This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Elessar · 26-30, M
@ShaneMckay You don't
ShaneMckay · 41-45, M
@Elessar WRONG!!! WE HAVE TO!!!
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@ShaneMckay Sadly quality comes at a price, and when it comes to mass-produced goods for domestic purchase (one of China's main export lines), for very many customers price matter, not quality.
This is even more marked when the goods have a spurious fashion element, such as "smart"-'phones or cinema-sized TVs. There is no point making a costlier instrument capable of working for two decades, save only for battery replacements, when so many buyers deem it "old-fashioned" only a year or so later.
(Then - and this is a digression - throw the still-serviceable equipment in the land-fill rubbish-bin. This combination of appalling waste of materials with possible environmental problems is behind the European Union's "Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment" Directive, which also and supports incorporates the International Standard Organisation's ISO14000-series accreditation.)
'
It's worth looking at how Japan gained so much in the automotive industry. For decades British, European and American manufacturers thought their products superior. That was reinforced when the Japanese shamelessly copied their designs but initially manufactured the vehicles to rather lower standards.
The Japanese realised their mistakes though. They refused to be complacent. Nor unlike so many Western companies, refuse to be kept behind by shareholders and accountants who did not know a micrometer from a micrometre, but demanded quick sales returns now, not future profits from long-term investment in engineering design, production and QA.
Instead they carefully analysed the weak points in the existing products they had copied, and their production methods - then spent money on correcting the weaknesses and developing more advanced, more reliable versions proudly under their own names. They developed manufacturing methods and physical working conditions well beyond those common in many big, complacent, Western firms. Further, they could sell the goods abroad more cheaply than the rivals they were overtaking.
China does not seem to be as innovative as Japan, but can and does make high-quality goods, especially if pinned down sufficiently by the Western companies giving it the manufacturing contracts. Their success though relies on relatively lower labour costs, and as anywhere you have to be prepared to pay extra for the better goods.
This is even more marked when the goods have a spurious fashion element, such as "smart"-'phones or cinema-sized TVs. There is no point making a costlier instrument capable of working for two decades, save only for battery replacements, when so many buyers deem it "old-fashioned" only a year or so later.
(Then - and this is a digression - throw the still-serviceable equipment in the land-fill rubbish-bin. This combination of appalling waste of materials with possible environmental problems is behind the European Union's "Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment" Directive, which also and supports incorporates the International Standard Organisation's ISO14000-series accreditation.)
'
It's worth looking at how Japan gained so much in the automotive industry. For decades British, European and American manufacturers thought their products superior. That was reinforced when the Japanese shamelessly copied their designs but initially manufactured the vehicles to rather lower standards.
The Japanese realised their mistakes though. They refused to be complacent. Nor unlike so many Western companies, refuse to be kept behind by shareholders and accountants who did not know a micrometer from a micrometre, but demanded quick sales returns now, not future profits from long-term investment in engineering design, production and QA.
Instead they carefully analysed the weak points in the existing products they had copied, and their production methods - then spent money on correcting the weaknesses and developing more advanced, more reliable versions proudly under their own names. They developed manufacturing methods and physical working conditions well beyond those common in many big, complacent, Western firms. Further, they could sell the goods abroad more cheaply than the rivals they were overtaking.
China does not seem to be as innovative as Japan, but can and does make high-quality goods, especially if pinned down sufficiently by the Western companies giving it the manufacturing contracts. Their success though relies on relatively lower labour costs, and as anywhere you have to be prepared to pay extra for the better goods.
ShaneMckay · 41-45, M
@ArishMell Absolutely true, through and through!