EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products(eubusiness.com)
eubusiness.com
EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/durable-products.47bf
239 comments
How does regulation solve the issue that replacing e.g. the touch screen may take many man hours of labor, whereas making the car itself took proportionally less, thus making replacements more expensive? Your experience is a symptom of a high degree of automation in one area (car manufacturing) and the absence in another (repairs), and regulation does not change that.
This is the fundamental issue, yes. Some thoughts:
A large part of the discrepancy is not automation, but cheap labour in the East where many of our products are made. Regulation can help redress than inequality.
Repair is so expensive because it's made to be. It shouldn't take several hours of skilled labour to replace an easily broken component like a touchscreen - it should be snap-in. Regulation can address that by mandating reparability.
It's also worth thinking about why we consider replacement being cheaper than repair to be a problem at all - if you trust the market, what's so horrible about that? Real time saver right?
Answer: the price of new goods does not reflect their full environmental and social cost. The switch in your toaster breaks - you buy a new one for a fiver instead of repairing the switch. The old one goes in a landfill. A quantity of non-renewable resources like oil and metal are used up; a the increased demand for these things contributes to the deaths of miners, and people who live near the factories and refineries. Fuel is burned to deliver the new toaster to you, and the Earth's temperature goes up a teeny-tiny fraction. None of these things are included in the price. Regulation can help that too.
A large part of the discrepancy is not automation, but cheap labour in the East where many of our products are made. Regulation can help redress than inequality.
Repair is so expensive because it's made to be. It shouldn't take several hours of skilled labour to replace an easily broken component like a touchscreen - it should be snap-in. Regulation can address that by mandating reparability.
It's also worth thinking about why we consider replacement being cheaper than repair to be a problem at all - if you trust the market, what's so horrible about that? Real time saver right?
Answer: the price of new goods does not reflect their full environmental and social cost. The switch in your toaster breaks - you buy a new one for a fiver instead of repairing the switch. The old one goes in a landfill. A quantity of non-renewable resources like oil and metal are used up; a the increased demand for these things contributes to the deaths of miners, and people who live near the factories and refineries. Fuel is burned to deliver the new toaster to you, and the Earth's temperature goes up a teeny-tiny fraction. None of these things are included in the price. Regulation can help that too.
> Repair is so expensive because it's made to be. It shouldn't take several hours of skilled labour to replace an easily broken component like a touchscreen - it should be snap-in. Regulation can address that by mandating reparability.
Which can increase the original cost of the good.
Which can increase the original cost of the good.
When the original cost of the good is so expensive as to significantly prohibit replacement of broken/defective parts, is the good really all that... good?
Watch this video of a crash test between a 1959 Chevy and a 2009 Chevy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
The '59 Chevy gets 13.5 miles per gallon. [1] The '09 Chevy gets 25. [2]
Yes, modern cars are more difficult to maintain than older cars -- they require more specialized equipment to maintain, parts are more difficult to replace, so on and so forth. Modern cars are also incredibly more fuel efficient and safer to ride in, and much of that is enabled by the same engineering efforts that make cars more difficult to maintain.
1) http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/chevrolet_usa/full-si...
2) https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/25483.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
The '59 Chevy gets 13.5 miles per gallon. [1] The '09 Chevy gets 25. [2]
Yes, modern cars are more difficult to maintain than older cars -- they require more specialized equipment to maintain, parts are more difficult to replace, so on and so forth. Modern cars are also incredibly more fuel efficient and safer to ride in, and much of that is enabled by the same engineering efforts that make cars more difficult to maintain.
1) http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/chevrolet_usa/full-si...
2) https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/25483.shtml
The argument is more like 'soldered RAM' versus 'user replaceable RAM'.
Which is done because solder is thinner/lighter than sockets, and therefore you can get a thinner/lighter laptop. There are real engineering tradeoffs all over the place here that are being elided over in order to make "things should be easier/cheaper to repair" seem obvious rather than a complicated set of tradeoffs.
You shifted the argument (which nobody was making) to being "modern is better" using your car example. I'm bringing it back to user-serviceable is _better_.
>Which is done because solder is thinner/lighter than sockets, and therefore you can get a thinner/lighter laptop.
So let them figure out another way to make it thinner/lighter. I don't want them to do it at the expense of upgrading common parts. We're not asking for every single chip to be replaceable. Just the obvious parts that have an established 10+ year history of being serviceable. I bet welding every single part on a car makes it lighter too, but I don't think people want to replace the entire car if their fuel pump breaks.
>There are real engineering tradeoffs all over the place here that are being elided
Huh? You switched from purely cosmetic factors - thinner/lighter, to engineering. You will have to explain that one to me...
>Which is done because solder is thinner/lighter than sockets, and therefore you can get a thinner/lighter laptop.
So let them figure out another way to make it thinner/lighter. I don't want them to do it at the expense of upgrading common parts. We're not asking for every single chip to be replaceable. Just the obvious parts that have an established 10+ year history of being serviceable. I bet welding every single part on a car makes it lighter too, but I don't think people want to replace the entire car if their fuel pump breaks.
>There are real engineering tradeoffs all over the place here that are being elided
Huh? You switched from purely cosmetic factors - thinner/lighter, to engineering. You will have to explain that one to me...
Thinner and lighter are not purely cosmetic (although I think Apple overvalues them) -- laptops are meant to be carried and therefore being smaller/lighter are actual benefits. Even if they were purely cosmetic, however, there is actual engineering required to do them. The laws of the universe don't go, oh, you only want to make a cosmetic change, therefore you can get X into this space/thermal profile without any other tradeoffs.
User-serviceable parts are better, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal. You're trying to mandate tradeoffs for everyone else, and I don't think you understand everyone else's tradeoffs well enough to do that.
User-serviceable parts are better, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal. You're trying to mandate tradeoffs for everyone else, and I don't think you understand everyone else's tradeoffs well enough to do that.
I think at some point you're going to have to present an argument that user-serviceable RAM makes a perceptible difference in making the laptop thin/light going forward. Several assumptions - The RAM itself can't shrink or be made to be more energy efficient, or socket design is static, can be challenged. However a manufacturer without a mandate/incentive will probably never invest their efforts to making that happen. They're going to optimize for the commercial aspect of selling the product in a way that maximizes their bottom line via market segmentation and price gouging on storage. Obviously, making money is not something that I'm against, but I simply would like to see an acceptable compromise made between making money and making it repair-friendly. Like you said, everything is a trade-off.
You want me to present an argument that stuff that doesn't exist isn't better than stuff that exists?
And "acceptable compromise" -- acceptable to who? Because the current compromise is acceptable to people who buy these laptops with soldered-on RAM. And it's not acceptable to those who buy other laptops that don't have soldered RAM. The compromise has been accepted by the market. "Well, the market got it wrong and should do it better," you might think. Sure, okay, but history is rife with examples of people telling markets to do things better and things not getting better, and it's helpful to think about why markets haven't gotten to better on their own.
And "acceptable compromise" -- acceptable to who? Because the current compromise is acceptable to people who buy these laptops with soldered-on RAM. And it's not acceptable to those who buy other laptops that don't have soldered RAM. The compromise has been accepted by the market. "Well, the market got it wrong and should do it better," you might think. Sure, okay, but history is rife with examples of people telling markets to do things better and things not getting better, and it's helpful to think about why markets haven't gotten to better on their own.
Introducing a constraint like this, however, motivates the manufacturers to innovate making user-replaceable parts better instead of discarding the entire concept just because they can.
Re-soldering a chip is pretty easy. Being able to buy that chip in one-off quantities is sometimes next to impossible.
As does any regulation. That does not mean the regulation is bad. I wouldn't regulate this issue with specific rules, just put a cost on waste. Each company would need to deal with the product waste in an environmetally safe way. If they can essentially recycle the replaced products into new ones, then I have no problem with that. But if it ends up as waste, then there should be a price on that. I wonder how much would this motivate companies to make repairable products.
Isn't that how RoHS already works?
RoHS is a limit on toxic chemical concentrations in materials used for electrical equipment to limit environmental and public exposure to a few egregiously toxic compounds (i.e., the solder in a radio can have a maximum of 1000 ppm of lead, but no more). You're probably thinking of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive which is the one that set recycling goals for electronic waste.
> Which can increase the original cost of the good.
... to better reflect it's real cost by including all the otherwise externalized costs.
... to better reflect it's real cost by including all the otherwise externalized costs.
To cross subsidize some kind of use, raising the cost for people that won't have the product broken.
I'm not saying that it's a net loss, nor that even if a net loss that it isn't worth it. But there is a cost there, and you are shoving it away on your quest to regulation instead of looking at it and deciding its worth.
I'm not saying that it's a net loss, nor that even if a net loss that it isn't worth it. But there is a cost there, and you are shoving it away on your quest to regulation instead of looking at it and deciding its worth.
No, you're assuming the regulation is an end in itself and coming to a tautological. Regulation is essentially saying 'wait, let's factor in these unaccounted-for-but-predictable costs (like repairability)' and you're saying 'but what about the costs of assessing the costs?!'.
Yeah, incorporating some product standards is going to raise the cost of all units sold, which represents a loss to the buyer who hoped to get the product at the cheapest possible price and was either willing to take perfect care of it or tolerate it not being fully repairable if it were broken. But that's OK, because when regulating something the most important person to consider is the median user, noth the clumsiest/unluckiest nor the most skilled/luckiest.
If the median user buys a car expecting to drive it for 5 years, and there's a >50% chance that it will suffer some damage to some major functional component during that time, it would be pretty inefficient for said damage to cost more to fix than the cost of replacing the whole car, unless cars were to become so cheap that it was actually cheaper and better to scrap them - perhaps thanks to some breakthrough in large-scale 3d printing technology or so.
