Are audiophile products designed to initially impress then fatigue to make you upgrade?


If not why are many hardly using the systems they assembled, why are so many upgrading fairly new gear that’s fully working? Seems to me many are designed to impress reviewers, show-goers, short-term listeners, and on the sales floor but once in a home system, in the long run, they fatigue users fail to engage and make you feel something is missing so back you go with piles of cash.

128x128johnk

@johnk 

Don't you have enough conspiracy theories in your life, that you need to invent more.

What kind of business plan includes building a product that the customer will learn to hate?

 

planned obsolesce

You are mistaken.  It's not planned obsolescence (top down thinking), rather it's cost/benefit - how much time and resources does one have to invest and what are the future expected cash flows.  Companies must operate at at least break even or they're quickly out of business, this means enough profit to cover costs.  Even cost-no-object components have to be profitable remain in business. 

Companies commonly choose the price point within a market in which to compete, then a cost ceiling to target a specific profit margin.  Under this cost ceiling, compromises must be made in choosing materials, the construction methods, R&D both initial and ongoing during the life cycle of the product, etc to target creating/manufacturing the best product they can make to compete within a specific market cost segment.    Motivation is increased profitability and/or increased satisfaction in expressing knowledge/creativity/ingenuity/engineering, all accomplished through increased sales.  

Increasing quality/longevity sounds like a good thing, but with it comes costs and maybe more importantly alternatives.

The benefit of MAY result in goodwill enough to create FUTURE repeat sales enough to offset the time, effort, and resources one spends now VS using the  time, effort, and resources investing in R&D, infrastructure, etc.  Most companies choose the later as the most creative and profitable path which is the same path as remaining competitive in the market.

If people will pay for the increased cost of longevity, manufacturers will create it. 

True, manufacturers choose what and when to release new technologies often to maximize income streams, but that's not the same as creating a product then purposely build in timed obsolescence in hope of repeat sales.

It's simply supply and demand, and the seeking for higher profits and/or increased recognition for their creativity.  Cost/benefit.

 

Is this question a cynical joke? Or just being asked by a thoroughly uniformed listener without much in the way of logic or understanding of humans , music or the quest for our personal audio nirvana? Probably just a miserable soul with thoughts of conspiracies in every aspect of life. Am I getting warm?

@johnk I have noticed that the DIY crowd is the same, they just do it cheaper because they are building it themselves. The DIY forums are filled with I built this because it's better than my last build.