In this specific case, I think you're too quick to accept that trade-off. I don't remember the video drawing any such conclusion, and from memory, it seemed to slightly indicate that the older-and-more-expensive model was likely the less reliable of the pair in one or two ways (the flimsy and dangerous wire, and less importantly the dual heating elements). The new model is probably only less reliable in one way -- the outer shell is probably easier to break if you really smash it.
In general, I think it's almost always the case that compared to historical offerings, you can get an order or so drop in price, without sacrificing core lifespan. Sacrificing lifespan can be done, but for such devices, such sacrifices lead to saving an additional $10-$20 rather than $100-$200 -- those come from access to cheaper materials.
It's like buying shoes for $20 that you'll have to replace every year, instead of an $80 pair that last 10 years. It's a trap, and the goal should be to lift people out of it, rather than make an even worse $15 shoe, and so on.
The new one, using 2 heating elements, burns your coffee if you leave it because the heater needs to be warm enough to actually make the coffee two and it takes literally twice as long to make the exact same coffee.
Maybe people wouldn't use Kurig if they could still make their cup of coffee in 5 minutes instead of 10.
The old one is the one with 2 elements — the new one has only 1. The bad taste from the hot plate is mostly a function of using the hot plate, rather than a specific temperature difference from old to new — he recommends not using the hot plate at all in either version, and just letting it get cold, and microwaving your next cup on demand. I think you’re mixing up his discussion of water temperature leaving the bubble pump.
But that doesn't always work. I've wondered if coffee residues in the carafe contaminate the water (when the carafe is used to fill the water reservoir) and could get baked on to the surface of the heating tube.
In general, I think it's almost always the case that compared to historical offerings, you can get an order or so drop in price, without sacrificing core lifespan. Sacrificing lifespan can be done, but for such devices, such sacrifices lead to saving an additional $10-$20 rather than $100-$200 -- those come from access to cheaper materials.
It's like buying shoes for $20 that you'll have to replace every year, instead of an $80 pair that last 10 years. It's a trap, and the goal should be to lift people out of it, rather than make an even worse $15 shoe, and so on.