. They want cheap clothes. That’s it. We can choose to shift the negative externalities back to the consumer or manufacturer, but let’s not forget that people already have the choice to vote with their wallets and they’re resoundingly voting for fast fashion.
Every consumer in the EU, today, has the choice to pay for higher quality and more sustainable clothing. Fashion is unsustainable because the average consumer doesn’t care about the sustainability. They want cheap clothes. That’s it. We can choose to shift the negative externalities back to the consumer or manufacturer, but let’s not forget that people already have the choice to vote with their wallets and they’re resoundingly voting for fast fashion.
>Fashion is unsustainable because the average consumer doesn’t care about the sustainability.
Voting with your wallet is a myth propagated by free-market ideologues. Same as with swappable batteries in phones or right to repair: I don't know of a single consumer who's happy with the status quo, yet the option to buy a phone with a swappable battery is significantly less attractive and available today than it was 5 years ago.
Voting with your wallet is a myth propagated by free-market ideologues. Same as with swappable batteries in phones or right to repair: I don't know of a single consumer who's happy with the status quo, yet the option to buy a phone with a swappable battery is significantly less attractive and available today than it was 5 years ago.
How is it a myth?
I heard this type of statement often, but the fact is no convincing evidence is ever provided.
The fact is there are in fact options available for phones with swappable batteries, it's just that people don't buy them because they come with tradeoffs they don't want.
Of course people say they are unhappy with the status quo, but the fact is, bullshit talks and money walks. If they truly valued swappable batteries that much, they'd make the tradeoffs necessary to have that swappable battery. The fact that they don't make those tradeoffs means that no matter what comes out their mouth, they don't want to pay the price of that feature.
I heard this type of statement often, but the fact is no convincing evidence is ever provided.
The fact is there are in fact options available for phones with swappable batteries, it's just that people don't buy them because they come with tradeoffs they don't want.
Of course people say they are unhappy with the status quo, but the fact is, bullshit talks and money walks. If they truly valued swappable batteries that much, they'd make the tradeoffs necessary to have that swappable battery. The fact that they don't make those tradeoffs means that no matter what comes out their mouth, they don't want to pay the price of that feature.
You and OP are taking a simple fact (people buy fewer phones with replaceable batteries) and try to guess at people's core values through that. I don't think that makes any sense. But I think this kind of argument leads nowhere. Let's stick to examples.
Technically I can only speak for myself and what I value, so: I don't see a choice for myself. I have to choose between a phone that won't last due to its irreplaceable battery, and a phone that is unpopular enough to make me doubt whether it will receive updates after a few years. I have chosen a phone without a replaceable battery. Five+ years ago I would've chosen a phone with one.
My values didn't change here at all, the market did. It changed the tradeoffs I have to make to find a phone that suits my needs (overall durability/longevity), and I'm less happy with the options I am provided now than back then.
It seems your stance is not to believe me how unhappy I am, as I could have simply spent more money on my phone. If you know where I can find a popular phone with swappable battery, good update policy and significantly large aftermarket (for repairs) let me know.
Technically I can only speak for myself and what I value, so: I don't see a choice for myself. I have to choose between a phone that won't last due to its irreplaceable battery, and a phone that is unpopular enough to make me doubt whether it will receive updates after a few years. I have chosen a phone without a replaceable battery. Five+ years ago I would've chosen a phone with one.
My values didn't change here at all, the market did. It changed the tradeoffs I have to make to find a phone that suits my needs (overall durability/longevity), and I'm less happy with the options I am provided now than back then.
It seems your stance is not to believe me how unhappy I am, as I could have simply spent more money on my phone. If you know where I can find a popular phone with swappable battery, good update policy and significantly large aftermarket (for repairs) let me know.
> they don't want to pay the price of that feature.
Well put - the price, not the cost. Manufacturers can make some options unreasonably difficult/expensive/hard to find (non-smart TVs, CPUs with ECC support, printers not made by Satan..), and then when consumers, only offered a series of products that share the same, usually hidden, defect, buy that product, instead of investing time and money far disproportionate to the actual cost of making a product without that defect, this is hailed as "The consumer has spoken!"
Until electronics shops start clearly marking smart TVs with all the ways they spy on you and show you ads, and place right next to them an equivalent model, somewhat more expensive but clearly marked as privacy-friendly, you can't attribute this to "voting with your wallet".
