Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.

I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?

The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 1 month ago (32 children)

There are companies that went broke by making their product indestructible, a notable example being the maker of the wildly popular Instant Pot. They made a product that just didn't break. This is called planned obsolescence failure and has happened to other companies too.

That being said, making flimsy shit on purpose is shady at best.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] 34 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    This is why capitalism is stupid at its core. It doesn't promote anything good. It only promotes greed and enriching the top. Make the shittiest product you possibly can that people will buy, buy out every other maker of product, repopulate the sector with fake brands to give people illusion of choice.

    Oldest trick in the book. And literally not 1 person I know can see through this trickery.

    In capitalism making a long lasting good product is not viable at all, it makes no sense. Who gives a shit if your great grandkid is still using your oven 60 years later, the shareholders dont benefit then. Out of business. Its an idiotic system kept alive only by propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    this is a failure of consumerism, materialism and greed. not capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Those are all byproducts of unregulated capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Dont get me wrong, humans are just shit, and I think any system is going to eventually fail because assholes get in power. But more places could at least try a mixed capitalism/socialist approach like we have seen works in Norway/Denmark (at least I think thats how they aporoach it)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    The real reason was private equity

    Private equity made things a lot worse. In 2019, Instant Brands was acquired by Cornell Capital and unceremoniously merged with Corelle Brands, a housewares company that includes Pyrex. An acquisition by a private equity firm brings certain expectations with it—namely: lots and lots of fast growth.

    https://www.bonappetit.com/story/instant-pot-bankrupt

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    Corelle/Pyrex is its own story of going from the best product to "good enough". Simple point, if you find yourself some old stuff of theirs, hang on to it because you can't find anything comparable anymore. Same can probably be true of other old brands of products. I found an old Whirlpool dryer that I won't ever let go of for the same reason. What will eventually fail on it I can either fix or buy a new, cheap part.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Right. Like I also hate capitalism as it exists today, but it is definitely possible to make a living making GOOD products. You just can't make billions doing it. Even if the product was LITERALLY indestructible, people will lose them, plus they're always making new people. It's just a lot slower than if you make a shit product people have to keep replacing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

    Yeah it’s a right dilemma. Because on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (7 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Are you implying that china is socialist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)