That's what happened with computer keyboards; it used to be that they were fairly expensive and if someone spilled coffee into one it was worth dismantling, cleaning, and re-assembling, but then cheap membrane keyboards assembled with increasing levels of automation brought the price down faster and faster, and today you can get a PC keyboard for something ridiculous like $10. A few fetishists still pay out for old-style IBM Model M, but most people will just replace a damaged keyboard.
But while cars remain relatively expensive and hard to dispose of, it makes sense to minimize the economic losses stemming for a lack of modularity and repairability across the market as a whole, rather than seeking to minimize the costs for the stingiest buyer.
Yeah, incorporating some product standards is going to raise the cost of all units sold, which represents a loss to the buyer who hoped to get the product at the cheapest possible price and was either willing to take perfect care of it or tolerate it not being fully repairable if it were broken. But that's OK, because when regulating something the most important person to consider is the median user, noth the clumsiest/unluckiest nor the most skilled/luckiest.
If the median user buys a car expecting to drive it for 5 years, and there's a >50% chance that it will suffer some damage to some major functional component during that time, it would be pretty inefficient for said damage to cost more to fix than the cost of replacing the whole car, unless cars were to become so cheap that it was actually cheaper and better to scrap them - perhaps thanks to some breakthrough in large-scale 3d printing technology or so.
That's what happened with computer keyboards; it used to be that they were fairly expensive and if someone spilled coffee into one it was worth dismantling, cleaning, and re-assembling, but then cheap membrane keyboards assembled with increasing levels of automation brought the price down faster and faster, and today you can get a PC keyboard for something ridiculous like $10. A few fetishists still pay out for old-style IBM Model M, but most people will just replace a damaged keyboard.
But while cars remain relatively expensive and hard to dispose of, it makes sense to minimize the economic losses stemming for a lack of modularity and repairability across the market as a whole, rather than seeking to minimize the costs for the stingiest buyer.
> and there's a >50% chance that it will suffer some damage to some major functional component
What if the chance is actually 1%? What if the cost of repairing it is bigger than a new car? What if, as you said, cars got cheaper, but not so cheap to be disposable? What if making if repairable has the side effect of making it less durable?
Just nobody upthread is asking any of those questions. It's not circular, it's a plain old and boring cost vs. benefit assessment to be done over government intervention.
What if the chance is actually 1%? What if the cost of repairing it is bigger than a new car? What if, as you said, cars got cheaper, but not so cheap to be disposable? What if making if repairable has the side effect of making it less durable?
Just nobody upthread is asking any of those questions. It's not circular, it's a plain old and boring cost vs. benefit assessment to be done over government intervention.
Why don't you make a positive claim of your own in competition with the existing regulatory one? Obviously I'm using simple numbers to sketch a simple conceptual example. If you consider the burden if regulation to be so onerous, quantify that.
A lot of people use their computer keyboard more than any other single object they don't sleep on. There's finally (thank you Cherry MX) a supply meeting the presumably pent-up demand for decent keyboards. I hated those membrane things, and you could get them for under $10 as far back as 2003. These days you can get a perfectly good _repairable_ mechanical switch keyboard for about $35.
Still though, if you pour orange juice into your keyboard and don't have the time/ability to repair it yourself, who's going to do it for under $35? I seem to remember that fixing a messed up one took 1-2 hours, but that was like >25 years ago when I was an eager whizkid and a new keyboard ran for $120 or something.
Don't give Cherry switches that much credit - they have been on the market for a very long time. They kept their keyswitches expensive to reap healthy margins, albeit from a limited market and thus they had limited economies of scale.
Competition from non-Cherry keyswitches have forced Cherry to drop prices, such that nearly identical keyboards from 2008 now cost a quarter as much. Cherry was valuable for proving the technology in the premium market, and Cherry's competitors were valuable in bringing the prices down and driving economies of scale to make mechanical keyboards basically a "no brainer" purchase now.
Competition from non-Cherry keyswitches have forced Cherry to drop prices, such that nearly identical keyboards from 2008 now cost a quarter as much. Cherry was valuable for proving the technology in the premium market, and Cherry's competitors were valuable in bringing the prices down and driving economies of scale to make mechanical keyboards basically a "no brainer" purchase now.
Or, maybe we are looking at it and deciding it is worth it.
> all the otherwise externalized costs.
What is the externality here? Trash left over when the product is discarded?
Regulating the manufacturer is a classic progressive roundabout way of not regulating the externality directly. Instead, perhaps a better solution would be regulating the amount of wasted resources / complexity to recycling, such that the consumer is made very aware of the environmental impact of a product that is no longer in use.
And if the consumer was truly bearing a non-environmental burden for cheap stuff that is hard to fix and breaks easily, they would keep name-brand businesses with durable products in business (and indeed, they do).
What is the externality here? Trash left over when the product is discarded?
Regulating the manufacturer is a classic progressive roundabout way of not regulating the externality directly. Instead, perhaps a better solution would be regulating the amount of wasted resources / complexity to recycling, such that the consumer is made very aware of the environmental impact of a product that is no longer in use.
And if the consumer was truly bearing a non-environmental burden for cheap stuff that is hard to fix and breaks easily, they would keep name-brand businesses with durable products in business (and indeed, they do).
The cost will go up only a little. The price though...
You've made some thoughtful points, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.
In short, repairability is too nebulous of a target for effective regulation. I think the appropriate angle for government intervention is to protect a "right to repair".
> A large part of the discrepancy is not automation, but cheap labour in the East where many of our products are made. Regulation can help redress than inequality...Regulation can address that by mandating reparability.
There are a number of ways to tackle this issue:
* reduce the regulatory and tax burden faced by small repair shops. Increased competition and lower overhead costs will drive down prices.
* reduce the regulations that impact the product design. Engineering is the result of navigating difficult trade-offs; the more aspects of a design we try to "fix", especially through political processes, the more complex the end result will be.
* broaden access to repair knowledge and tools. You don't even need regulatory changes for this one; It's an excellent opportunity for entrepreneurs. Part of the reason older cars are so easy to repair is that the tools and knowledge have become widespread thanks to third-party businesses that have found a way to supply those things cheaply and profitably. YouTube is a DIYer's dream.
> It's also worth thinking about why we consider replacement being cheaper than repair to be a problem at all - if you trust the market, what's so horrible about that? Real time saver right?
Sometimes it's not a problem. Is it better to use a paper towel is biodegradable and produced through sustainable tree-farming, or use a reusable cloth towel that increases demand for environmentally unfriendly washing machines and laundry detergent (and spend money on sewing machines and thread to repair holes)?
> the price of new goods does not reflect their full environmental and social cost
Nor would they with heavy regulation, because the "full environmental and social cost" is incalculable. Furthermore, there is no attempt to measure the costs imposed by the regulations and the net benefits provided (if any).
In short, repairability is too nebulous of a target for effective regulation. I think the appropriate angle for government intervention is to protect a "right to repair".
> A large part of the discrepancy is not automation, but cheap labour in the East where many of our products are made. Regulation can help redress than inequality...Regulation can address that by mandating reparability.
There are a number of ways to tackle this issue:
* reduce the regulatory and tax burden faced by small repair shops. Increased competition and lower overhead costs will drive down prices.
* reduce the regulations that impact the product design. Engineering is the result of navigating difficult trade-offs; the more aspects of a design we try to "fix", especially through political processes, the more complex the end result will be.
* broaden access to repair knowledge and tools. You don't even need regulatory changes for this one; It's an excellent opportunity for entrepreneurs. Part of the reason older cars are so easy to repair is that the tools and knowledge have become widespread thanks to third-party businesses that have found a way to supply those things cheaply and profitably. YouTube is a DIYer's dream.
> It's also worth thinking about why we consider replacement being cheaper than repair to be a problem at all - if you trust the market, what's so horrible about that? Real time saver right?
Sometimes it's not a problem. Is it better to use a paper towel is biodegradable and produced through sustainable tree-farming, or use a reusable cloth towel that increases demand for environmentally unfriendly washing machines and laundry detergent (and spend money on sewing machines and thread to repair holes)?
> the price of new goods does not reflect their full environmental and social cost
Nor would they with heavy regulation, because the "full environmental and social cost" is incalculable. Furthermore, there is no attempt to measure the costs imposed by the regulations and the net benefits provided (if any).
reduce the regulatory and tax burden faced by small repair shops. Increased competition and lower overhead costs will drive down prices.
I think manufacturer hostility to third party repairers is a much bigger burden than state-imposed overhead. It's not like all manufacturers are super-open and eager to share the schematics of their products with hackers, is it?
I think manufacturer hostility to third party repairers is a much bigger burden than state-imposed overhead. It's not like all manufacturers are super-open and eager to share the schematics of their products with hackers, is it?
Whether manufacturer hostility is in fact bigger than state-imposed burdens, I agree it is a significant factor. I thought about elaborating this point with my comment about "right to repair" but left it out for the sake of brevity.
I think an aspect of this "right to repair" would be the ability to seek legal action against manufacturers who deliberately interfere with this right.
However, the relationship between repair shops and manufacturers need not be hostile. I don't know the stats for this, but would it not be reasonable to think that many people purchase cars based on the recommendation of a trusted mechanic? I certainly do. Mechanics are generally going to recommend vehicles that are either easy to work on or aren't in the shop often (or both).
I think an aspect of this "right to repair" would be the ability to seek legal action against manufacturers who deliberately interfere with this right.
