OK, so, you’re right. Let’s be fair, though: this is capitalism. There are companies that make quality mice, and they are more expensive and don’t compete at the same scale Logitech does. If Logitech made quality mice, they’d be more expensive, and even more consumers would look at and choose cheaper mice from their competitors.
Part of this is absolutely “margins & profit.” Part is the veiled curse of online shopping: when you can’t feel and handle the product, much more of shopper decision comes down to simply price: this is the T-Shirt Effect: if two online products look identical, but one is less expensive, most people are going to opt for the less expensive one. It’s put established companies known for quality out of business, or driven their product quality down to compete. Part of it is that there are few reliable, authoritative review sources; many are barely disguised paid ads, or star-manipulation. The end sum is consumers voting with their dollars, and companies responding accordingly. Sales are down, your competitors’ are up, people are choosing products you know are cheaper crap, and so it’s obvious people prefer cheaper crap, so you make it.
It’s a lose-lose for everyone except those companies able to quickly clone reputable products, but with lower-quality components, and flood the online market with them.
Low-quality, low-cost mass manufacturing has put products in the hands of people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford them. But it’s also driven down quality, and driven waste up; the same decision process being used by low-income folks is also used by middle-class, and with nearly all shopping being online, consumers have few options for a better process.
The equation changes when you get to the wealthy, who can shop with companies who aren’t competing on volume, but reputation and margins: the Bang & Olufsens; the Breguets, and the Urban Jurgensens. People who can afford to shop with artisans shop differently, but all t-shirts look the same online.
I have no problem with buying more expensive, high quality stuff. The problem is that the higher price often simply means meaningless features instead of good durability. The mouse i am using right now cost me 150€ and i hoped it was more durable but the right click is already not working properly. Garbage.
If i could trust companies to actually put out stuff that lasts a life time i would love to have it. This however simply sounds like another move to increase the companies value for its shareholders.
Clothing is a whole other matter and again as consumer it is really hard to know whether your money goes to quality or simply marketing and “good feeling”.
When everything you buy as a consumer tends to break fast they will have no real choice but to go for cheap crap.
OK, so, you’re right. Let’s be fair, though: this is capitalism. There are companies that make quality mice, and they are more expensive and don’t compete at the same scale Logitech does. If Logitech made quality mice, they’d be more expensive, and even more consumers would look at and choose cheaper mice from their competitors.
Part of this is absolutely “margins & profit.” Part is the veiled curse of online shopping: when you can’t feel and handle the product, much more of shopper decision comes down to simply price: this is the T-Shirt Effect: if two online products look identical, but one is less expensive, most people are going to opt for the less expensive one. It’s put established companies known for quality out of business, or driven their product quality down to compete. Part of it is that there are few reliable, authoritative review sources; many are barely disguised paid ads, or star-manipulation. The end sum is consumers voting with their dollars, and companies responding accordingly. Sales are down, your competitors’ are up, people are choosing products you know are cheaper crap, and so it’s obvious people prefer cheaper crap, so you make it.
It’s a lose-lose for everyone except those companies able to quickly clone reputable products, but with lower-quality components, and flood the online market with them.
Low-quality, low-cost mass manufacturing has put products in the hands of people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford them. But it’s also driven down quality, and driven waste up; the same decision process being used by low-income folks is also used by middle-class, and with nearly all shopping being online, consumers have few options for a better process.
The equation changes when you get to the wealthy, who can shop with companies who aren’t competing on volume, but reputation and margins: the Bang & Olufsens; the Breguets, and the Urban Jurgensens. People who can afford to shop with artisans shop differently, but all t-shirts look the same online.
I have no problem with buying more expensive, high quality stuff. The problem is that the higher price often simply means meaningless features instead of good durability. The mouse i am using right now cost me 150€ and i hoped it was more durable but the right click is already not working properly. Garbage.
If i could trust companies to actually put out stuff that lasts a life time i would love to have it. This however simply sounds like another move to increase the companies value for its shareholders.
Clothing is a whole other matter and again as consumer it is really hard to know whether your money goes to quality or simply marketing and “good feeling”.
When everything you buy as a consumer tends to break fast they will have no real choice but to go for cheap crap.