Talk:Durable good/Archives/2012

Requested move
Durable Good → Durable good following naming conventions. Gazpacho 21:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support move to make inline linking easier and for consistancy. Jonathunder 14:28, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 17:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Optimal Durability
The idea that producers have an option to choose how durable to make their product is pretty relevant to this topic. Could someone who knows more about that than I add something about the concept?129.81.127.218 (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Waste minimisation"
This article is about the economic meaning of the term "durable good", the section entitled "Waste minimisation" seems to be a pro-environmental POV rant about general durability of products. In my eyes this is totally inappropriate for this article. Martin 09:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The term 'durable good' is not just relevant to the consumption of an economy to which you refer, it's used in other economic contexts. It is inherently POV to focus this article on one area of economics and not give equal space to any other. The way in which goods are made has implications for waste minimisation and the text goes some way toward explaining those implications.
 * It's also slightly counterproductive to refer to this text as an "pro-environmental rant", it's bound to be environmental as it involves discussion of the extent to which reduction in consumption of goods through increased product durability, can have on reducing environmental impacts. The text doesn't actually go very far, alot more could be added. Supposed 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't think "Waste minimisation" has anything to do with the term durable good, I could understand a section on the concept of the durability of goods, and that could happily branch out into the topics you've covered (how this affects environment etc.), but I think it is approached from the wrong direction at the moment. Martin 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the "waste minimisation" section is largely redundant with the wikipedia article titled "waste minimisation" that the title of the section actually links to. It should be removed, after someone checks to see if there is anything in there that is not in the full "wm" article. - Steve, 28 Nov 2006

Economics of Durable Goods
part of the importance of durable goods is also their importance in measuring cosumer trends. The idea being that durable goods are more expensive than basic consumer/retail items, and thus if durable goods increases a lot, it is a good forward looking sign for the economy. But of course that economic observation comes with the coveat that there are some durable goods (boeing airplanes and expensive cars) might really through the statistic around.

i think a bit of discussion on this point might be wise for this article.Mynameiscurtis

minor edit
replaced a rubber band with sticky tape as a non durable good. just made more sence to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.81.109 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Suggestion for creating a disambiguation page for "Soft Goods," which currently redirects to "Durable Good." Soft goods in theatre refer to curtain systems. Respective article located here: Theater drapes and stage curtains Mstephen7 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Information seems wrong
According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/soft+goods and people familiar with the retail industry, soft good typically refer to clothing and textile, where specifications and direct comparison between goods is difficult to come by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JameyBM (talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phones are not necessarily durable goods
I'm guessing the economics text refers to the brick phones of decades ago, not to modern cell phones. Cell phones are designed for lots of features and low manufacturing cost, not durability. The RF power output amplifier of a cell phone wears out, in some cases rather quickly (months or years). On a well made (and expensive) cell phone, this amplifier would be a separate Gallium Arsenide chip, using the exotic and expensive process for high efficiency with large design margins. On a cheaper phone, this is amplifier is part of a large CMOS chip. Achieving similar efficiency with the slower process reduces design margins. As a result, when the phone sends a registration request to a hard-to-reach cell tower (driving on remote roads in hills, say), it pumps up the output power to make contact, which can stress the CMOS output transistors until they get leaky. The phone still works, but drains the battery faster, even when it is not actively being used for a call. This wear-out mechanism is common, and tricks some users into blaming a worn-out battery rather than the decaying phone. Which means the user buys a replacement battery (more revenue for the manufacturer) then a replacement phone (also more revenue for the manufacturer). Some consumer education, and better specifications (construction details, not just a feature list) would result in demand for durable cell phones. Don't hold your breath. KeithLofstrom (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)