This is exactly what happened to Lightwave (a revolutionary 3D animation software). Management refused to allow the engineers to address pressing concerns so the chief engineer left to create another company whose products modo has now eclipsed Lightwave
https://youtu.be/DiOX-D2B8LE
We put a kitchen Aid blender on our wedding list almost 4 years ago. It's costly but rock solid, near if not industrial grade. I only wish I'd bought one years ago instead of buying and disposing of cheaper brands that don't last. (Penny-wise pound foolish I was.)
When the buy-it-for-life premium is nontrivial, I try to first buy something basic and use it until it falls apart, simply to confirm that this is something I will use
After all, sometimes you'll buy a guitar then realise although you like the idea of knowing how to play, you don't much like the idea of practising. Better to figure that out with a $300 guitar than a $3000 guitar.
And hell, often cheap devices last years anyway under home use, if you know how to look after them; my $7 electric whisk and $45 electric hammer drill are still working just fine after 10 years!
(Of course, you don't want to go so cheap it becomes dangerous/difficult/underpowered and artificially makes you not use it - I've mostly had the judgement or luck to avoid that)
> When the buy-it-for-life premium is nontrivial, I try to first buy something basic and use it until it falls apart, simply to confirm that this is something I will use
Believe it was popularized by Adam Savage, re: tool purchases.
Essentially, current price segmentation means the optimal approach is buying cheapest (e.g. Harbor Freight), seeing how much you actually use it, then if you use it (or use it hard enough it breaks) buy something premium for your second purchase.
You'll save enough on all the things you don't really use to more than make up for replacement costs.
It's not just whether you use it, it's also what features you value. I gave this advice to some friends taking up skiing - it turned out the most valuable feature of a skiing jacket for me was a large number of pockets (so I didn't have to take a bag). I would never have known that if I hadn't first had a cheap jacket for a couple of seasons.
Seconded. If you're a pro or plan on using a tool a lot it makes great sense, but if you're just getting your feet wet or a dilettante then go with something cheaper until you KNOW you need something more.
Source: my collection of high end crap I never use.
Except tools may not themselves break but cheap tools can break other things. Cheap wrenches will strip hex bolts on bikes, for instance. Buy Wera hex-plus at a premium but do the job right right.
This feels like a relatively rare scenario masquerading as a common occurrence, which is part of the point.
Of people with wrenches, how many use them on engines or high-end bicycles?
And so it's relatively easy for tool companies to convince people "You know what? You may only have thought about working on an engine a few times, and have no idea where the valve cover is, but by god you're a mechanic. Not like those weekend warrior types. You deserve the good stuff. A full set of Snap-On!"
Where you get into trouble with the guitar example is going under $300 (used). A lot of the beginner instruments (think: First Act) are so poorly made they’re hard to play without having work done on them by someone who really knows what they’re doing, and sound terrible regardless. Going from $150 (new) to $550 (new) is a huge difference in quality, and even a beginner will notice.
That seems to hold for a lot of instruments—there’s a price under which the quality’s so bad it could turn off someone who might have kept playing.
Some high-end products keep their price better though. You can probably sell that $3000 guitar or guitar amp for close to what you paid for it. Extreme example is a house; luckily you can move away and get most of your money (or more!) back. What I'm basically trying to say is that for some things it makes sense to also keep the resale value in mind.
According to American Society of Mechanical Engineers one reason Germany has kept is industrial base are the Fraunhofer Institutes you will find all over the country right next to universities doing essentially free R&D in almost every area of technology for companies that might otherwise not be able to afford them. (I had a student assistant job at one such institute when I was an MSc student in Germany)
Some mods are ridiculous. The profile of one tag maintainer for example read thus (paraphrased) "X is now a mature technology and all the meaningful questions have been asked so I spend most of my time editing and deleting questions".
ALL my questions got downvoted. So I stopped asking questions under that tag.
Stock options in the UK are a near fraud. Your a ability to excercise them is contingent on an exercise window opening at the next funding round (a long time) and you lose said options on your last day of employment. Unscrupulous management trying to claw back options can force employees out.
I do not take stock options in UK companies seriously and neither should you.
Sadly this is true in my current and previous jobs.
I worked and have worked with people who know very little or do very little yet but have mastered the art of hobnobbing and have fared a lot better than yours truly who'd rather put his head down and get the work done.
> US does corporate espionage to favor domestic companies, and creating a new plane is such a big project that there's no way to miss that.
Pardon my ignorance but I thought the Chinese government was the one doing this sort of thing. Surely the US government does not engage in espionage on behalf of it's companies