Well put - the price, not the cost. Manufacturers can make some options unreasonably difficult/expensive/hard to find (non-smart TVs, CPUs with ECC support, printers not made by Satan..), and then when consumers, only offered a series of products that share the same, usually hidden, defect, buy that product, instead of investing time and money far disproportionate to the actual cost of making a product without that defect, this is hailed as "The consumer has spoken!"
Until electronics shops start clearly marking smart TVs with all the ways they spy on you and show you ads, and place right next to them an equivalent model, somewhat more expensive but clearly marked as privacy-friendly, you can't attribute this to "voting with your wallet".
> The fact that they don't make those tradeoffs means that no matter what comes out their mouth, they don't want to pay the price of that feature.
The feature may be worth it to a large swath of people, but not at a price-point that producers are capable of offering _for whatever reason_. By applying scale, costs can be reduced, and the feature can come to a more friendly price point which might increase demand.
There's another angle to this which is reduction of externalities, as well, but it's never as clear cut as: caveman spend sea shells on log rather than spending sea shells on rock.
The feature may be worth it to a large swath of people, but not at a price-point that producers are capable of offering _for whatever reason_. By applying scale, costs can be reduced, and the feature can come to a more friendly price point which might increase demand.
There's another angle to this which is reduction of externalities, as well, but it's never as clear cut as: caveman spend sea shells on log rather than spending sea shells on rock.
how do i know which piece of clothing will last me a year and which 10 years? price doesn't really say anything and what are other indicators i can follow?
[deleted]
Only if it was that easy. The consumer lacks information. He can't make a rational choice when he is bombarded by disinformation (marketing claims).
Right. Let’s assume everyone is ignorant and make decisions for them. The plebes don’t know better. Big brother will help you lead a better life.
The average person is very aware that fast fashion is unsustainable. They just don’t care enough to pay more. They are making a rational choice.
The average person is very aware that fast fashion is unsustainable. They just don’t care enough to pay more. They are making a rational choice.
How so? Clothes are cheap to manufacture and expensive due to marketing (publicity and distribution). I as a consumer I'm powerless because product from brand X is not necessarily more sustainable or durable that similar product from fast-fashion just because it costs 5 times more.
I don't think anybody disputes that the choices made by consumers are rational. The question is, how many of them are actually satisfied with the options the market makes them choose from?
How do they define fast fashion?
What makes it different than a budget T-shirt that you wear multiple times?
Fast fashion is more about how clothes are marketed than the inherent properties of the clothing itself.
What makes it different than a budget T-shirt that you wear multiple times?
Fast fashion is more about how clothes are marketed than the inherent properties of the clothing itself.
Yes it’s somewhat odd.
At least how I learned about it was the fast turnaround from design to store to capitalize on a trend.
Instead of it taking 6-9 months from initial design to manufacture to store placement, you could design quickly, outsource to global manufacturers and have new designs in store in 2-3 months.
Not sure how that’s more wasteful than traditional clothing. It all depends on often you buy new clothes?
At least how I learned about it was the fast turnaround from design to store to capitalize on a trend.
Instead of it taking 6-9 months from initial design to manufacture to store placement, you could design quickly, outsource to global manufacturers and have new designs in store in 2-3 months.
Not sure how that’s more wasteful than traditional clothing. It all depends on often you buy new clothes?
It’s especially targeting brands like Primark which are incredibly cheap and poor quality. Clothes costs a few euros and are intended to be worn only a few times.
The inherent properties of the clothing itself are designed for how they are marketed. It has everything to do with fast fashion. It's vertically-integrated planned obsolesence.
Unless substantial price increase, I don't see this changing behavior much. Third world landfills will have slightly more durable textiles with better stitching.
Nice. I’ve been trying to only buy my clothes from brands that are sustainable. The quality of clothes has been great too.
https://www.fairify.io/en/brands/ has been a great help finding sustainable brands. A bit sad Levi’s is only a C though, I like their jeans.
https://www.fairify.io/en/brands/ has been a great help finding sustainable brands. A bit sad Levi’s is only a C though, I like their jeans.
Nowadays most Levi's jeans are just stuff made in cheap labour countries with poor cloth. I think they still made some selvedge jeans in the US under their Made & Crafted label. If you want good Made in the US jeans, look at Gustin. But nowadays the most renown manufacturers are Japanese, like Momotaro.
Why don't let customers decide? Just require manufacturers to be more transparent. I've argued long time that most regulations could be replaced with mandatory transparency. Manufacturers should be open about their quality and lifetime of their products. No one buys a bad product if they know about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD_Jeans
A satisfied customer
A satisfied customer
That seems like a marketing gimmick?
