They did not make them more reliable. They made them more affordable, which then made them disposable. It became less expensive to buy a new unit than have one repaired. Rising labor costs accelerated that transition.
- yet they also get a lower return on investment since consumers now have a cheaper upgrade path
It's the usual problem with consumerism: companies couldn't give a crap about the environment nor longer term reusability because they're ultimately far less profitable than forcing people into perpetually buying new every few years.
In this specific case, I think you're too quick to accept that trade-off. I don't remember the video drawing any such conclusion, and from memory, it seemed to slightly indicate that the older-and-more-expensive model was likely the less reliable of the pair in one or two ways (the flimsy and dangerous wire, and less importantly the dual heating elements). The new model is probably only less reliable in one way -- the outer shell is probably easier to break if you really smash it.
In general, I think it's almost always the case that compared to historical offerings, you can get an order or so drop in price, without sacrificing core lifespan. Sacrificing lifespan can be done, but for such devices, such sacrifices lead to saving an additional $10-$20 rather than $100-$200 -- those come from access to cheaper materials.
It's like buying shoes for $20 that you'll have to replace every year, instead of an $80 pair that last 10 years. It's a trap, and the goal should be to lift people out of it, rather than make an even worse $15 shoe, and so on.
The public have consistently chosen the cheaper but slightly worse option for decades of technology. This, more so than engineer skill, puts an upper constraint on reliability.
reply