Yes please!

And put real tech specs on the labels. Like the pulse width modulation for induction stoves and the water and energy used for different laundry/dishwasher cycles and the mean failure time for the fridge compressor.

None of this “innovative leak-resistant glass shelves” crap.

And a diagram with the actual object dimensions, with measurements all around. I'm shopping for a bed and there's so much bullshit using the height of the headboard instead of where the mattress actually sits
- Holy shit yes.
  I had a house with very narrow basement stairs and needed a dryer. So I very diligently checked that the dryer I ordered would fit.
  Turns out there was a 3” bulge on the back they neglected to measure. Since it took them six fucking hours to find my damn house I disassembled it, carried it downstairs in parts, and reassembled it in the basement.
  Whoever tries to get that thing out will think I’m a magician.
  Oh, and a full wiring diagram.

Top-freezer refrigerators are the most efficient and the vast majority of them don’t have any smart features. Also, they’re among the cheapest refrigerators you can buy. Costco sells four of them and they’re all under $800. Most top-load washers don’t have any smart features and should last 15 years without repair. This seems like a problem where solutions already exist, it’s just that people shun them for being the cheapest option available.

This is a perfect example of people absolutely not figuring out what the problem is, and coming up with kneejerk ideas that don't actually fix problems.

The problems we all notice are not technology, they are business problems.

They are problems that relate to a lack of regulation and a lack of consumer care to ensure that companies are legally hand tied into not enshitifying the products they've already bought.

I love connected touchscreens on things. They're simple, fast, allow for navigation of much more complex options much more simply, can be updated over time, and generally look better, with no components that wear over time.

What people hate about touch screens is all about the business decisions they enable. They hate that businesses can remove features, enable ads, or spy on them.

The ideal dishwasher/washingmachine/whatever has fancy features, but does not have the influence of these shitty business decisions.

The fancy touchscreen is not only cost effective, but more convenient and less liable to fail.

I'm sure some people will have a strong kneerjerk reaction to what I've said but I encourage them to actually think about what parts of the experiences of using appliances they actually hate.

They're allowing their association of technology to awful business practices to cloud their judgment on the technology itself.

Counterpoint: maybe you're also the problem and wrong about everything

Genius idea, first you need to destroy capitalism to make it work

Your boyfriend will have many customers for about 2 years. Then no customers for 15+ years.

People say this crap and point to things like Crock-Pots while ignoring the existence of things like Kitchen-Aid Mixers, the corporate raiding behind all the actual failures of the model and,
Most tellingly
Drumroll
The existence of children among so many other things (like the fact that selling everyone in the world a fridge is still a massive win)
In other words, the only people that believe this are suckers buying consumerist lies because anything else might make them realize plastic trash will never fill the hole inside.

Yes please

Speed Queen

Yes! My cousin just bought a washer dryer set, it looks like it was built 30 years ago. All turn knobs, no bells and whistles, no "smart" technology. I'll check back in in a few decades and tell y'all how it went.

All is good except the part, where products work for 15+ years: once enough people have bought your products your profits will drop.

Yeah, appliances are a really tough place to not just make money but stay afloat. What happens when you've saturated the market with good products that won't need to be replaced for a long time? You'd end up having to charge an arm and a leg for them because you simply can't sell enough to operate. You'd still get orders of course, but at a trickle.
Idk how to fix the problem either. Part of me says government subsidies for companies with proven manufacturing records, affordable prices, and customer satisfaction? Like an incentive to not enshittify and allow those companies to stay in business? Otherwise the consumer shoulders the cost, which defeats a lot of the purpose. The point is to improve lives, and being prohibitively expensive won't work. But convincing any government to spend money like that for such intangible and long-term societal benefits instead of pure profit seems like an unrealistic proposition. Like, how do you sell peace of mind to people who already arent suffering and with no concept of true insecurity?
I've been wanting companies like the one described for a very long time, but fuck me does it seem unlikely and hard to pull off
- How about: accept that we are, like as a society, able to just not work as much? We are able supply people with a reasonable level of comfort without everyone slaving away this many hours every day. Let's just build what we need at minimum labour hours over the lifetime of the products and not worry about the products making a profit for anyone. The profit of not having to work but being able to pursue interests would be so worth it.
- This is bullshit, IMO.
  It's profitable. It's just not as profitable as being a douchebag with business decisions - like enshittification and planned obsolescence. The moment you try to to publicly fund your company, you suddenly have a fiduciary duty to your investors to maximize returns. And let's face it, appliance manufacturing has high up front costs that will likely require an IPO to satisfy your initial private investors.
  Just because you make quality appliances doesn't mean you can't make money maintaining and manufacturing parts for quality appliances.
- Charge up front for appliance disposal if they aren't independently rated for a certain amount of lifetime so you force people to pay what the actual cost is.
  I recall they do this for something, forget what. I think it was like nuclear reactors to make sure you have money set aside to decommission it safely even if you go bankrupt.
- Agree. I also want such manufacturers to exist, but life shows that anyone who tried such schemes either failed or reconfigured to a standard profit scheme. I have only seen mass produced items designed for long term usage in totalitarian countries like USSR.