Ask HN: Anyone else tired of brands discontinuing your favorite everyday items?
RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
2 I assume this isn't only my problem. I've heard many stories about people not being able to buy the same shoes, T-shirt, perfume, or jacket again.
3 I understand why manufacturers do this. I have no questions for them. What matters more to me here is us — customers, or simply people. And I started wondering: what could be done to support a customer's choice for years?
4 This is where I want to bring concepts from software and hardware engineering into the clothing industry — LTS and APIs. What if we freeze the standard and support it? We already have things like SATA or CPU sockets. Why not build a similar concept for clothing? Then the API at the point of contact with the customer is divided into a physically immutable part (color, material, design) and a flexible part (logistics, ingredients). Let's start with the simplest base — a T-shirt. Why not give it LTS support? The idea is that the exact same T-shirt could be sold for 1, 5, or 20 years.
5 Where does my logic break down? What am I overlooking? Are there any similar projects? And would you become a customer of such a company?
Thanks.
Discussion (38 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
It doesn't explain why every couple of years I have another four or six pairs of yet another set of socks, from the same company, but with enough variation that now I have multiple different generations of CK socks that aren't pairable.
However, I do find promise in one aspect of your idea: an infinite archival catalogue of items-that-once-were. Then, you can link to things like, as others have mentioned, eBay listings where you can still find the "originals.'
I have a hypothesis that it's possible to make the paint independent of the supplier, so that it is the same paint every time, after 1, 5, and 20 years. We can standardize not the raw material, but the result. Using paint as an example, it's possible to create a digital color passport, and then comparing the standard with the incoming raw materials will allow us to identify the difference and compensate for it. This would make it possible to achieve a color that does not depend on the place of production or on time.
I don't know if this will work in practice. I think this kind of engineering solution could bring us closer to the idea of unchanging clothing.
What do you think?
Anyway, thinking of these ~fringe examples helps clarify my thinking on the matter: it sounds like we're basically targeting three different things:
1) The thing(s) you want. What is the finished product you're gunning after.
2) The raw materials that go into the thing(s) you want. What is the entire process ,, with , from an engineering perspective ,, all its "inputs" at different moments of the flow.
3) The actionable thing: Making a universal index of products that once were, so we can track what they are made of, and what their creation-cycle is from raw materials to assembly/assemblage. Additionally, here we can also track where you can still buy/procure/obtain them if versions/copies/prints exist today.
But realistically my friend, you are better off just buying ten or twenty pairs of your favorite shoes when they exist, because the rotating crushing automaton of production-reality that underpins all of consumerism is constantly consuming itself. How many times have I purchased a one-time-print of a hoodie or piece of merchandise that is no longer available, nor will it ever be available again? I won't go so far as to wax poetical and say that rarity is what makes things valuable, because it's not, however tightly coupled those traits might be; but cool things being one-offs and highly scenario-bound for obtaining them is actually useful information about how the universe works. Reproducibility and the urge for regularity is a logos-construct [logical, rational, reasoning intelligence] while dwelling in the felt-sense of the realm and leaning into intuition is an eros-abiding [intuition, connection, relation, significance].
So while I understand the urge for the clothing you like to never end or be discontinued, I think a more useful approach is not how do we keep the cool versions existing forever, but how do we keep more fresh, new cool versions coming unabatedly. Sources get exhausted in multiple senses of the term, I think we need to think more metaphysically about how to replenish sources on every level of the meaning of the word source.
You're in a room of software developers who keep breaking and changing everyone's "favorite everyday" workflows, every time a piece of software is changed.
Even something as dumb as changing a design language is the same thing as a brand discontinuing your favorite every day item. Why did my UX have to get ugly for no reason? Why can't I go back? people cry out.
What do we do to support peoples' choice of software over the longterm when they can't choose to 'roll back'?
Your favorite T-shirt is still available for sale. It's just got a giant black box strapped to the back of it called AI. The t-shirt companies said that's good for you so you have to wear it now.
(1) Clothing manufacturing is a lot more complicated than sockets
(2) Generally products aren't discontinued because they're popular. So what you're describing is a lot of cost, for products that a lot of people don't care about.
(3) Even if someone did write up a spec for a t-shirt—what would you do with it?
(4) The need for standards is a lot more important for things like sockets which have multiple ends, and need to ensure that both sides work consistently, than for things like a piece of clothing where there's a single wearer at a time.
One bizarre one, i find when i find some foodstuff i like, the shop will eventually discontinue it, it seems almost personal…
Sizing chaos (pudding.cool)
827 points by zdw 5 months ago | 435 comments
It's not about discontinuing items but about the industry incentives that seemingly go against logic making it impossible for most women to find fitting clothes.
Quotes:
"While there are no universal sizing standards, an organization called ASTM International regularly releases informal guidelines." "There are no regulations or universal sizing standards. Instead each brand is incentivized to make up its own. When size guides change — and they’re always changing — brands are not obligated to disclose updates."
I guess they do it to appeal to their biggest customers - people who can't resist buying way more shoes than they need. But it does seem weird for some brands that aren't exactly fashion houses, e.g. Ecco, to do it.
It must cost them a fair bit of money too. I wonder how much cheaper you could make shoes if you only designed one set and then fired all of your designers...
My solution is to just buy a few pairs when I find shoes I really like. Reduces the problem at least.
Also I've started buying Levi's jeans - really expensive but at least they have some styles that don't change.
Converse shoes also have styles that haven’t changed in decades, while convenient, they’ll usually only last me a year.
Alden has been making the same models of shoes for decades but they aren’t cheap. Assembly labor and materials make up most of the cost for producing shoes, and Alden are made in the US.
I believe the engineers and artisians who make the clothes you wear are also pushing the boundaries of fabric, patterns and cuts to feed an ever-famished audience looking for the 'next thing'.
Besides, they read the room - you no longer fit in those same sizes anymore!