Your examples also demonstrate the risks around this design philosophy.
The risk is in that reducing everything to its minimum functionality, You will reduce too much of the functionality to a level in which the target customers no longer regard as adequate.
In the case of your coffee plunger (which is what I used to make the coffee that is on the desk in front of me) the resulting coffee does indeed taste different from an espresso machine. Additionally, of course it does not froth the milk. So if your objective is a nice fluffy latte or cappuccino. Then the coffee plunger fails in it objective.
In the case of the Tata Nano it both cost more to manufacture than the designers expected, and it's functionality was so minimalist that it was less than what the market wanted.
For only about 10% more on the purchase price the market already had available a considerably better car which sold consequently in large numbers.
Another example of this will be a computer system from my youth. There was a computer called the BBC micro, manufactured by a company called acorn. They had the great idea of doing a minimalist version of it called the electron which would be cheaper to produce use fewer materials and be cheaper to buy. But again they drop the functionality below what the market wanted, sales were so poor that it bankrupted at the company.
In the case of your door opener there's a slightly counterintuitive reason for what happened there. Givin advanced production techniques and technologies used by the manufacturer, the power door openers are cheaper to make and install than the old-fashioned manual handle and wire versions.
The feature list is another risky area for manufacturers, because many consumers played the "tick box" game where they will buy a product which has the maximum amount of boxes ticked on the marketing material displayed on its front rather than carefully considering it's functionality.
In such a market, your frugality and minimalist approach will fail you.
French Press coffee, because it doesn't go through a paper filter, is not good for your heart. Gemini: "while French press coffee offers a rich flavor, its lack of a paper filter allows diterpenes like cafestol and kahweol to remain in the brew, which can lead to increased LDL cholesterol levels, particularly with high consumption."
Sadly Gemini says espresso too: "Research suggests that espresso has an intermediate content of cafestol and kahweol compared to other brewing methods."
My car, a Prius, has button controlled windows. My last car, a Volvo, had hand crank windows. The crank for the driver’s window broke in my Volvo. I was able to fix it myself, a task I am unable to do with my Prius. I suspect that if I had to fix a window with my present car, it would cost hundreds of dollars. Thing don’t always get better.
"Ghosn applied the principles of frugal engineering and the mantra “do more with less” to produce low-cost vehicles that became hugely popular in Europe and Asia."
Now, do the proper investigation and see how much government regulations have added to the price of cars here in North America.
Add to that that from a practical standpoint, there is little that the ordinary person can do about them and their associated costs. Why?
Because they are, for the most part, written and enforced by unelected, unaccountable, and unassailable bureaucrats who almost always believe that if some are good, even more is delight to behold. There is very little downside risk to them adding more and more "good for you features" no matter the cost (or, the actual benefits they purport to "give" you).
Your examples also demonstrate the risks around this design philosophy.
The risk is in that reducing everything to its minimum functionality, You will reduce too much of the functionality to a level in which the target customers no longer regard as adequate.
In the case of your coffee plunger (which is what I used to make the coffee that is on the desk in front of me) the resulting coffee does indeed taste different from an espresso machine. Additionally, of course it does not froth the milk. So if your objective is a nice fluffy latte or cappuccino. Then the coffee plunger fails in it objective.
In the case of the Tata Nano it both cost more to manufacture than the designers expected, and it's functionality was so minimalist that it was less than what the market wanted.
For only about 10% more on the purchase price the market already had available a considerably better car which sold consequently in large numbers.
Another example of this will be a computer system from my youth. There was a computer called the BBC micro, manufactured by a company called acorn. They had the great idea of doing a minimalist version of it called the electron which would be cheaper to produce use fewer materials and be cheaper to buy. But again they drop the functionality below what the market wanted, sales were so poor that it bankrupted at the company.
In the case of your door opener there's a slightly counterintuitive reason for what happened there. Givin advanced production techniques and technologies used by the manufacturer, the power door openers are cheaper to make and install than the old-fashioned manual handle and wire versions.
The feature list is another risky area for manufacturers, because many consumers played the "tick box" game where they will buy a product which has the maximum amount of boxes ticked on the marketing material displayed on its front rather than carefully considering it's functionality.
In such a market, your frugality and minimalist approach will fail you.
French Press coffee, because it doesn't go through a paper filter, is not good for your heart. Gemini: "while French press coffee offers a rich flavor, its lack of a paper filter allows diterpenes like cafestol and kahweol to remain in the brew, which can lead to increased LDL cholesterol levels, particularly with high consumption."
Sadly Gemini says espresso too: "Research suggests that espresso has an intermediate content of cafestol and kahweol compared to other brewing methods."
I am sorry about this.
My car, a Prius, has button controlled windows. My last car, a Volvo, had hand crank windows. The crank for the driver’s window broke in my Volvo. I was able to fix it myself, a task I am unable to do with my Prius. I suspect that if I had to fix a window with my present car, it would cost hundreds of dollars. Thing don’t always get better.
"Ghosn applied the principles of frugal engineering and the mantra “do more with less” to produce low-cost vehicles that became hugely popular in Europe and Asia."
Now, do the proper investigation and see how much government regulations have added to the price of cars here in North America.
Add to that that from a practical standpoint, there is little that the ordinary person can do about them and their associated costs. Why?
Because they are, for the most part, written and enforced by unelected, unaccountable, and unassailable bureaucrats who almost always believe that if some are good, even more is delight to behold. There is very little downside risk to them adding more and more "good for you features" no matter the cost (or, the actual benefits they purport to "give" you).