XPost: sci.electronics.design, alt.home.repair
From: jeffl@cruzio.com
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:32:42 +0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:09:22 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 23:41:08 -0500, micky
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:38:40 -0800, Bob F
>>> wrote:
>>>>Is there a tiny hole in the case above that switch for usimg as paper
>>>>clip to reset the device?
>>>
>>>No, nothing like that. Like most VCRs, DVD players, DVDRs, amplifiers,
>>>One big piece of sheet metal covering the top with no holes, no writing.
>>>I wonder how it decides when to break?
>>
>>Several ways to determine when to self-destruct:
>>
>>1. Warranty timer. The timer records how many elapsed days between
>>when power was first applied and the current date. When the timer
>>shows 110% of the warranty period, it declares a fault or failure. The
>>extra 10% is to deal with errors in the timer.
>>
>>2. Predicted use. The "chip" in many inkjet printer cartridges is a
>>good example. The manufacturer decrees that the inkjet cartridge
>>should last 1,000 pages. When the chip counts 1,001 printed pages, it
>>ceases printing and produces a difficult to decode error message. It's
>>much the same with laser toner carts and drums. With older iPhone
>>batteries, the clock was slowed down to simulate the effects of an
>>aging battery.
>>
>>3. Predictive QA. Estimating the length of time a product and its
>>individual components might last is calculated by the QA department.
>>If a component survives longer than the approved warranty period, the
>>component is subjected to a "cost reduction", which reduces the
>>component lifetime, quality and cost. If this ritual is performed
>>often enough, all the components in the product will fail almost
>>simultaneously.
>>
>>The actual length of time or number of operations before
>>self-destruction is set by the manufactory marketing department.
>
>Any companies we might have heard of been found out doing this, Jeff?
Yes. I've had the displeasure of attending a few design reviews,
which were mostly cost reduction exercises. Only suggestions which
lowered costs were considered acceptable. Please don't be overly
judgmental. Missing a cost target could result in the loss of a bid,
having a volume buyer switch to another vendor, or a blood red loss
appearing on the bottom line of the annual report.
I assume you want me to provide a list of companies who had implement
cost reductions based on QA statistics. Sorry, but I'm not thrilled
with idea of disclosing the names my clients and their activities on
Usenet.
Most of the company I've worked for have done something similar.
Substituting inferior parts doesn't require QA statistics. Some
companies will gladly substitute cheaper parts if that improve the
bottom line. QA will usually fight such downgrades if only for show.
They know their jobs might be at risk without the cost cutting.
After such downgrades were implemented, they sometimes hire me as a
consultant to "fix the problems but don't change anything". Sometimes
I give up in disgust or suggest they replace the inferior parts with
the original parts. What they really want me to do is give up. Then,
management declares that because I couldn't fix the problems, the junk
parts must be the best that can be found for the intended purpose.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
