You forget some simple facts of economics:
1) people want to be entertained and are prepared to pay big money for that.
2) the only thing more profitable than boorish entertainment is sex
3) no government program that takes longer to turn a profit for the politicians voting for it than the time to the next election will ever receive funding in a democracy.
Technology is changing all the time.
It's just that you've been living in an era in which it suddenly exploded, and we're now entering an era of consolidation.
That's a good thing as it will mean less useless crap being hyped as the best thing since sliced bread.
That explosion of technology was in fact brought about by an unprecedented period of extreme military tension and competition between NATO and the USSR, directly following WW2 in which innovation was rampant. Never before had technological progress been so rapid as during the period roughly 1940-1980.
That period is now past and we're slowing down slowly to a more leasurely pace, until the next big surge, likely also brought about by a large scale war (which I suspect will involve China in a big way, as China is fast replacing Europe and the US as the major economic and military power on the planet).
That conflict may well see forcefield technology, hypersonic propulsion systems, electrooptical computers, cheap spaceflight, etc. etc. all take off in ways we cannot yet imagine, driven by the need to create weapons and countermeasures to space based (and) nuclear weapons.
jwenting
duckman
8,392 posts since Nov 2004
Reputation Points: 1,662
Solved Threads: 337
I agree with you to some extent, but most of the usefull technology probably isn't going to wind up in just anyones hands. The reason so much useless crap is coming out, is because people are never happy. If someone asks you how much money you want and you say 100$, as soon as you get it you'll be wishing you ask for more. That's because humans are never satisfied and are always wanting something new. My uncle is a great example for buying useless junk all the time. He had a 4-5 hundred dollar pda but hardly ever used it, even though he's a network engineer. That's only one example, but he's got so much crap. Even though he's around 30, he has about EVERY gaming system on the market. But guess how much he plays them: almost never. It comes down to some technology being more useful to one person than another. We'll, I'm tired and going to bed.
server_crash
Postaholic
2,111 posts since Jun 2004
Reputation Points: 113
Solved Threads: 20
Cheap sells in bulk, low quality means high repeat sales as people need to replace the stuff more often.
If you want to you can still get quality but expect to pay for it.
Take photo cameras. The best SLRs go for several thousand Euro, but despite the fact that those will last 10-20 years many people opt for cheap 100-200 Euro cameras that will last maybe a year at most at which time they'll want to replace it anyway because there's a new model and you can't be seen with last year's model now can you?
Fashion is the ultimate marketing tool, it convinces customers that they have to replace their perfectly fine things (whether clothes, PDAs, cameras, or even their furniture) regularly.
You seem to not be receptive for such marketing (neither am I), and probably see right through a lot of other marketing crap as well (such as advertising trying to pursuade you that something you bought last year is now suddenly completely useless just because there's a "new and improved" version available).
But you do seem stuck in the idea of wanting to pay next to nothing.
Look in the next higher market segment and you'll find the quality you want, quality that will last you a long time, saving you money in the long run.
It may not be in stock from your retailer, who has an incentive in higher percentages of sales income to sell you the lowend crap (they may get 10% on the sale of an entry level item but only 5% on the highend competitor), but they will be able to order it.
As to Ikea, they have good stuff too if you know where to look. I wouldn't buy a couch there anymore (did at one point because I needed one fast and couldn't afford something better) but they have some pretty sturdy tables and bookcases for example.
As always, be selective.
For the ultimate difference in crap versus quality in product placement, go no further than comparing Canon and Nikon cameras.
Canon markets theirs as being flashy, fashionable, and having all the latest features.
They also replace their entire product line about once a year with new models (and most of their customers fall into the trap and buy a new camera every year).
Nikon on the other hand relies on their image of quality and respectability. Their products are not as flashy, they're often a bit larger and heavier and are matte black polycarbonate covered metal instead of glossy silvery plastic.
They also replace most of their products maybe every 3-5 years at most.
In the lowend market this hurts them a bit, as people there are more susceptible to marketing pressure. In the highend market this is extremely valued as it provides continuity.
To compare: over 2003 Nikon sold 30% less cameras than did Canon but beat them in income from those sales.
Of course the press immediately reported only the sales numbers and concluded that Nikon was dead...
jwenting
duckman
8,392 posts since Nov 2004
Reputation Points: 1,662
Solved Threads: 337
I'd rather tech moved at a slower pace but was more thoroughly matured before hitting the market.
As it is many products are launched before they're ready just to beat the competition, and the consumer is left with equipment that doesn't deliver on promises.
jwenting
duckman
8,392 posts since Nov 2004
Reputation Points: 1,662
Solved Threads: 337
