All because they optimise for short-term design over long-term function, because there's no decent negative feedback loop into consumer decision making at point-of-purchase for many minor defects (and even major ones such as the Apple butterfly keyboard disaster).
If there was a requirement for manufacturers-at-scale to display visual overviews of potential defects over time due to normal use - and with the same prominence as the marketing material:
* a laptop with stressed / broken cables
* a defective keyboard
* inputs in iPhones that appear to fail due to microscopic dust / debris accumulation
then you'd have a forcing function which addresses the information asymmetry in consumer transactions and perhaps you'd quickly see a lot more attention directed at these kind of product defects.
Of course this kind of thought-bubble regulation might be totally unworkable: how do you determine thresholds of wear and tear considering 'correct use' as considered by manufacturer vs 'real-world' use by user base. But then again doesn't good design consider the practical over the theoretical reality wrt product usage?
If there was a requirement for manufacturers-at-scale to display visual overviews of potential defects over time due to normal use - and with the same prominence as the marketing material:
* a laptop with stressed / broken cables
* a defective keyboard
* inputs in iPhones that appear to fail due to microscopic dust / debris accumulation
then you'd have a forcing function which addresses the information asymmetry in consumer transactions and perhaps you'd quickly see a lot more attention directed at these kind of product defects.
Of course this kind of thought-bubble regulation might be totally unworkable: how do you determine thresholds of wear and tear considering 'correct use' as considered by manufacturer vs 'real-world' use by user base. But then again doesn't good design consider the practical over the theoretical reality wrt product usage?