However, the relationship between repair shops and manufacturers need not be hostile. I don't know the stats for this, but would it not be reasonable to think that many people purchase cars based on the recommendation of a trusted mechanic? I certainly do. Mechanics are generally going to recommend vehicles that are either easy to work on or aren't in the shop often (or both).
> Is it better to use a paper towel is biodegradable and produced through sustainable tree-farming, or use a reusable cloth towel that increases demand for environmentally unfriendly washing machines and laundry detergent (and spend money on sewing machines and thread to repair holes)?
If someone has gone to the effort to buy responsibly sourced paper towels, I think they would also own responsibly sourcfed and environmentally friendly detergent. And of course the cloth would usually be washed with other items, and so not that much more water would be used. And, is thread really a cost here for home repairs?
I think the more realistic version of your scenario is:
"Is it better to use a non-biodegradable paper towel which was not sustainably produced, or to use a resusable cloth which needs to be thrown in with the other laundry occasionally, and which after many months of use may be relegated to a toolkit grease-towel, or thrown out and replaced?"
Lastly -- the OP may have been over-specific in talking about "full environmental and social cost", but there is plenty of room to move from where we are now to "enough social costs so that poor people don't leave near factories which give them asthma and lower their life expectancy, and to mitigate the effects of human-caused global warming."
If someone has gone to the effort to buy responsibly sourced paper towels, I think they would also own responsibly sourcfed and environmentally friendly detergent. And of course the cloth would usually be washed with other items, and so not that much more water would be used. And, is thread really a cost here for home repairs?
I think the more realistic version of your scenario is:
"Is it better to use a non-biodegradable paper towel which was not sustainably produced, or to use a resusable cloth which needs to be thrown in with the other laundry occasionally, and which after many months of use may be relegated to a toolkit grease-towel, or thrown out and replaced?"
Lastly -- the OP may have been over-specific in talking about "full environmental and social cost", but there is plenty of room to move from where we are now to "enough social costs so that poor people don't leave near factories which give them asthma and lower their life expectancy, and to mitigate the effects of human-caused global warming."
> If someone has gone to the effort to buy responsibly sourced paper towels
All paper is sustainably harvested from tree-farms where the trees are grown specifically for making paper, rather than e.g. old-growth forests. It's also all (to my knowledge) biodegradable.
I'm not saying that paper towels are always the better choice. You can also look at other factors such as manufacturing costs, etc. My point was that disposability can be a positive trait.
With regard to externalities, my point is that regulations have them too. Yes, you can impose (costly) requirements on industry, but do we ask what the cost is in terms of economic growth (which is lifting many third-world people out of extreme poverty) and technological innovation (which creates greater efficiency)?
I don't wish to sound partisan. I think that dealing with externalities is tricky, and it's worth having a discussion about. However, I think regulations to deal with them are often zero-sum solutions. It's worth asking whether:
a) there is a positive-sum (generally market-based) solution
b) the conditions that created the externality are transient and will resolve in time
All paper is sustainably harvested from tree-farms where the trees are grown specifically for making paper, rather than e.g. old-growth forests. It's also all (to my knowledge) biodegradable.
I'm not saying that paper towels are always the better choice. You can also look at other factors such as manufacturing costs, etc. My point was that disposability can be a positive trait.
With regard to externalities, my point is that regulations have them too. Yes, you can impose (costly) requirements on industry, but do we ask what the cost is in terms of economic growth (which is lifting many third-world people out of extreme poverty) and technological innovation (which creates greater efficiency)?
I don't wish to sound partisan. I think that dealing with externalities is tricky, and it's worth having a discussion about. However, I think regulations to deal with them are often zero-sum solutions. It's worth asking whether:
a) there is a positive-sum (generally market-based) solution
b) the conditions that created the externality are transient and will resolve in time
What? Car radios are (or at least, were 10 years ago) easy for even a DIYer to replace with about an hour's labor. Even in modern cars with nonstandard radios they're still modular. You can take it out and replace it with a functioning one.
The GP's issue isn't that he needed a technician to take apart the radio and install a new screen, he just needed a new radio. Which was his eventual solution.
The GP's issue isn't that he needed a technician to take apart the radio and install a new screen, he just needed a new radio. Which was his eventual solution.
Add to automation in car manufacturing the logistics. The chain of supply of cars is efficient due to high volumes, predictability and competition. The chain of supply for spare parts (like radio modules) is low volume, unpredictable and does not attract competition. Thus, fixing a car radio may seem prohibitively expensive when compared to the price of the car.
If you do it yourself, it's cheaper, but the insurance company won't pay for it.
If you do it yourself, it's cheaper, but the insurance company won't pay for it.
> Thus, fixing a car radio may seem prohibitively expensive when compared to the price of the car.
It's very easy to add together a few repairs which sum to more than the value of the car. If you wanted to get a new car from scratch by ordering the individual components and having your dealership put them together, it would have to be at least 10x more expensive than buying one produced at scale.
> If you do it yourself, it's cheaper, but the insurance company won't pay for it.
On the one hand, you have the value of your time in your skill area, versus mucking about with a radio. On the other, you have the overhead and inefficiency of a huge dealer/insurance system. Somewhere in the middle is your local mechanic :) Find a good one and make friends - you don't have to go to the dealership!
It's very easy to add together a few repairs which sum to more than the value of the car. If you wanted to get a new car from scratch by ordering the individual components and having your dealership put them together, it would have to be at least 10x more expensive than buying one produced at scale.
> If you do it yourself, it's cheaper, but the insurance company won't pay for it.
On the one hand, you have the value of your time in your skill area, versus mucking about with a radio. On the other, you have the overhead and inefficiency of a huge dealer/insurance system. Somewhere in the middle is your local mechanic :) Find a good one and make friends - you don't have to go to the dealership!
I have a relative who once worked in a city vehicle maintenance facility. They had a truck with a body that had rusted out, and he was told to replace the entire body. He pointed out that a new truck would be cheaper than replacing those parts. He was told to do it anyway - they had a repair budget already, but getting a new truck would require making a case before the city council.
He quit that job.
He quit that job.
I suspect that new car radios aren't nearly as modular as the ones of old. With the new regulations requiring backup cameras, the interface to the camera probably isn't standardized.
Much of that can be mitigated in product design. The amount of labor needed to replace something is a function of the extent to which being serviceable is a design goal.
It feels like an unachievable goal if I think about it even if the devices are designed to be very servicable.
Let's use the same example of a hypothetical simple toaster -like device, and assume that you have a specific breakage where fixing it takes 20% of the effort required to make the device in the first place.
I'd say it's feasible that massproduction and automation brings up the efficiency so that this already means that producing the item takes less human hours than fixing the item even if it's easily openable and servicable.
Furthermore, even if you have a scenario where fixing an item takes 20% of the hours to build the item, it's feasible that the local repairperson in a first wold country costs more than 5 times per hour than the cheapest possible place in the world where the item was manufactured.
It is quite realistic that the efficiencies of the global mass production toolchain mean that repairing many types of items doesn't make practical sense no matter how serviceable they are.
A person manually soldering a single capacitor can reasonably cost more than the manufacturing of the entire circuit board and its components - and that's not caused by faulty design, but by the effect of scale and automation; it's not that repair is expensive but that replacements are dirt cheap.
Let's use the same example of a hypothetical simple toaster -like device, and assume that you have a specific breakage where fixing it takes 20% of the effort required to make the device in the first place.
I'd say it's feasible that massproduction and automation brings up the efficiency so that this already means that producing the item takes less human hours than fixing the item even if it's easily openable and servicable.
Furthermore, even if you have a scenario where fixing an item takes 20% of the hours to build the item, it's feasible that the local repairperson in a first wold country costs more than 5 times per hour than the cheapest possible place in the world where the item was manufactured.
It is quite realistic that the efficiencies of the global mass production toolchain mean that repairing many types of items doesn't make practical sense no matter how serviceable they are.
A person manually soldering a single capacitor can reasonably cost more than the manufacturing of the entire circuit board and its components - and that's not caused by faulty design, but by the effect of scale and automation; it's not that repair is expensive but that replacements are dirt cheap.
From the source article:
> robust, easily repairable and good quality products: "minimum resistance criteria" to be established for each product category from the design stage
My console was not "easily repairable".
> robust, easily repairable and good quality products: "minimum resistance criteria" to be established for each product category from the design stage
My console was not "easily repairable".
[deleted]
My family encountered a similar issue with something even simpler, console LEDs. Some of the LEDs that lit up the control console in our old Toyota Sienna blew out, so we asked a dealer how much it would be to fix. Turns out they'd have to take off the entire dashboard just to access the LEDs, several hours of labor and several hundred dollars. We could literally get a new set of tires for cheaper.
As it was we committed the control locations to muscle memory and just had dark controls at night until it died several years later. The fact that replacing a simple LED is so horrendously complicated is laughable.
As it was we committed the control locations to muscle memory and just had dark controls at night until it died several years later. The fact that replacing a simple LED is so horrendously complicated is laughable.
My 2007 Sienna has the same problem, a blown LED. Luckily it lights a part of the dash I don't need often.
I don't understand how LEDs can blow out, they're solid state and should last nearly forever.
I don't understand how LEDs can blow out, they're solid state and should last nearly forever.
Probably less the LEDs themselves and more the circuits powering them. Too much current can blow out an LED the same way it can blow out an incandescent. Solid state doesn't protect the diodes from heat damage.
I did a quick search for your touch screen problem. It seems you might have been able to, instead of replacing the whole unit, replace the digitizer only, if possible. The whole assembly (including screen) appears to be $200-300 before labor. How much did you end up paying?
The first thing I investigated was trying to repair just the screen, but no local company was willing to do that. I ended up paying about $500 including labour, using console from scrapped car.
