I find it meaningful that all items (currently) displayed at https://www.buyforlife.com/ are typical outdoor use, high-quality, representative for a certain kind of living.
This kind of living has pros and cons, but I guess not everybody wants to live like that. For instance, some people would prefer to have some shitty but portable kitchenware instead of expensive, bulky and representative "professional" units.
This is a bit of "urban" lifestyle against "suburbia" lifestyle, or "downshifter" lifestyle, or "countryside" lifestyle.
For instance, I am a bit aware of the "zero waste" community. These people would probably buy a single macbook (because it is stylish and looks as if you had taste, not neccessarily because it is high quality), but no kitchen device at all, because such devices express the "wrong" style of life. Similar arguments could probably be made about some certain kind of hacker culture. People buying hoodies and thinkpads because it is "in vogue".
This is probably the main reason why just another review page won't take off: The products are not "in vogue".
Just my two cents. Very emotional, not objective at all.
You pinpointed what I’ve been feeling. There are things I want to buy for life. Things like (most) tools, camping equipment, or things I don’t expect to improve over time. But there is a large number of products that I don’t plan to hold onto because they are imperfect either because state of the art hasn’t advanced enough or because I can’t afford the better version yet. For example:
Boots. I can afford the boots I can afford today and I like them. But I am sure that 10 years from now I’ll be able to afford better ones.
Coffee mugs. I currently sport a Yeti that will likely last me at least 50 years. But I also expect that better coffee mugs will come.
Smart watch and mobile phone and laptop. No matter what, Moore’s law will catch up with you. And developers dislike worrying about running software on old hardware.
Clothing. Yes I know, but I do to an extent care about how I look and showing up somewhere in pleated pants and a plaid suit today because you bought it 30 years ago and it’s still holding up isn’t something I can pull off.
Vehicles. Yes, even your Tesla will become obsolete. There will be one that will be a no brainer upgrade.
This isn’t to say that I want to buy junk. But a $6 T shirt lasts me about two years and a $60 T shirt will need to last me more than 20 to make it worth it. In the mean time my body might change, my tastes might change, and styles might change. Timeless styles are a thing but when you spill red wine on it and can’t get the stain out four years in, who is your next move?
That better last more than 40 years and be wholly responsible for saving my life +1 family member, wash/dry on any cycle I want, and never get chewed up by mice if I leave it on floor.
I wear merino wool t-shirts to bike to work because they don't get smelly, however, they actually wear out much faster than cheap synthetic shirts. I usually buy them on clearance/sale for $30-40. $70-120 is nuts for a t-shit. I also don't understand how that can be buy it for life anyways. Its a cloth shirt, maybe its decently made but any synthetic fabric will last longer (still not forever).
I have a couple sets of cotton t-shirts, about 5-8. Have had them for 5 years already, wear them daily and normally for 1, 2 Max before going back to the wash basket. Cost me perhaps 3€ a piece. I don’t see the need for these wonderfully expensive extravaganza...
As I said in my post, they don't get smelly so for me the $40 is worth it, they still last easily dozens of wears so the cost is minimal and I don't have deal with a sweaty smelly shirt in my bag at work. Also, I don't find a cotton shirt the most comfortable for active use.
The estimated monthly cost for that T-shirt is higher than kitchen appliances listed on the site. A mixer is rated at $2.73 per month. A fridge at $7.64/month is less expensive than two of these T-shirts. That T-shirt is clearly overpriced.
Utility of merino is not in them being super ultra durable. It is more that it is warm even when wet when you sweating and they are comfortable when exercising/hiking/whatever in bad weather conditions.
Yes. If I need a shirt that will be critical to what I’m doing, it might be worth it. Something to keep me warm in a critical situation. But I wouldn’t expect it to last me for life, just be high quality to not fail unexpectedly.
> Boots. I can afford the boots I can afford today and I like them. But I am sure that 10 years from now I’ll be able to afford better ones.
If you can get 10 years out of a pair of boots it means they were good. I've had a pair of Caterpillar boots break after 2 years. I'm happy to see a review site with a strong focus on long term ownership.
There's a lot of variation. Materials change. Stuff wears out. I have old gear and I have gear I've replaced because what I wanted wasn't available 10 years ago.
As for boot. I have custom boot that I've had for a couple decades (and have had repaired). But they're heavy and I don't wear them for everything.
We probably shouldn't take "for life" any more literally than we do the "four hour workweek". It represents an idea. You might not want your boots to last forever and may in fact decide to replace them after 6 years. But if they were sufficiently well made, then you'll get more for them when you sell them and they'll last longer for the next owner if you sell or donate them.
Without knowing much about the site or where the items came from, you might be seeing a big founder effect based on the creator's interests (and, inevitably, the biases that likely builds into their network, etc.) But these things change.
Any effort to judge product quality is going to have some skew towards more expensive products--the stakes are just higher--but I think there's a risk here of conflating style, quality, durability, and price.
Most of us have probably had at least one ~expensive product marketed on quality that broke jaw-droppingly fast. We've probably all also bought some cheap utilitarian workhorse that lasted for decades.
Some of us care a lot about style and signalling, it's true, but I don't think many of the rest actually want to own crap?
> This kind of living has pros and cons, but I guess not everybody wants to live like that.
I suspect that if you gave everyone a choice of what products they want, they would gravitate toward the better made, longer lasting ones. However those often cost considerably more for incremental improvement, or for improvements you may not need (eg massive service interval for something rarely used).
This kind of living has pros and cons, but I guess not everybody wants to live like that. For instance, some people would prefer to have some shitty but portable kitchenware instead of expensive, bulky and representative "professional" units.
This is a bit of "urban" lifestyle against "suburbia" lifestyle, or "downshifter" lifestyle, or "countryside" lifestyle.
For instance, I am a bit aware of the "zero waste" community. These people would probably buy a single macbook (because it is stylish and looks as if you had taste, not neccessarily because it is high quality), but no kitchen device at all, because such devices express the "wrong" style of life. Similar arguments could probably be made about some certain kind of hacker culture. People buying hoodies and thinkpads because it is "in vogue".
This is probably the main reason why just another review page won't take off: The products are not "in vogue".
Just my two cents. Very emotional, not objective at all.