> It's more a concerted effort to make repair expensive, unexpected, unfashionable and gratuitously difficult across as many industries as possible.
I upvoted you because I agree with your overall comment, but on this one point I disagree. I think it's not a concerted effort, just a gentle gradient caused by economics. Meaning, all the companies that made traditionally repairable items (e.g. straight razors) were less profitable in the long run than companies that made disposable/irreparable items, so they eventually went under. Because disposable items are cheaper to manufacture, they could be sold for much lower prices in the marketplace and produced in much greater numbers, reaping much more profit. That expands markets and keeps them producing demand by the need for replacement. While consumers should be the counterpressure to that, consumers generally don't consider TCO[1], so traditional producers lost to the market and humanity irrationality.
[1] I mean honestly, who adds up the cost of all the razors they'll use in their life?
The way humans used to live two hundred years ago was definitely "waste not, want not". Things were durable because making them took human effort. People were poor and closer to the things that they made and used. Supply chains were not something optimized by logistics companies; shoes were made by people in the same town. In that setting, you better believe they made stuff to last.
In short, all of this is because of the techno-industrial marketplace.
Well it's not thousands of manufacturers participating in a global conspiracy, but it's not quite the same as commodity items like disposable razor blades either.
Whether it's prevailing economic school, or what they're teaching MBAs the last few decades but there is clear intent to a) remove maintenance and repair options, and b) ensure products are not built to last, but built to last "just long enough".
Now, profits are not so knife edge that adding 50p on a connector to permit a part to be changed in a fridge or kettle would cause them to go under. The market for kettles spans £10 to well over £100 for stupid gimmicks. Plenty of space for more ethical options alongside internet connectivity, LCD displays and LEDs that light up the water. Even the ethical extra water saving environmentally gimmicked options don't permit repair. In single blade razors the smallest change could make or break profitability. Even that is a different proposition now thanks to the ever rising blade count and added gimmicks.
Many of the companies that made traditionally repairable items are still around. It's just they all started phasing out at roughly the same time.
Were lighting a 21st century invention there would be no lightbulbs or bayonet and Edison screw fittings. We'd all be replacing the light fitting every time, and people would be explaining why it was unavoidable.
So I suspect it's something more than simple economics, though I don't think there's been a repetition of the 1,000 hour lightbulb cartel. :)
> Many of the companies that made traditionally repairable items are still around. It's just they all started phasing out at roughly the same time.
I don't think this is true. This latest phase in the last N decades is just an acceleration of a constant ecosystem dynamic since industrialization. There are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of manufacturers over the last 200 years that have gone under, gone bankrupt, been gobbled up, pivoted to new markets, etc. Sometimes you can get a picture into this if you watch Antiques Roadshow and an expert explains that this or that chair was made by this company at that time and it's rare because, and so on. There is a huge history underlying almost any old or rare item. Super interesting, too!
On principle it's rather annoying, but in practice, customers don't ask for repairable items. It just doesn't affect their purchases. As long as that's the case, they'll buy the cheaper of a repairable vs non-repairable unit. And so that's what competitive vendors will make.
A major factor is continued development. Any product under active development is in this cycle. Consumers see a 10 yr old washing machine as almost archaic vs the newest ones. So they don't see as much value in the old device -- not enough to repair when a new one is 40% off for the labor day sale.
For items that aren't under active development -- like a coffee maker, an iron, a lawn mower -- they care about its total lifetime and the costs of repairing it.
I upvoted you because I agree with your overall comment, but on this one point I disagree. I think it's not a concerted effort, just a gentle gradient caused by economics. Meaning, all the companies that made traditionally repairable items (e.g. straight razors) were less profitable in the long run than companies that made disposable/irreparable items, so they eventually went under. Because disposable items are cheaper to manufacture, they could be sold for much lower prices in the marketplace and produced in much greater numbers, reaping much more profit. That expands markets and keeps them producing demand by the need for replacement. While consumers should be the counterpressure to that, consumers generally don't consider TCO[1], so traditional producers lost to the market and humanity irrationality.
[1] I mean honestly, who adds up the cost of all the razors they'll use in their life?
The way humans used to live two hundred years ago was definitely "waste not, want not". Things were durable because making them took human effort. People were poor and closer to the things that they made and used. Supply chains were not something optimized by logistics companies; shoes were made by people in the same town. In that setting, you better believe they made stuff to last.
In short, all of this is because of the techno-industrial marketplace.