I just paid about $200 (including taxes and shipping) for a pair of leather work sneakers that should last about a year, if I take good care of them, but sketchers usually break down inside about 3 months of wear. I didn't want to spend it, because gestures at everything, but I had to make the hard decision.

https://www.okoone.com/spark/marketing-growth/high-value-vs-high-volume-customers-where-should-your-focus-be/

It won't in socialism. China is doing rather well, overall.

You should read about planned obsolescence.

Every company does it. It even has a name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

No, it isn't ethical.

This might depend on where you live? I don't remember seeing any sort of rental TV services in any area I've lived in or any advertisements for such. I'll be honest, I wasn't looking for one, but I also haven't heard of this as a common thing.

yes, the point of a company is to make money and you can make more money by having people buy your product repeatedly, also products like phones will bwcome obsolete when their towers gwt shutdown in less than 10 years anyways.

Good idea

You mean... Apple? Create a new version and say the others are obsolete... Adobe?

Apple is a perfect example of this, yet, I bet plenty of people reading this post, are using an apple product, iphone, tablets, macbooks, whatever. 🥴

is this engagement bait? the phrasing of this question answers itself.

I think it's okay to have different levels of quality at different price points so people can have options that fit their budget. A personal anecdote is measuring spoons. When I was young and just starting out, I just bought the cheapest set that would get the job done for a while. They were simply rounded plastic and the markings quickly started to wear off. Years later, when I was a bit more settled down, I decided to splurge on some nice stainless steel spoons in a rectangular shape that lets them fit inside spice jars better.

Gross. I bought Samsung washer and dryer and they fucking suck. Now I see.

Is it ethical for you as a consumer to buy low quality stuff that you know will break?

Are you implying that china is socialist?

My brother in Christ, proofread

Maybe not every company.

I'm not a fan of Apple but to suggest their products aren't of exceptionally high quality is a bit ridiculous. They're not exactly known for cheaping out on stuff. I have an 11 year old MacBook still in daily use because it refuses to die. I plugged in my iPad too the other day and it fired right up. This one is from 2012.

To be fair, a year is pretty pathetic performance even for work books unless you step on landmines for living.

I think that's a slightly different thing, albeit with a similar outcome depending on intent.

You can make "indestructible" versions of lots of things, but that doesn't mean they're remotely affordable or even desirable (due to weight or materials used).

A company deliberately making something bad so it breaks is what you're describing, but a company making something lower quality so it's cheaper isn't necessarily the same.

Hmm… never thought of that…

I will

No, I genuinely don’t know how I feel about it for the reasons I outlined in the post above. I’m simply asking people for their views to get a clearer idea of the bigger picture. Plus, if you read all of the comments here, some people do make interesting points on why it could be considered ethical, like affordability for example, points that I never even thought of.

lolol

also true

The poor growth that private equity didn't find attractive could have been due to lack of repeat purchases tho.

agree 100%. It's only impossible if you saturate the market, which means you're a huge player.

private equity could have slashed the product due to poor growth (due to ppl not buying repeatedly).

I agree it's what evil assholes want us to believe, but that doesn't necessarily make it a false claim.

But most times you don't know it the first time.

Those are all byproducts of unregulated capitalism.

China is socialist.

I know, but for the insides to hold up that long for that price nowadays is decent. In older days, shoes were made to last longer, and specifically fitted at the heel and toe.

It is unethical. If a company made a product so good it went bankrupt, there should be guardrails to ensure the workers and their families be rightfully compensated for their contribution to the better of society.

We're drowning in waste because of this mentality of selling things no matter what.

There should be incentives to make great things, there shouldn't be incentives to be a great stealer.

Here's a canonical example. The East Germans made a drinking glass that didn't break. They produced 120 million of them. Then, capitalism happened and now we don't have unbreakable glasses any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfest

How would that work exactly? Where would the money for the workers and their families be coming from?

If the companies were required to produce something of a particular durability the average cost would be lower and more accessible to all stratas of society; your ethical argument comes from a place of significant privilege.

Is it ethical for them to withhold performance to generate profit? CPUs and GPUs are limited in the range, to a certain large extent, by price discrimination.

But it means that the company was doing fine for decades.

l'mao.

Smartphones last way longer than that if you're not using them to break rocks or losing them.

Yes, for a suitable value of "easily." It doesn't make sense to design every product to be as robust as possible, so there is a trade-off between robustness and other factors like cost and weight. A laptop or phone breaks easily if you drop it, but that doesn't mean the manufacturer is unethical for not making every single one be one of those super-rugged ones with rubber corners. As the ease of breakage increases, and as the cost of making it more robust decreases, so it becomes less and less justifiable to do.

The problem here is really uncertainty and lack of knowledge. If you knew that the product you were buying was going to last for exactly 17 months, you could compare the cost over its lifetime to one which would last exactly 25 months. Then all the underhanded tactics of planned obsolescence would be far less effective. But we don't know that, and really we don't even know the average or likely range.

Not the point I was trying to make, I was just being conservative with an average lifetime.

This is why God designed knees the way he did. He secretly hates humans and wants us to have an expiration date.

Your argument comes from a position of everything is someone else's fault you are powerless.

It may truly be the case for you. But most other people can make a difference for the better regardless of what the government or companies do.

I've been wearing crocs since the beginning, so 20+ years, and I've never yet managed to wear a pair out. The only issue I've had was that the little croc logo button popped off one and was lost. I wrote to the company and they sent me a replacement button, free. I have I think four pairs in various colours; the most recent I got second-hand on Vinted. My sport involves launching and recovering boats in muddy water, so they're perfect summer footwear - hose them down and you're good to go. Also good as house shoes.

FWIW: "In 2025, Crocs revenue stood at $3.3 billion, an increase of 1.5% from the previous year."

You may only have the power over your own purchase decisions, but hold on to what power you have.

Oh honey

The problem is the price point. You can absolutely get products today that will last decades, but you'll have to pay more for them.

We've become a culture of instant gratification, and most people don't want to budget and save. They want that hit of dopamine right now.

What's unethical is the advertising industry making people believe that buying things makes you happy.

Their flip flops, on the other hand.. I've had 3 break on me

I don't believe so.

If every product was made with the highest standards of materials and craft, then all of the products would be more expensive. A competitive free market is meant to allow a wider variety of consumers access to products that suit their individual needs, and price is a huge part of those needs.

I do think it's unethical to charge too much for products that aren't well made and that it's a failing of capitalism that it's not just allowed, but encouraged.