This is not really the best example since automotive usually has a higher degree of quality and more thought goes into durability compared to house appliances and automotive producers are obligated to provide spare parts for the lifetime of a car model, @10 or 15 years if I'm not mistaken. House appliances do not have this protection.
Wages have gone up and consumer goods have gone down in price and build quality. It's not feasible to have a repair business any more. Growing up, there were still loads of repair businesses around. You could fix anything.
If build quality and price go up, you can revert to an economy where you would fix your broken appliance once or twice before you replacing it.
But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?
If build quality and price go up, you can revert to an economy where you would fix your broken appliance once or twice before you replacing it.
But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?
If there was a clear incentive, the EU parliament probably wouldn't ask for one to be created ("Europe's Parliament called on the Commission, Member States and producers Tuesday to take measures to ensure consumers can enjoy durable, high-quality products that can be repaired and upgraded.")
If followed up, this could end up the same as with lead-free soldering. There weren't good incentives for manufacturers to remove lead from soldering until the EU passed the RoHS directive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...) and, subsequently, laws were introduced to implement it throughout the EU.
If followed up, this could end up the same as with lead-free soldering. There weren't good incentives for manufacturers to remove lead from soldering until the EU passed the RoHS directive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...) and, subsequently, laws were introduced to implement it throughout the EU.
> But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?
Possibly reducing the companies' environmental footprint on the world.
Instead of cheap devices being scrapped every two years and sent to the landfill, consumers could instead hold on to the companies' products for much much longer. If products have comparatively more time and quality parts, the cost will indeed go up--both for manufacturing and retail price.
My grandmother had the same bread mixer the whole time I was growing up. And I know she had it long before I was born. It was built to last and she took care of it. My mother, on the other hand, went through at least six different plastic, Made in China bread mixers over the course of my childhood.
Where's the corporate responsibility for all the waste that is generated by crappy products?
If you were KitchenAid or another brand, wouldn't you want to set yourself apart from the others as a company who cares about the environment by making products that will last for years to come and acknowledging that in advertising? Products that can also be repaired if there is an issue, as opposed to chucked aside for a new one because of their lack of value?
I'd consider such a company the "Whole Foods" of appliances. Citizens who share similar conservation values will likely pay more for that product, just as those who opt for solar/wind energy over coal.
Possibly reducing the companies' environmental footprint on the world.
Instead of cheap devices being scrapped every two years and sent to the landfill, consumers could instead hold on to the companies' products for much much longer. If products have comparatively more time and quality parts, the cost will indeed go up--both for manufacturing and retail price.
My grandmother had the same bread mixer the whole time I was growing up. And I know she had it long before I was born. It was built to last and she took care of it. My mother, on the other hand, went through at least six different plastic, Made in China bread mixers over the course of my childhood.
Where's the corporate responsibility for all the waste that is generated by crappy products?
If you were KitchenAid or another brand, wouldn't you want to set yourself apart from the others as a company who cares about the environment by making products that will last for years to come and acknowledging that in advertising? Products that can also be repaired if there is an issue, as opposed to chucked aside for a new one because of their lack of value?
I'd consider such a company the "Whole Foods" of appliances. Citizens who share similar conservation values will likely pay more for that product, just as those who opt for solar/wind energy over coal.
This isn't really an incentive though, unless this is driven by very knowledgeable consumers the companies that don't do this will make more money and eventually drive out the moral companies.
One way of doing it would be to charge companies up-front for the cost of handling the waste for the eventual disposal of the product. That directly disincetivizes companies from make it poorly, pile it high, sell it cheap business models.
One way of doing it would be to charge companies up-front for the cost of handling the waste for the eventual disposal of the product. That directly disincetivizes companies from make it poorly, pile it high, sell it cheap business models.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that manufacturers should be responsible for the full cost of disposal, and that this obligation should be non-transferable to consumers.
After all, they built the widget! The vast logistical network of freight, retailers, consumers, and waste disposal services merely transported the widget to a landfill.
But there are difficulties with this viewpoint. How does the disposal obligation work in horizontally-integrated industries (e.g. car manufacturing)? How does it work with globalization (import taxes?)? Is there any viable way to account for the waste (core samples into landfills?) or will the cost be a guess subject to lobbyists?
One approach might be to require the manufacturer or importer to rent space in a network of landfills by tonnage. Call it "waste disposal insurance".
EDIT: A random idea would incorporate a blockchain containing transactions identifying the serial numbers of the products or components. That way, assemblages could be formally shown to be composed of properly insured components, even requiring the final serial number to be the hash of its components. The tokens could be traded between manufacturers and landfills directly, closing the loop on the product lifecycle. Compliance audits would simply compare sales records to the public chain.
On the landfill side, tokens operate as space reservations by tonnage, and can be efficiently traded to balance loads without requiring products to be taken to specific landfills.
After all, they built the widget! The vast logistical network of freight, retailers, consumers, and waste disposal services merely transported the widget to a landfill.
But there are difficulties with this viewpoint. How does the disposal obligation work in horizontally-integrated industries (e.g. car manufacturing)? How does it work with globalization (import taxes?)? Is there any viable way to account for the waste (core samples into landfills?) or will the cost be a guess subject to lobbyists?
One approach might be to require the manufacturer or importer to rent space in a network of landfills by tonnage. Call it "waste disposal insurance".
EDIT: A random idea would incorporate a blockchain containing transactions identifying the serial numbers of the products or components. That way, assemblages could be formally shown to be composed of properly insured components, even requiring the final serial number to be the hash of its components. The tokens could be traded between manufacturers and landfills directly, closing the loop on the product lifecycle. Compliance audits would simply compare sales records to the public chain.
On the landfill side, tokens operate as space reservations by tonnage, and can be efficiently traded to balance loads without requiring products to be taken to specific landfills.
See: The Market for Lemons [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
If they changed to a service model they would have an incentive. If they leased a dishwasher 5€/month suddenly it wouldn't break for 15 years. Ten years ago I talked to a person in aerospace, he said they would change to a service model similar to jet engines, but since customers don't push them, they will wait it out.
Anyone remember the unbreakable old AT&T landline phones? AT&T owned the phone, you just leased it from them, so they were completely indestructible. They weren't pretty, but they were bulletproof and you could slam the receiver down on a telemarketer without worrying about it getting damaged.
So yeah, you're completely right. If people didn't own their own hardware, if it was owned by the company and leased, we'd likely see more incentive to make sure they lasted.
Then again, companies discovered that you can lease something to someone and then charge them full price if/when they break it, so maybe not.
So yeah, you're completely right. If people didn't own their own hardware, if it was owned by the company and leased, we'd likely see more incentive to make sure they lasted.
Then again, companies discovered that you can lease something to someone and then charge them full price if/when they break it, so maybe not.
Repairability and longevity are not the same thing. Sure if you repair something it last longer by definition. However you can design something that is not repairable that still will last a long time.
I once work on an embedded computer where we decided that the user would wear out one USB port before it would reach our longevity goals. We put two USB ports on it to get over that limit. The alternative was a maintenance schedule to replace the port. Either meat our longevity goals, but only one was also repairable.
I once work on an embedded computer where we decided that the user would wear out one USB port before it would reach our longevity goals. We put two USB ports on it to get over that limit. The alternative was a maintenance schedule to replace the port. Either meat our longevity goals, but only one was also repairable.
> But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?
They get to continue to sell their products. Internalizing externalities and all that jazz.
They get to continue to sell their products. Internalizing externalities and all that jazz.
Advertising, including Google, will feel the effect of a slower purchasing cycle. Fewer designers (in all industries) to design a lower volume of products. Less money to promote fewer items being sold. On the flipside, larger per-item transaction values.
To add, It doesn't seem like we could go on indefinitely with ephemeral product cycles consuming increasing amounts of natural resources considering the increasing purchasing power of emerging economies.
To add, It doesn't seem like we could go on indefinitely with ephemeral product cycles consuming increasing amounts of natural resources considering the increasing purchasing power of emerging economies.
A repair job still involves a purchase, but from a parts dealer or repair man.
This is true, but should still result in lower TCO. Lower TCO means lower velocity of money.
OK, but why should we consider the economic concept of money changing hands more rapidly to be an inherently good thing?
There are both environmental and quality of life issues with the way our culture has evolved recently, particularly around advancing consumer technologies, which aren't (directly) financial in nature but are definitely things we could change for the better. Meanwhile, the increases in money moving around on paper are mostly in the direction of manufacturers taking advantage of consumers one way or another, and I don't have a problem with damaging that effect in favour of the others.
There are both environmental and quality of life issues with the way our culture has evolved recently, particularly around advancing consumer technologies, which aren't (directly) financial in nature but are definitely things we could change for the better. Meanwhile, the increases in money moving around on paper are mostly in the direction of manufacturers taking advantage of consumers one way or another, and I don't have a problem with damaging that effect in favour of the others.
I think they have to be considered with respect to people's relative purchasing power. Ensure that if the velocity of money goes down that people's relative purchasing power remains equivalent.
In other words, if making things more durable results in people working fewer hours, then we need to know whether that results in negative income repercussions for workers.
A rudimentary example:
1x disposable widget took .5hrs to mfg. market price =$10 and lasts 1yr. CO = $10/yr
1x durable widget takes .6 hrs to mfg. market price =$50 and lasts 10 yrs. CO = $5/yr
And you extrapolate that...
So, yes, your costs go down over time, but so do your wages, so the deflation has to be measured so that earnings don't go down quicker than cost of living/cost of goods and services. Commensurate.
In other words, if making things more durable results in people working fewer hours, then we need to know whether that results in negative income repercussions for workers.
