At a certain point, there's a temptation to manufacture things deliberately designed to either wear out quickly, or fall out of fashion quickly. That's especially the case with consumer electronics, but starting becoming the norm with products as simple as screwdrivers about fifty years ago. I'm still using pliers my great-grandfather used his entire life; now the same brand won't last even a month. When it comes to camera, the less electronics the better, as far as I'm concerned. Since I sold a lot of non-photo related equipment over that whole time span, and even had an attached major service center, I've seen it all up front and close. Once highly reputable manufacturers one after another got pirated by cynical CEO's and marketing MBA's looking to pad their own bank accounts as fast as possible, with no regard whatsoever to the long-term impact on either consumers or the corporation itself. That was almost a Wall Street religion in the 90's, clear up till today. The industrial equivalent of slash and burn agriculture. This being an ethics thread, I think it's OK to state that.
And the fact is, it's a lot cheaper to build an electronic gadget than a high-quality mechanical one. But there's plenty of excellent older gear still on the market, as the crowds rush toward new toys instead. Digital is a blessing in that respect, because it makes traditional cameras and lenses cheaper to buy. But in all fairness, I do have to balance this out by giving an example of how making something too good isn't necessarily wise. There's a rural fire house near here that has had the same light bulb burning out front since before World War One. That manufacturer used such solid glass and filaments that nobody needed to replace the bulbs, and they soon went out of business.
