From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Interesting in trying out Plan 9
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20040218114205.02bbdd98@mail.village.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402181625100.26209-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:27:17 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ebccf27a-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Wes Kussmaul wrote:

> I don't know whether Consumer Reports is international, but those of us
> in the US can check the reliability ratings of kitchen appliances. For
> products priced above the midrange there is a near-perfect inverse
> relationship between reliability and cost. My own kitchen is a living
> laboratory for this phenomenon, having been designed by a "kitchen
> consultant" to include the Sub Zero refrigerators, the Thermidor ovens,
> and other total garbage costing somewhere around Ron's 20x multiple over
> your basic reliable Kenmore. The reason is simple: if you're going to
> ship a million of something it had better work or the warranty claims
> will obliterate your earnings. But if the customer pays for it upfront,
> the warranty claim becomes another opportunity to "build a relationship"
> with the customer. Re fools/money/departure.
>
> Somebody needs to write a book about this (and let PKI Press publish it.)

Arno Penzias described it very simply at talks he gave ca. 1996. The cost
of quality is negative. Once you factor in negative cost of quality then
things start to make a lot of sense.

Of course, like everything else, you don't just say 'Me Ogg. Cost quality
negative. ' and assume that buying infinite quality will earn you money.
It's complicated. But quality, figured in as a negative cost, explains a
lot of things. Esp. in the computer biz.

ron