A rudimentary example:
1x disposable widget took .5hrs to mfg. market price =$10 and lasts 1yr. CO = $10/yr
1x durable widget takes .6 hrs to mfg. market price =$50 and lasts 10 yrs. CO = $5/yr
And you extrapolate that...
So, yes, your costs go down over time, but so do your wages, so the deflation has to be measured so that earnings don't go down quicker than cost of living/cost of goods and services. Commensurate.
But this is make-work. It's a polite fiction, designed to support an economic framework that is looking less relevant as technology and automation play an increasing role in our industry. Our current economic system may even become obsolete within our lifetimes, hence the recent interest in alternative models like universal basic incomes.
In terms of real productivity, a durable widget that has a 20% overhead to manufacture but lasts 10x as long is far more useful, and in terms of quality of life, people needing to spend fewer hours of their lives doing mundane work is a desirable goal in itself.
In the long term, it seems likely that either people will find new ways to make a living, just as they did on countless past occasions when technology rendered a particular vocation obsolete, or we will move towards a different economic arrangement where people don't have to work full-time to earn a decent living, or quite possibly we will see some sort of hybrid with aspects of both newer types of work and reduced working hours.
In terms of real productivity, a durable widget that has a 20% overhead to manufacture but lasts 10x as long is far more useful, and in terms of quality of life, people needing to spend fewer hours of their lives doing mundane work is a desirable goal in itself.
In the long term, it seems likely that either people will find new ways to make a living, just as they did on countless past occasions when technology rendered a particular vocation obsolete, or we will move towards a different economic arrangement where people don't have to work full-time to earn a decent living, or quite possibly we will see some sort of hybrid with aspects of both newer types of work and reduced working hours.
>Fewer designers (in all industries) to design a lower volume of products.
The shrinking of the number of models and manufactures relative to the size of the market is already to blame for this. Maybe there would be more designers because now when you put out a product it needs to work for a long time, not until you can just tweak next years model?
The shrinking of the number of models and manufactures relative to the size of the market is already to blame for this. Maybe there would be more designers because now when you put out a product it needs to work for a long time, not until you can just tweak next years model?
Wait. Wages have gone up? Where and source?
Purchasing power has gone up for those who can take advantage of cheap goods, but as your question insinuates, wages have not gone up; they've been stagnant for decades.
But is that true? Since real estate and renting costs have increased over 400% in some big cities, do cheaper goods offset that big slice of disposable income which pays for that? Is there some overall statistic done to include all these costs and calculate whether purchasing power has really gone up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease
Productivity has risen in manufacturing, tech, and automation. This provides a moderate wage increase in those jobs, but a sharp drop in employment as well. Meanwhile, you also get a similar competitive wage increase in essential service industries (health care, education, construction), but because those sectors have experienced no increase in productivity, this is reflected in the price others pay for those goods, not in the employment figures for them. The drop in employment in high-productivity sectors then forces laid off workers into marginal service-sector employment.
Because of Simpson's Paradox [1], this results in flat or declining wage statistics across the whole economy, but the statistics obscure a lot of detail. Nurses, therapists, teachers, et al are doing okay; they're not going to get rich, and the rising cost of housing in some metro areas means that if they don't already own their house they may need to move far away, but their relative wages are keeping pace. Same with the few remaining union jobs: unionized longshoremen at the Port of Oakland make mid six-figures, as much as a software engineer at a startup. But employment in those fields is dropping, because of productivity increases, and everyone who is displaced out of them needs to find employment in the undifferentiated service sector, usually at much lower wages. And the people who actually provide the automation support that's driving this productivity growth are making out like bandits: that's where you see all the new millionaires being minted.
This'll continue until either society breaks down and goes to war or a bunch of new industries spring up and absorb all the new workers, who then differentiate their skillsets and bargain for higher pay. Both of these happened last time this occurred, in the early 1900s; the world wars were the springboard that drove adoption of new technologies like automobiles and airplanes. We see some possible beginnings of this with things like ridesharing and delivery startups, but it seems unlikely these are the big industries of the 21st century. More likely, they're transient uses for large crowds of unemployed people, and the real 21st century industries will be the micromarket: individual entrepreneurs that are each specialized in reaching & designing for a small group of customers, using home manufacturing & automated shipping tools that are in their infancy now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
Productivity has risen in manufacturing, tech, and automation. This provides a moderate wage increase in those jobs, but a sharp drop in employment as well. Meanwhile, you also get a similar competitive wage increase in essential service industries (health care, education, construction), but because those sectors have experienced no increase in productivity, this is reflected in the price others pay for those goods, not in the employment figures for them. The drop in employment in high-productivity sectors then forces laid off workers into marginal service-sector employment.
Because of Simpson's Paradox [1], this results in flat or declining wage statistics across the whole economy, but the statistics obscure a lot of detail. Nurses, therapists, teachers, et al are doing okay; they're not going to get rich, and the rising cost of housing in some metro areas means that if they don't already own their house they may need to move far away, but their relative wages are keeping pace. Same with the few remaining union jobs: unionized longshoremen at the Port of Oakland make mid six-figures, as much as a software engineer at a startup. But employment in those fields is dropping, because of productivity increases, and everyone who is displaced out of them needs to find employment in the undifferentiated service sector, usually at much lower wages. And the people who actually provide the automation support that's driving this productivity growth are making out like bandits: that's where you see all the new millionaires being minted.
This'll continue until either society breaks down and goes to war or a bunch of new industries spring up and absorb all the new workers, who then differentiate their skillsets and bargain for higher pay. Both of these happened last time this occurred, in the early 1900s; the world wars were the springboard that drove adoption of new technologies like automobiles and airplanes. We see some possible beginnings of this with things like ridesharing and delivery startups, but it seems unlikely these are the big industries of the 21st century. More likely, they're transient uses for large crowds of unemployed people, and the real 21st century industries will be the micromarket: individual entrepreneurs that are each specialized in reaching & designing for a small group of customers, using home manufacturing & automated shipping tools that are in their infancy now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
Purchasing power for many non-subsistence goods has gone up.
Not so for rent, food etc. as far as I know.
Purchasing power for subsistence goods would't go up due to the malthusian trap.
The same way you have induced demand from wider roads to have more cars.
Not so for rent, food etc. as far as I know.
Purchasing power for subsistence goods would't go up due to the malthusian trap.
The same way you have induced demand from wider roads to have more cars.
It says housing inflation was around 50-60% but for example in London it has been 400% so this can be very dependent on where you live.
That graphic is US centric.
[deleted]
What you get with your wages has changed. Real estate is more expensive; you get less of that with your wages.
Mass-produced electronics and other consumer goods is much, much cheaper; you get more of that with your wages.
Mass-produced electronics and other consumer goods is much, much cheaper; you get more of that with your wages.
There's a great Fed press briefing where William Dudley mentions this, and someone heckles him "I can't eat an iPad!"
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/blogs/lookout/fed-officia...
https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/blogs/lookout/fed-officia...
More appropriate would be to heckle "I can't live in an iPad".
As far as I can know, food prices in America have gone down a little bit in the long term in comparison to general price index; 1982 food price index was 100 and now it is 90. Where I live (north Europe), the price drop has been more substantial.
The biggest health problem that poor people face in the U.S. is obesity.
But even if food is not problem, the real issues are housing and health care costs.
As far as I can know, food prices in America have gone down a little bit in the long term in comparison to general price index; 1982 food price index was 100 and now it is 90. Where I live (north Europe), the price drop has been more substantial.
The biggest health problem that poor people face in the U.S. is obesity.
But even if food is not problem, the real issues are housing and health care costs.
But in the 50s you weren't buying a new iPhone every few years, or a desktop/laptop computer or a tablet, or multiple TVs, or a cell phone contract, or an Internet contract, or cable TV, or Netflix.
As our purchasing power has decreased and inflation has increased, we've also invented a lot more expensive stuff to spend our fewer and fewer dollars on.
As our purchasing power has decreased and inflation has increased, we've also invented a lot more expensive stuff to spend our fewer and fewer dollars on.
In the 1950s you were buying a new car every few years because they fell to pieces.
Purchasing power for what?
As said, real estate prices have gone up. But in early 1970's, Americans used 20 % of their inćome on food. Now it's somewhere around 6-7 %. So, for this most basic of commodities, the purchasing power has increased substantially.
As said, real estate prices have gone up. But in early 1970's, Americans used 20 % of their inćome on food. Now it's somewhere around 6-7 %. So, for this most basic of commodities, the purchasing power has increased substantially.
I am browsing Kevin Kelly's Cool Tools book.
It is remarkable how the prices of maybe three out of four items has doubled in the last four years.
Maybe the market has simply bifurcated.
It is remarkable how the prices of maybe three out of four items has doubled in the last four years.
Maybe the market has simply bifurcated.
I live in Mexico and here everything is repairable since wages are so low.
I agree with this too. I always try to repair things first and then replace them if necessary (even if it is a torn shirt or backpack, a broken zipper on a shoe or broken connector on a laptop).
Also, I try to buy things which are durable, but a lot of times it is hard to tell what will be durable so I go with the pricier option hoping it will last longer. This is not always true, especially for shoes and clothing, but in electronics too. The problem is when someone looks for reviews, they only find reviews of new models, but there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years without breaking. Do you guys know about such a site? Or something similar? I am always thinking about starting such website, which would provide reviews for older things, so there would be chronological ratings and we would see which brands make quality products and which of them not. ...but that would need a lot of input data to be useful and I am not sure how could this be started. Or even if this would be useful for others or only I am concerned with this.
What do you guys think about this?