I mean denim is already a renewable resource. Recycling old denim costs energy just like producing new denim.
It’s like people who feel good about putting plastic in the recycling bin even though most of it ends up in landfills.
I mean denim is already a renewable resource. Recycling old denim costs energy just like producing new denim.
It’s like people who feel good about putting plastic in the recycling bin even though most of it ends up in landfills.
I guess the major issue with 'plastics' is that they are wildly different. Polyethylene (PE, LDPE - plastic bags, HDPE - pipes], Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene - ABS [Lego, cheap tools shell], and polycarbonate (PC plexiglass, quality tools] would be pretty much the same (just plastic) for most people. Yet, even sorting them is expensive, then the quality and degradation of the source material is unknown, so recycling them for new products is not very feasible.
You can talk it down if you want, it is easy, did that for years. I like that they are doing something that makes them earn less but has a positive effect. Cotton production needs huge amount of water. Would it be better to burn or throw those jeans in a landfill? Got some sweaters by [0]. The label says how many PET-bottles got recycled for it.
[0] https://www.craghoppers.com/
[0] https://www.craghoppers.com/
I'm always glad to learn that I was very moral all along about something. In this case, my 10 year old, falling-apart sweatshirt that I wear every day is real, real virtuous. (I kind of suspected it all along, to be sure.)
easier to repair
Yeah, put down your phones and pick up your needle and thread, ladies. Good luck with that. Maybe the 19th century wasn't so bad.
easier to repair
Yeah, put down your phones and pick up your needle and thread, ladies. Good luck with that. Maybe the 19th century wasn't so bad.
"Yeah, put down your phones and pick up your needle and thread, ladies. Good luck with that. Maybe the 19th century wasn't so bad."
I am glad that you recognized that idea that modern clothing should be "repairable" as insane and regressive. Its a pretty good demonstration of why alot of "anti-materialist/consumerist" rhetoric is, in my estimate, actually harmful. They're making a policy out of reducing the standard of living.
I am glad that you recognized that idea that modern clothing should be "repairable" as insane and regressive. Its a pretty good demonstration of why alot of "anti-materialist/consumerist" rhetoric is, in my estimate, actually harmful. They're making a policy out of reducing the standard of living.
I suspect that this bifurcation of expensive, high quality goods and cheap crud at the bottom in price sensitive markets is due to income inequality. People on the high end can afford the higher quality goods, and cheap items become cheap enough to cut out the middle market.
I highly recommend the book "Worn: A People's History of Clothing" by Sofi Thanhauser, for those interested in learning more about environmental impacts of the clothing/textile industry and its history.
I’m able to find good quality shoes and boots, jackets, watches, and bags. I can’t for the life of me find quality chinos, polos, t-shirts, sweaters, and other basic articles of clothing.
I’m fine with Levi jeans, but all other clothing items seem to be crappy cotton/spandex blends of poor quality fabric, no matter if you spend $15 or $150 on a garment. It’s very frustrating, I’d rather just buy quality stuff that lasts, but I’m unable to find any quality clothing. Hopefully this legislation encourages clothing manufacturers to use quality fabrics and construction again.
I’m fine with Levi jeans, but all other clothing items seem to be crappy cotton/spandex blends of poor quality fabric, no matter if you spend $15 or $150 on a garment. It’s very frustrating, I’d rather just buy quality stuff that lasts, but I’m unable to find any quality clothing. Hopefully this legislation encourages clothing manufacturers to use quality fabrics and construction again.
I've not found that for the heavier clothes. If you have money to spend, outdoors clothes shops will sell you awesome quality clothes. (What's yours local equivalent of Kathmandu or Patagonia brands)
But I totally agree on t-shirts - I've been trying to find good ones for a while and each company ended up being a disappointment. American Apparel seems to survive the longest, but I got a recommendation to try one of the online-ordered tailored items. I've used those for shirts and was very happy in the past... it seems like an overkill for t-shirts but I'll give it a go.
But I totally agree on t-shirts - I've been trying to find good ones for a while and each company ended up being a disappointment. American Apparel seems to survive the longest, but I got a recommendation to try one of the online-ordered tailored items. I've used those for shirts and was very happy in the past... it seems like an overkill for t-shirts but I'll give it a go.
In my life this is a complete non-problem honestly. A friend just remarked how I have been wearing the same few t-shirts for years. They don't look worn or damaged either. Not any particularly fancy brand either. I just went to some store and picked a t-shirt that felt comfy and bought a dozen of em.
