I was discussing politics and economics with a friend of mine who leans toward libertarian. I tried to make the point that the desire for profit sometimes squashes good technology. Something that was good technology and worked well for the public but was not profitable enough and was discontinued.
We’ve heard stories of engines that were too efficient to be put into production. I’ve heard of some pots and pans that were virtually indestructible but once the company realized that they would be a one time buy with no repeat customers they started making them in a lower quality model.
My question is, are these myths or facts? Are there any documented cases of a technology that was very good for the public that disappeared because it was not profitable enough?
I did think of Microsoft Windows as one example. It appears that less efficient versions of windows were released so that Microsoft could leverage the public into buying a new “improved” version every few years.
I’d say myth, at least in any reasonably competitive market. What’s to stop a start-up from selling everlasting lightbulbs, if such a thing exists? Microsoft Windows, having some monopoly characteristics, is a different case, but even then I think there is enough competition that Microsoft do, in fact, have to deliver a good product. I disagree that newer versiopns of Windows are “less efficient” than earlier versions.
Anyway, efficiency, reliability etc. are only part of what buyers want. As an example, I cite modern cars. They last longer and are better in every regard than the cars we bought twenty, thirty years ago. You could buy a new car today and expect it to still be running well fifteen years later. Indeed some people do that. But on the whole people still like to have new cars. The average age of cars on the road doesn’t seem to have risen noticeably.
That’s not what I meant. I implied that Microsoft delivered a product less efficient than they had to. They could have made a better less complicated , less glitchy, operating system but marketing plans changed that. I offer Windows Millennium as an example. I think the development of imbedded programs such as media player hindered the efficiency of the OS.
Then again, there are people on the board that know a lot more than I do about that so I’ll be glad for any education.
That’s a valid point and one that my friend mentioned. We’ll see if that changes in the next few years.
We also talked about electric cars. With gas prices so high that changes the cost comparison of the EVs The movie “Who killed the electric car” implied that GM killed the EV because there was so little maintainence involved that they were unprofitable. Others have pointed out that less efficient battery technology made them undesirable.
OK. I think this thread will be more interesting if we refrain from arguing about Microsoft Windows in particular. There are approximately 86,000 other threads about that.
Agreed - it’s a myth. Look at the TV market. When I was a kid every high street had a TV repair shop. Old TV sets frequently broke down. Modern sets are MUCH more reliable, and most repair shops went out of business in the 1970’s. This is one reason for the current pressure to adopt digital TV - the increasing reliability meant manufacturers were not selling enough new sets, so the only way to boost sales was to produce sets with new features (stereo sound, widescreen format, high definition, etc) which required a whole new technology.
It would have been much simpler for the manufacturers to keep TV sets deliberately unreliable, but competition in the TV industry meant that was never a realistic option.
Possibly. I’ve had TVs for years that kept working. I think the other thing that happened with smaller appliances is that they became so cheap to buy that it’s not cost effective to fix them.
The later version large screens are very expensive to repair but I don’t have stats on break downs. I used to work at Circuit City and I know the repair guys stayed busy.
I think we’ve seen a shift in how things are consumed, more than a planned inefficiency. At least in America, it seems that consumers are more likely to purchase a new model of a product rather than repair their existing one, so we have seen a drastic change in the way the products function. For a lot of electronics, computers, and other complicated luxury goods, the components have become more complicated, smaller, and efficient; making it very very hard to repair something without extremely specialized equipment and training, or a new component which is often nearly as pricey as the whole good itself. I have noticed that most problems do not result in impaired performance, but total failure of the product as a whole, thus encouraging the consumer to purchase a newer product.
Well, I’ve read that the reason HP stopped making that printer you have in your office - you know, that cube-shaped black and white laser printer? The beige one? Runs forever. Well, there’s no money in that, and unlike consumer stuff offices will keep things that run forever.
Well, I think that Corning’s original pyroceramic cookware and dishes might count as a product that had been discontinued, in part because it was “too good.” (Well, actually, it seems more likely that there wasn’t any repeat business for the manufacturer, because things weren’t breaking and needing to be replaced. But that’s just expanding out what “too good” means for a manufacturer.)
Not good for the public, but certainly convenient, I remember in the UK in the 1960s buying Deca Self-Lighting cigarettes . You rubbed the specially prepared tip against the edge of the packet and it started to smoulder. The first couple of draws tasted a little odd but they were fine after that.
Then, as suddenly as they had appeared, they vanished (in a puff of smoke, so to speak). I don’t know whether it was a sinister combine of lighter and match manufacturers buying up the process and squelching it or something far more mundane. Probably the latter, but I remember feeling annoyed that a great idea had been pulled from the market.
I don’t think it’s ever really been taken up again seriously, although googling brings up dozens of modern patents for self-lighting cigarettes. I don’t smoke now so it’s of no real concern to me but I always wondered why such a natural idea as self-lighting cigarettes wouldn’t have caught on bigtime.
Printers make money because of ink and toner rather than the printer itself. Still, it seems how long companies support their own products has shortened considerably. If your printer still works and you can’t buy the ink then it’s time for a new one. Perhaps it wasn’t cost effective to continue making the toner.
I think that’s the key point. HP may have bailed out of the printer market (did they? news to me), but you can still buy laser printers. They’ve become commodities, low-profit items, that’s all. Any fool can make them. The advent of the long-lasting laser printer was not held back and did not kill HP. Any company worth its salt has to come up with new stuff from time to time.
Thing is, this good technology costs money, and people aren’t always willing to pay it. Sure they can make a set of pans that lasts twice as long. But it might cost three times as much. Nobody would buy it. So they make the lower quality and cheaper sets that actually sell.
That is a trivial value-for-money consideration. I think the OP is wondering about cases in which the new, better product costs no more than the older one and is suppressed by the manufacturer.
I think that it does happen, but only in the short term. Quite often, it is a market leader that has the R&D bucks to come up with the new idea. The bean counters then sit on it for a while, worrying about the effect on income. But you can’t keep a good idea down, certainly not these days, and sooner or later competitors will introduce products that exploit the new idea.
It’s all part of the evil known as Marketing. I used to work for a hard disk manufacturer, which had two main products, a 40MB model and an 80MB model (shows you how long ago it was). The difference between the two models? They were identical, except that in the 40MB model there were no wires running to some of the heads. It would have cost pennies to convert a 40MB to an 80MB. But we were not a market leader, and somebody in marketing decided that we had to match the recognised “price points”. Maybe they were right. But the company went bust, anyway.
Exactly. Battery technology just wan’t up to the task back then. It still isn’t there today, which is why General Motors is developing a “plug-in hybrid” which combines electric and hybrid technologies. A pure electric car has two limitations: you can’t make long trips in it, and it takes a long time to recharge. Some people can live with those limits, but the public at-large would expect more, and GM knew that. Plug-in hybrids have the potential to be a major revolution because there’s a gasoline engine which can step in when the batteries run down.
That’s how I heard it. Although statistically the average driver does low miles per day , well within range of an electric car and you plug it in at night. It sounds to me like they would be a very viable 2nd car for a family. more cost effective, especially now, and better for the environment. A small percentage of US drivers using them daily would make a huge difference. The hybrids sound good too.
Their was a short lived product at Circuit City that was internet access for people that didn’t want a full blown computer. Keyboard, mouse small box with a modem. It was cheap because you signed up for internet access when you bought it. Some geek discovered that you could easily attach a hard drive and make it into a computer, so people were scooping them up and ditching the service. It went bye bye.