Also, I try to buy things which are durable, but a lot of times it is hard to tell what will be durable so I go with the pricier option hoping it will last longer. This is not always true, especially for shoes and clothing, but in electronics too. The problem is when someone looks for reviews, they only find reviews of new models, but there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years without breaking. Do you guys know about such a site? Or something similar? I am always thinking about starting such website, which would provide reviews for older things, so there would be chronological ratings and we would see which brands make quality products and which of them not. ...but that would need a lot of input data to be useful and I am not sure how could this be started. Or even if this would be useful for others or only I am concerned with this.
What do you guys think about this?
Sounds like you’re looking for https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/
> there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years without breaking.
The problem is the X years.
For electronics that website would be almost useless. I could tell you about the failure modes of my past laptops and phones but would you buy a discontinued product? At best you could hope that newer products of the same brand fixed some of the problems of the past ones and didn't add new issues.
The same applies to most goods because they are replaced by new models yearly or faster.
The problem is the X years.
For electronics that website would be almost useless. I could tell you about the failure modes of my past laptops and phones but would you buy a discontinued product? At best you could hope that newer products of the same brand fixed some of the problems of the past ones and didn't add new issues.
The same applies to most goods because they are replaced by new models yearly or faster.
Yes, it is hard to tell if a new product will last and for them it is useless, but such website could tell which brands are more trusty in this manner.
Even when you don't get new models so fast, you'll get manufacturing updates on existing products that can affect their reliability both good and bad. The best you can do is identify the manufacturers who have a reputation of building good stuff, and hope they don't sell their name to someone who wants to make a quick buck by trading on their reputation.
Of course, the flipside of this is the flipside of Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness - if the cheap boots that fall apart quickly didn't exist, Sam Vimes would not be able to buy boots at all in the first place.
The solution is, of course, to put more people in a position where they can afford to buy the more expensive boots and see the value in doing so.
The solution is, of course, to put more people in a position where they can afford to buy the more expensive boots and see the value in doing so.
I am unconvinced that more expensive = better quality for a lot of things these days.
There are some anecdotal examples of people with Miele washing machines that have lasted for decades etc (... as an aside I guess we wont know about today's Miele washing machines for several more years at least ...), but in my experience paying a premium for a product more often than not just gives you an as-cheaply-made product but with a brand name you've heard of. I am very happy to pay for decent stuff, but I am not prepared to pay extra for the same quality stuff just to get a brand name.
What seems to be the biggest problem these days for me is not mechanical failures, but what can only be assumed to be software failures - things just going haywire or flashing an LED/error code and not doing what they should.
Perhaps there is some cheap capacitor that has blown somewhere, but it is often a waffly explanation along the lines of "logic board has failed" (and they are always super-expensive to replace due to it being 10 years old and not made/stocked any more etc etc). It is usually more sensible to replace a 5-15 year old appliance with a new one, rather than buying a spare part that costs 50% of an entire new appliance, (plus then you usually get the benefits of improved energy efficiency)
There are some anecdotal examples of people with Miele washing machines that have lasted for decades etc (... as an aside I guess we wont know about today's Miele washing machines for several more years at least ...), but in my experience paying a premium for a product more often than not just gives you an as-cheaply-made product but with a brand name you've heard of. I am very happy to pay for decent stuff, but I am not prepared to pay extra for the same quality stuff just to get a brand name.
What seems to be the biggest problem these days for me is not mechanical failures, but what can only be assumed to be software failures - things just going haywire or flashing an LED/error code and not doing what they should.
Perhaps there is some cheap capacitor that has blown somewhere, but it is often a waffly explanation along the lines of "logic board has failed" (and they are always super-expensive to replace due to it being 10 years old and not made/stocked any more etc etc). It is usually more sensible to replace a 5-15 year old appliance with a new one, rather than buying a spare part that costs 50% of an entire new appliance, (plus then you usually get the benefits of improved energy efficiency)
If you buy a Miele appliance anf get the extended guarantee which is ~10% of the purchase price, you get 7 years guarantee. As in, something breaks, tomorrow a repairman will be at your house and fix it, no extra cost.
Quality is available, people just don't want to pay for it. Those washing machines that lasted for 15 years? Back then, they cost one or two months' wages. Try to get anyone to pay $2500 for a washing machine today.
Quality is available, people just don't want to pay for it. Those washing machines that lasted for 15 years? Back then, they cost one or two months' wages. Try to get anyone to pay $2500 for a washing machine today.
Speed Queen is making a go of it. Slogan is "Built Better to Last Longer."
https://speedqueen.com/
When my Frigidaire washer finally dies that's what I'm getting. I already injured myself replacing the pump once. And now that I've seen the cheap plastic parts used I don't have confidence it's going to last.
https://speedqueen.com/
When my Frigidaire washer finally dies that's what I'm getting. I already injured myself replacing the pump once. And now that I've seen the cheap plastic parts used I don't have confidence it's going to last.
I like it. It's like buying a commercial TV because they aren't full of smart features[1] and are made to run under harsher conditions(i.e. 24/7). Better yet, the MultiSync V404 model can have a Raspberry Pi plugged in for your own custom smart features.
[1]https://www.nec-display-solutions.com/p/uk/en/products/choic...
[1]https://www.nec-display-solutions.com/p/uk/en/products/choic...
That's available too and people do pay. For instance, https://www.vzug.com/ch/de/product/ch-Catalog/1101100004
Yeah, 3900 CHF and only 2 years of warranty... I can imagine cost of spare parts after it expires. For this price I would expect 7 years warranty as minimum.
>Quality is available, people just don't want to pay for it. Those washing machines that lasted for 15 years? Back then, they cost one or two months' wages. Try to get anyone to pay $2500 for a washing machine today.
Back then people could afford to spend two months wages on a product like that. That people today don't reflects just as much (if not more) on their ability to do so as it does on their willingness.
Back then people could afford to spend two months wages on a product like that. That people today don't reflects just as much (if not more) on their ability to do so as it does on their willingness.
It depends on what you call cheap.
I stopped buying ultra cheap clothing as it rarely lasts 5 laundry cycles and sometimes starts to visibly fail on the first cycle. I realize that it's a viable niche for people with giant piles of clothing they rarely use. But, the jump from 4>40 is reasonable the jump from 40+ stops being economic.
I stopped buying ultra cheap clothing as it rarely lasts 5 laundry cycles and sometimes starts to visibly fail on the first cycle. I realize that it's a viable niche for people with giant piles of clothing they rarely use. But, the jump from 4>40 is reasonable the jump from 40+ stops being economic.
I just bought a washing machine. I spent a long, long time looking for the simplest one I could find, in the hopes that I could replace any mechanical part. From other HN threads it seems the control panels tend to go out a lot.
Since I live in an apartment and wanted a small one anyway, I ended up with a portable one (oneConcept DB004 - odd name) that uses mechanical timers for the stages (you can hear them ticking!). It hasn't arrived yet but I am hopeful that when it inevitably breaks I can fix it.
I want to get a dishwasher next and sadly don't know if I can find something equivalent.
Since I live in an apartment and wanted a small one anyway, I ended up with a portable one (oneConcept DB004 - odd name) that uses mechanical timers for the stages (you can hear them ticking!). It hasn't arrived yet but I am hopeful that when it inevitably breaks I can fix it.
I want to get a dishwasher next and sadly don't know if I can find something equivalent.
I wonder if energy regulations make it hard for mechanical products since they don't have the flexibility of electronic components.
That's certainly possible. Same goes for water - I note that Bosch dishwasher have some sort of system that analyzes the water to see if it's still clean enough to use before using more. Clever, and a savings for water, but one more complicated thing to break.
Of course, I fail to see why most modern consumer products can't just be driven with a Raspberry pi or arduino. Using off-the-shelf parts like that would do wonders for serviceability.
Of course, I fail to see why most modern consumer products can't just be driven with a Raspberry pi or arduino. Using off-the-shelf parts like that would do wonders for serviceability.
I design embedded products for industry and usually prototype with Arduino and Pi-alikes before designing the final board.
A custom board assembly is much cheaper to manufacture. For instance, for a recent design, the only chip used off a full Arduino board was the microcontroller itself (and then in a different, smaller package).
Physical and electrical constraints are often significant. And that's before getting into all the issues involved with firmware and IP.
I love the idea of open-source (hardware and software) consumer appliances, but everything is stacked against it. Primarily economies of scale.
A custom board assembly is much cheaper to manufacture. For instance, for a recent design, the only chip used off a full Arduino board was the microcontroller itself (and then in a different, smaller package).
Physical and electrical constraints are often significant. And that's before getting into all the issues involved with firmware and IP.
I love the idea of open-source (hardware and software) consumer appliances, but everything is stacked against it. Primarily economies of scale.
I think people will happy to spend a bit more on a standard. easily replaceable board(and electronic components are relatively cheap), for an expensive appliance, since it gives them some piece of mind.
Further more, standard high volume stuff usually sees much more competition and investment by chip companies, who are really the ones doing the deep r&d in this industry.
Further more, standard high volume stuff usually sees much more competition and investment by chip companies, who are really the ones doing the deep r&d in this industry.
i've replaced bad caps in many home electronics, its kind of amazing how often you can look at a board and know the capacitor is hosed just by looking at it.
> if the cheap boots that fall apart quickly didn't exist, Sam Vimes would not be able to buy boots at all in the first place.
On the other hand, if the scale in the marketplace was in durable boots, then companies would be able to optimize for that, and the price would almost certainly come down. There would be a shift away from fashion design, and marketing, towards product engineering to be able to produce that product at a price that most people could afford.