For this reason I don't like these rules. Any rule has an administrative cost, and therefore rules should only be made as a last resort. I don't want some independent tailors or etsy creators wasting time checking boxes.
For this reason I don't like these rules. Any rule has an administrative cost, and therefore rules should only be made as a last resort. I don't want some independent tailors or etsy creators wasting time checking boxes.
I just hope this doesn't have any (un)intended consequences that will replace natural materials like wool and cotton with synthetic fabrics or something equally ridiculous.
Two months ago I bought two jeans trousers from a local shop here in Italy. No big chain of stores, they have a pair of clothes stores in the area.
Surely trousers were indeed cheap, no branded, made in Asia, but they both last 5 weeks, tearing apart in the same exact point in the same exact way after only a few uses. Never happened to me, not even with clothes bought from cheap clothes italian chain of stores like OVS.
I feel like for fast fashion specifically, this is a move in entirely the wrong direction.
Fashion trends change quickly, a lot of people buy clothes with full intentions of wearing them for a couple weeks until they’re out of style and then just throw them away. Making fast fashion to last years is putting more valuable materials in the dump. Without a major change in peoples buying habits, it’s just making things worse.
Fashion trends change quickly, a lot of people buy clothes with full intentions of wearing them for a couple weeks until they’re out of style and then just throw them away. Making fast fashion to last years is putting more valuable materials in the dump. Without a major change in peoples buying habits, it’s just making things worse.
If the quality goes up - prices will probably have to go up as well, which means potential behavioral change, i.e. can't buy clothes every 2 weeks anymore.
So let the lower classes eat cake when it comes to fashion?
Why is it necessary to buy clothes every 2 weeks and then throw them away after wearing them once?
Certain externalities (e.g. environmental destruction) are not priced into these products - so it's about time that these fast fashion companies are being stopped from exploiting loopholes.
Maybe this will encourage folks to use 2nd hand markets more, like Vinted or Deepop etc.
Certain externalities (e.g. environmental destruction) are not priced into these products - so it's about time that these fast fashion companies are being stopped from exploiting loopholes.
Maybe this will encourage folks to use 2nd hand markets more, like Vinted or Deepop etc.
Well that was the idea behind this, right? To make todays "fast fashion" tomorrows "slow fashion".
[deleted]
"eco-friendly and hard-wearing"
These two can run opposed. I had two t-shirts stained, one brand new and one a decade old) and used the same product on both. The brand new completely discolored while the decade old didn't. Both are cotton so I guess the eco-friendly dye is to blame. Not so sustainable when I have to throw it in the trash with only a few uses.
These two can run opposed. I had two t-shirts stained, one brand new and one a decade old) and used the same product on both. The brand new completely discolored while the decade old didn't. Both are cotton so I guess the eco-friendly dye is to blame. Not so sustainable when I have to throw it in the trash with only a few uses.
For the last ten years I have been anticipating that Europe would become the Switzerland of the world, at a larger scale. For the worth and better. Sustainability is a big part of it and this kind of move as well as the platforms regulation give me hope.
In what way is Europe becoming like Switzerland? There is no direct democracy to begin with, more like the opposite.
My mind doesn’t have a large enough heap for this recursive statement
The only way the EU will survive is if it becomes a federation. Limited federal government that takes care of specific areas, like central bank, military, diplomacy. And leaves all other responsibilities to small states, like the US (or rather like the US was). Instead we have a EU that wants to micro manage every single problem (like fashion in this example), and large states that are not ready to give up any more sovereignty.
Bernard: They can't stop us eating the British sausage, can they?
Hacker: They can stop us calling it the sausage though. Apparently it’s going to be called the emulsified, high-fat offal tube.
Hacker: They can stop us calling it the sausage though. Apparently it’s going to be called the emulsified, high-fat offal tube.
Horribly expensive, centered on financial services, great for hiding money and impossible to immigrate too?
Not sure what you’re getting at?
Not sure what you’re getting at?
> Horribly expensive, centered on financial services, great for hiding money and impossible to immigrate too?
Yes, no, not anymore, no.
And even those costs are relative - sometimes when I travel I end up in places which are definitely not cheaper. And that's coming from somebody living in 1 of 2 most expensive spots within Suisse. Some more rural places are cheaper to live in than most big European cities.
Yes, no, not anymore, no.
