Like They Used to Make It

Is 1–2% a reasonable parts assumption?

It is a useful sensitivity range, not a measured industry average. We start at 1.5% of the machine’s original, base-year price per active machine-year: $6 on a $400 brewer, before inflation. Think of this as an expected average across a fleet, not a bill every owner pays each year. Published Moccamaster parts include a $22.50 brew basket, a $24 outlet arm and $35–40 glass carafes. Those prices establish scale, not how often parts fail. No reliable annual purchase rate was established for this model.

The model applies the same starting percentage to conventional machines ($1.20 on an $80 machine) so the comparison does not quietly give the durable maker an exclusive aftermarket. Separate rates, manufacturer capture and parts margin are editable. The 50% margin and 100% capture defaults are illustrative, not Moccamaster economics. Paper filters, coffee, descaler and repair labor are excluded from the default component rate. If you add them, use only incremental spending the manufacturer actually captures, net of its associated cost.

Can repair become a business instead of a replacement?

Yes, it can be offered: Moccamaster lists eligible out-of-warranty repairs at $99 including parts, labor and shipping both ways. That demonstrates a repair channel, not its profitability or customer take-up. Our model’s parts margin covers variable fulfillment cost; the separate annual service expense remains a cost. Do not count the same repair twice.

Does inflation change the answer?

Future purchases and costs are inflated from the base year, including overhead, service, capital spending and replacement components. Retained cash earns no interest. “Today’s purchasing power” divides the actual nominal closing balance by that year’s price index; it does not simply add deflated annual profits. The 2% default is a scenario anchored loosely to the Federal Reserve’s PCE inflation goal, not a forecast of appliance prices. The optional discounted cash-flow view answers a different question and is not a bank balance.

Are old products necessarily better?

Stories about a decades-old appliance are not a failure-rate study. Surviving old machines are a selected sample, and newer products can use less energy: the Department of Energy reports that clothes washers use 70% less energy than in 1990. The FTC has also documented concerns about repair restrictions, finding scant evidence for many manufacturers’ justifications. Neither source proves that every modern product is deliberately designed to fail.

What about second owners and fewer households?

Replacing your own appliance is not the same as destroying it. The reuse control lets working machines find another household after a household exits. Household demand is not population: the UN’s 2024 projection has global population growing into the mid-2080s. The model’s household formation and exit assumptions are scenarios, not a claim that the world is already shrinking. Saturation can happen while households still grow.