On the other hand, if the scale in the marketplace was in durable boots, then companies would be able to optimize for that, and the price would almost certainly come down. There would be a shift away from fashion design, and marketing, towards product engineering to be able to produce that product at a price that most people could afford.
Why can't we have economies that can be stable without the sky falling, can grow when wanted, and shrink when needed without a cascade of catastrophies? Can't we? It's a honest question, I have no clue.
Because I also think this is a great idea too, but everything else being the same, the general insanity being the same, something else will probably give. On the other hand, if we did have this hypothetical more flexible economic system, making things well instead of hustling and externalizing costs might come as a lasting side effect of that.
Because I also think this is a great idea too, but everything else being the same, the general insanity being the same, something else will probably give. On the other hand, if we did have this hypothetical more flexible economic system, making things well instead of hustling and externalizing costs might come as a lasting side effect of that.
That would take central planning. The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high, and can't force businesses to close or merge when there are inefficiencies in the market. A capitalist economic system is inherently reactionary: someone notices a demand and creates supply for it. Someone tries their hardest to keep their business open even with low demand, right up until the point where they fail catastrophically. The drive to do better than everyone else is what keeps our economy afloat, but it also sometimes runs competitors out of business.
We can have an economy that is stable and fair for everyone with no winners or losers. But people have been trained against socialism and communism for so many years, it'd be a very tough sell. The only way to have an economy flex responsively is if the government is a central planning agency for businesses.
We can have an economy that is stable and fair for everyone with no winners or losers. But people have been trained against socialism and communism for so many years, it'd be a very tough sell. The only way to have an economy flex responsively is if the government is a central planning agency for businesses.
Important to note that "central planning" is not a black and white thing, there are degrees. The United States is light grey, China would be a darker grey for example. It's totally possible to allow certain markets to be centrally planned and others not to be.
Pure central planning has all sorts of problems of its own, since planning agencies are both corruptible and have limited powers of foresight (a general problem with any utilitarian proposal). On the other hand pure market solutions aren't working either. I don't believe that the 'drive to do better than everyone else' as a matter of economic necessity is a healthy or sustainable one.
I think there's a possibility for communism 2.0 where planning is distributed rather than being centralized or wholly reactive. We've built a great deal of the logistical infrastructure for this already, but our social and economic technology has fallen behind our physical capabilities.
I think there's a possibility for communism 2.0 where planning is distributed rather than being centralized or wholly reactive. We've built a great deal of the logistical infrastructure for this already, but our social and economic technology has fallen behind our physical capabilities.
>The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high
It does all the time, no? At least here, town halls give stupid jobs to people when unemployment is too high. Obviously, the results are catastrofic.
It does all the time, no? At least here, town halls give stupid jobs to people when unemployment is too high. Obviously, the results are catastrofic.
There are notable exceptions (like the New Deal) but it's not a really widespread program. The government can certainly give people jobs, but they're either filling existing demand (like Manpower-type headhunters) or they're creating demand through government work (like road construction).
It's not like Soviet Russia where the government can open a new plant and put people to work there producing private-market goods and then shut it down when supply gets too big.
It's not like Soviet Russia where the government can open a new plant and put people to work there producing private-market goods and then shut it down when supply gets too big.
Manufacturers should be made responsible for disposal. This would provide an incentive to make products last and be repairable.
A better incentive would be to require manufacturers to sell unlimited (yearly) warranty for their products. When you buy a product, you'll get the option to pay a yearly renewable sum that guarantees that any failings from normal use will be repaired.
Such a requirement will make the seller optimize the product for affordable longevity and make it cheap and easy to repair the product.
A significant number of consumers will appreciate the predictable cost for the use of the product and take out such a warranty.
Such a requirement will make the seller optimize the product for affordable longevity and make it cheap and easy to repair the product.
A significant number of consumers will appreciate the predictable cost for the use of the product and take out such a warranty.
That isn't really reasonable. No product is expected to work _forever_. Things fail. ICs go out of production.
At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or parts could be replaced. The cost of this will be reflected in the price of the warranty which also serves as a down payment for a replacement product. But still, the producer will have an incentive to do an honest assessment of the longevity of the product via the cost of the warranty. Too low will cost the company and too high will shy away the consumer.
>At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or parts could be replaced.
Some computer graphic card manufactures have a system like this. If the card fails in it's lifetime warranty they will replace the card with an equivalent or better model. One of my friends had their RMAed EVGA card upgraded even though it was 5 years old, and it wasn't to just the current performance equivalent, their $300 5 year old card was replaced with a $300 new card.
Some computer graphic card manufactures have a system like this. If the card fails in it's lifetime warranty they will replace the card with an equivalent or better model. One of my friends had their RMAed EVGA card upgraded even though it was 5 years old, and it wasn't to just the current performance equivalent, their $300 5 year old card was replaced with a $300 new card.
Buildings fail over time. Yet when you rent a flat you have a reasonable expectation that it won't collapse on you.
Perhaps there is a good function between product age and monthly warranty cost that creates the right incentive.
If you're willing to keep paying indefinitely to always have a working product, at a price that is economically viable for the manufacturer, are you sure you really want to buy anything?
Wouldn't you much rather have a lease with option to purchase?
Wouldn't you much rather have a lease with option to purchase?
Almost no consumer could afford to purchase a lifetime supply of cars or even computers upfront. Hopefully the credit market would lend it to the common man, otherwise he would simply not have these things (at least until very late in life after decades of savings accumulation, at which point lifetime replacements aren't worth much).
[deleted]
This is partly in place
> The directive imposes the responsibility for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers or distributors of such equipment.[3] It requires that those companies establish an infrastructure for collecting WEEE, in such a way that "Users of electrical and electronic equipment from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni...
> The directive imposes the responsibility for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers or distributors of such equipment.[3] It requires that those companies establish an infrastructure for collecting WEEE, in such a way that "Users of electrical and electronic equipment from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni...
We have that exact law here in Ontario, Canada, and the products are just as disposable as everywhere else. Even worse, just like every other regulation ever, it is negotiated in such a way that it favours some manufacturers over others, and it was most welcomed by said manufacturers.
Pretty sure there are laws like this in lots of other places, and it in no way appears to encourage repair. In fact, you could make an argument that it discourages repair: since repairable machines are typically heavier, it is cheaper for the manufacturer to pay the deposit on a lighter machine which is not repairable. You can't really get the bureaucracy to determine how repairable your product is either. If you do, the rules will ultimately be just as arbitrary as weight, and not thorough enough to generate the intended effect. In addition to being useless, these regulations also increase the cost of goods, congratulations.
Pretty sure there are laws like this in lots of other places, and it in no way appears to encourage repair. In fact, you could make an argument that it discourages repair: since repairable machines are typically heavier, it is cheaper for the manufacturer to pay the deposit on a lighter machine which is not repairable. You can't really get the bureaucracy to determine how repairable your product is either. If you do, the rules will ultimately be just as arbitrary as weight, and not thorough enough to generate the intended effect. In addition to being useless, these regulations also increase the cost of goods, congratulations.
They are.
Although I would welcome this, I can't understand how such broad demands can be enforced.
If the EU is really interested in increasing the lifetime of products, it's simple, just increase the mandatory warranty from 2 to 5 (or some other appropriate number) years.
That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products, but would also, put a strain on the manufacturers to make it easier to repair (after all, if you have to increase the number of repairs to your products, you are going to make it cheaper to repair it in order to save money).
If the EU is really interested in increasing the lifetime of products, it's simple, just increase the mandatory warranty from 2 to 5 (or some other appropriate number) years.
That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products, but would also, put a strain on the manufacturers to make it easier to repair (after all, if you have to increase the number of repairs to your products, you are going to make it cheaper to repair it in order to save money).
Also if they get a lot of products back in warranty they will
notice that if part X breaks often and they make a small change in design, maybe add some vibration or dust protection that would increase the part X longevity.
> That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products
there's no guarantee of that. the manufacturers could just charge X times more, and expect on average to send 1.5 replacements out.
(or less, most likely. folks who wouldn't bother to ask for warranty service, or lose the device first, or otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements of the warranty.)
there's no guarantee of that. the manufacturers could just charge X times more, and expect on average to send 1.5 replacements out.
(or less, most likely. folks who wouldn't bother to ask for warranty service, or lose the device first, or otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements of the warranty.)
They can charge more, but they need to compete with the others that will charge less if their own products are not breaking that often or if they have a cheaper way to repair instead of replacing the product.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but how about reducing sales tax ('VAT' in UK) for items which come with long guarantee periods? So sale of a washing machine with a 10 year guarantee would be taxed at 5% instead of 10%, or similar. Wouldn't this give manufacturers an incentive to make more durable products?
I recently changed the display on my Kobo Touch and was appalled at what I found inside it.
The battery is glued to the case and the wires are soldered to the board. The display is also glued to the case (I had to break the original display into bits in order to take it out).
The whole thing was designed to be disposable. This just seems wrong. It's unfair to the customer and bad for the environment.
The battery is glued to the case and the wires are soldered to the board. The display is also glued to the case (I had to break the original display into bits in order to take it out).
The whole thing was designed to be disposable. This just seems wrong. It's unfair to the customer and bad for the environment.
I agree. We need something like this in the US. By law, electronic products sold in EU carries 2yrs warranty and I always wondered why U.S has only 1yr warranty. I can think of an incident where my laptop crapped out right after a year of purchase but the manufacturer was nice enough to repair it for free.
With phones running $800+ nowadays, i would expect it to last longer (3yrs min.) like a laptop.
With phones running $800+ nowadays, i would expect it to last longer (3yrs min.) like a laptop.
My HTC One M7 is 4 years old now, and still works perfectly.