And even those costs are relative - sometimes when I travel I end up in places which are definitely not cheaper. And that's coming from somebody living in 1 of 2 most expensive spots within Suisse. Some more rural places are cheaper to live in than most big European cities.
Offering some of the best quality of life on earth maybe.
Quality of life is pretty damn subjective isn't it?
I know Europe is not the only place with free healthcare, but, at least for me, free healthcare comes above [everything else].
Yeah sure, you can get insurance in other countries, but there WILL ALWAYS BE fine print, some random procedure and you're not covered, or out of pocket expense, etc.
With free healthcare, there's no fine print, everything from a allergic reaction, to neurosurgery the cost will always be 0 no matter what.
Yeah sure, you can get insurance in other countries, but there WILL ALWAYS BE fine print, some random procedure and you're not covered, or out of pocket expense, etc.
With free healthcare, there's no fine print, everything from a allergic reaction, to neurosurgery the cost will always be 0 no matter what.
Healthcare isn't free in Switzerland.
Incredible how you claim Switzerland has the highest QOL, yet don't know the basics about the country.
Incredible how you claim Switzerland has the highest QOL, yet don't know the basics about the country.
The "Planned Obsolescence" documentary is (infuriatingly) great on how goods have degraded in quality over the years.
https://youtu.be/wzJI8gfpu5Y
https://youtu.be/wzJI8gfpu5Y
We could abolish face masks. Every person uses couple every day. Most masks are not recycled. And it is micro fiber that accumulates in animal tissues!
[deleted]
I am certain there is a capitalistic equivalent of the economic calculation problem.
In a planned economy, good decision making is impossible above a certain level of scale and complexity, because it’s infeasible to get the right information on all relevant factors and constraints to the decision makers.
In a market economy, good purchase decisions are impossible because the supply chains are opaque and complex and by the time anyone has figured out the true quality of something, it’s no longer made in the same way.
In a planned economy, good decision making is impossible above a certain level of scale and complexity, because it’s infeasible to get the right information on all relevant factors and constraints to the decision makers.
In a market economy, good purchase decisions are impossible because the supply chains are opaque and complex and by the time anyone has figured out the true quality of something, it’s no longer made in the same way.
[deleted]
This fast-fashion shit has ruined everything. Zara is a spanish brand that around 20 years ago used to produce high quality garments, remember having a lot of shirts, sweater and pants lasting from 5 to 10 years .... After going global they shit everything up .... Always the same issue with capitalism and globalization
Brussels bureaucrats sure seem like they want to build a moat for the large incumbent companies that startups will have an increasingly hard time disrupting due to increased costs.
Literally the fashion police.
Classic UK poking their fingers on everything and anything.
> Manufacturers will have to ensure their clothes are eco-friendly and hard-wearing.
Very little of substance in the article. I wonder if this is a “baptists and bootleggers” moment for greens and Euro clothing industry?
Very little of substance in the article. I wonder if this is a “baptists and bootleggers” moment for greens and Euro clothing industry?
EU parliament members who can afford Brioni suits and haute couture for their families can’t be in charge of making rules like these.
Half-OT
Fast fashion seems to be one of the problems the metaverse could solve.
In the pandemic, many people moved more and more of their social life online. Not 100% of it, but quite a bit more than before.
If less people would buy real clothes every season and just show off digital clothes online, this could solve the overproduction issue.
You can still signal being wealthy or stylish online, but nobody would actually have to sew all that stuff.
Fast fashion seems to be one of the problems the metaverse could solve.
In the pandemic, many people moved more and more of their social life online. Not 100% of it, but quite a bit more than before.
If less people would buy real clothes every season and just show off digital clothes online, this could solve the overproduction issue.
You can still signal being wealthy or stylish online, but nobody would actually have to sew all that stuff.
Quality is a huge issue. It's changed my shopping habits because it's often better to simply go without than to buy cheap rubbish that lasts a week and causes you more inconvenience than if you'd never had it. I mostly buy vintage things that can be repaired now.
In the UK brands like Marks and Spencer used to make clothes that lasted. Now they sell the same appallingly made sweatshop stuff. They still have their famous returns policy, and honour it, but I'd rather have something that lasts than something I can take back when it breaks. Guess they have a procurement issue because quality is uniformly low. Same with cheap electronic goods; pointless locked-down IoT cruft that cannot be repurposed or fixed and is landfill fodder straight after unboxing.
We're drowning in cheap manufactured goods whose short lifespan and overhead (transport and disposal) dwarfs its functional utility.