Battery life is not awesome but still lasts a full day with light 4G usage. I don't get software updates anymore, but that isn't an issue for me.
I know that when the battery dies for good, or if the display shatters, I probably won't have a way to repair it, and that is bad because I really don't need a new phone.
Availability and cost of spare parts, and ease of repair should be major decision factors for people buying electronics. It already is the case for cars.
Battery life is not awesome but still lasts a full day with light 4G usage. I don't get software updates anymore, but that isn't an issue for me.
I know that when the battery dies for good, or if the display shatters, I probably won't have a way to repair it, and that is bad because I really don't need a new phone.
Availability and cost of spare parts, and ease of repair should be major decision factors for people buying electronics. It already is the case for cars.
> 77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new ones
This is most likely a misleading stat. You can repair most things if you're willing to spend the money or time to do it. Many consumer goods cost more to repair than it's worth. No one is going to do that.
This is most likely a misleading stat. You can repair most things if you're willing to spend the money or time to do it. Many consumer goods cost more to repair than it's worth. No one is going to do that.
It can be made way simpler and faster if optimized for this. Products are designed for being cheap to buy, not cheap to use.
I agree. I live in the EU and bought a washing machine for 450 eur. After 1 year and 2 months a big hole in the Drum appeared and this makes it flood my apartment. LG wants 530 eur to fix it, so obviously not worth it.
My parents had 2 washing machines in their whole life, in contrast...
My parents had 2 washing machines in their whole life, in contrast...
You should have a two year warranty in the EU: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
If this was a concern for you why didn't you buy a more expensive washing machine that has a longer warranty and a reputation for quality?
These things exist but they cost more. Consumers need to be willing to put money where their mouth is.
These things exist but they cost more. Consumers need to be willing to put money where their mouth is.
450EUR is an expensive washing machine, they start at about 200.
"Reputation" for quality won't ensure you anything and noone gives out warranty over mandatory minimum enforced by law.
"Reputation" for quality won't ensure you anything and noone gives out warranty over mandatory minimum enforced by law.
Miele [0] give a 10 year guarantee on their washing machines.
[0] https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-wa...
[0] https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-wa...
It's starting to be difficult to differentiate "good quality and expensive" from "bad quality and expensive".
The issue (that only partially has been solved by the WEEE directives in Europe) is the same as most of the issues when money is involved.
The best form of recycling is of course repairing, you only throw away (and need to dispose of) a tiny piece of (metal, plastic, etc.) instead of having to dispose kilograms or tons of the same stuff (the whole whatever).
But the point is "who is gonna pay for disposal?" a part of the WEEE directives (related to solar panels) goes into the right direction but still, see the previous thread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584
The manufacturer saves today but will (maybe) pay tomorrow.
The only way (unfortunately not very practical) is to have manufacturers deposit today (in some sort of fund) the sum that will be needed tomorrow for disposals, with some sort of scale so that longer lasting products will need less money to be deposited or maybe allowing the withdrawal of a quote of the deposit after some lasting performance has been measured, that would make them think about the opportunity of making shorter or longer lasting (or non-repairable vs. repairable) devices.
The best form of recycling is of course repairing, you only throw away (and need to dispose of) a tiny piece of (metal, plastic, etc.) instead of having to dispose kilograms or tons of the same stuff (the whole whatever).
But the point is "who is gonna pay for disposal?" a part of the WEEE directives (related to solar panels) goes into the right direction but still, see the previous thread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584
The manufacturer saves today but will (maybe) pay tomorrow.
The only way (unfortunately not very practical) is to have manufacturers deposit today (in some sort of fund) the sum that will be needed tomorrow for disposals, with some sort of scale so that longer lasting products will need less money to be deposited or maybe allowing the withdrawal of a quote of the deposit after some lasting performance has been measured, that would make them think about the opportunity of making shorter or longer lasting (or non-repairable vs. repairable) devices.
It seems like a good idea to rule on this: I always used to fix my electronic products... Up to recently it was sometimes difficult to find the issue, but always fine with opening and closing.
I had my very first anxiety thrill ungluing an iPad window to replace the broken microphone; and I look with anxiety at my S7, thinking of when the battery starts aging.
I had my very first anxiety thrill ungluing an iPad window to replace the broken microphone; and I look with anxiety at my S7, thinking of when the battery starts aging.
Is there also a term that describes this phenomena ?
"Each year we get an update for product X with a few minor changes that makes the new version parts incompatible with the previous year version (maybe not all parts are incompatible).
I noticed this with washing machines, I wanted to buy a similar model with something that I own and they made a different model, redesigned the outside, maybe small changes inside.
I also know that cars get updates each year, some stuff gets changed on the front of the car to look "better" but now under the hood some parts do not fit and need to be moved around and redesigned, then the car needs to be tested again.
I think it would be healthy to launch a product, then in first year(s) analyze the defects your products get, next product would be an evolution that addresses the issues.
I agree if you have new ideas on how to improve your product go ahead and make the new version but don't make a new model of a microwave that is identical with previous one except you changed the shape, moved some buttons and added a gimmick feature.
Textbooks? Seriously though I think there is a movement among the rich in America/world to buy products that are simple to use, high quality, and durable. The problem in my view is not that these products don't exist but that it's very hard to find them and verify quality in production over time.
I am not impressed by the "expensive" products, as an example I own a Nexus 7 tablet, touch input stopped working reliably, I searched and found many similar issue, the solution is to open it and plug back a connector that got lose and maybe add some paper to have the thing pressed on it's place, so this is not a cheap, no name product, the problem could have been avoided maybe with a few more cents investment per product.
I have similar experience with brand name keyboard and mioce that were not cheap and did not perform.
for the most part, I don't consider commodity equipment to be 'expensive' even if the price point is expensive. I've observed that there are usually two classes of products in any market, the commodity bottom 80% and then the premium top 20%. My comment is about products that inhabit this 20%. To date, and from my point of view, there is no product running android which falls in this premium category. With the Nexus 7 tablet specifically, I see a commodity android tablet with slightly better build quality and some more expensive components. Not a premium product like the iPad Pro.
But most of the premium of iPad is branding, the extra money you pay is not in the hardware, and Apple products also break so you pay a ton of money(you would need to be rich or really a big fanboy to justify buying an Apple product in countries with a lower economy like Romania where you also have taxes and pay a lot more then someone in USA would pay). My point is you buy a super expensive Apple product but you don't get 5 years warranty even if you spent 2-4 medium incomes on it.
The EU will have fun then with much more expensive consumer goods, and businesses keeping flagship lines of products out of them for sale. More likely this is just another tax increase worded as "consumer protection." No business will really design products based on government say, but will just raises prices to cover whatever penalty fee they issue.
Not to play the free market card too aggressively, but isn't there already a solution to this, called "extended warranties"? Whether provided by the manufacturer or from the retail seller, they provide a way for customers to pay an extra fee in order to extend the product's lifetime.
In theory, they even give a way to price out the effective longevity of comparable devices by looking at the prices of the warranties.
In the end, my understanding is that customers do not assign a lot of value to that lifetime extension, and as a result the extended warranties are generally not purchased.
If the EU enacts measures to enforce product longevity, they force customers to buy something that they have already chosen not to buy.
In theory, they even give a way to price out the effective longevity of comparable devices by looking at the prices of the warranties.
In the end, my understanding is that customers do not assign a lot of value to that lifetime extension, and as a result the extended warranties are generally not purchased.
If the EU enacts measures to enforce product longevity, they force customers to buy something that they have already chosen not to buy.
My hunch: part of the problem here is that people got fleeced by retailers, who sold hugely overpriced extended warranties, banking on loss aversion and risk aversion and general lack of technological understanding. When people realised how much they had been fleeced (assisted by consumer programmes like Watchdog in the UK), many of them went off extended warranties as a mug's game — and never came back. (I once had a Xmas temp job at UK electronics retailer Dixons, commission was on profit, and one extended warranty was worth dozens of devices sold — beaten only by mobile phone contracts).
So anyway, that's a reason why people's revealed preference for extended warranties might not correspond with their true preference for longevity in consumer products.
It's also the case that if you can afford to insure yourself against something (like a consumer good breaking down), and average the costs across all such things, then generally you'll save money by doing so — especially if you reckon, as I do in this case, that you take better-than-average care of your consumer goods. In that case, the price of the extended warranty is a signal of expected longevity, and features in your purchase decision (lower = better), even if you don't buy it. So again, revealed preference for warranties may not equal true preference for longevity.
Finally, we're collectively using and disposing of too much stuff, and one of the reasons for this is that externalities such as waste and resource depletion are not fully internalised. So even if people are not buying extended warranties, and that truly reflects an indifference to product lifespan, there may well be an argument that by "forcing them to buy an extended warranty" — which also forces the manufacturer to take responsibility for the product over a longer period, and thus pay more attention to how long it generally lasts — you get higher social welfare, despite some constraint on individual consumer freedom.
Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking may help them in the long run.
TL;DR: I think this measure has potential to be a really good thing all round.
So anyway, that's a reason why people's revealed preference for extended warranties might not correspond with their true preference for longevity in consumer products.
It's also the case that if you can afford to insure yourself against something (like a consumer good breaking down), and average the costs across all such things, then generally you'll save money by doing so — especially if you reckon, as I do in this case, that you take better-than-average care of your consumer goods. In that case, the price of the extended warranty is a signal of expected longevity, and features in your purchase decision (lower = better), even if you don't buy it. So again, revealed preference for warranties may not equal true preference for longevity.
Finally, we're collectively using and disposing of too much stuff, and one of the reasons for this is that externalities such as waste and resource depletion are not fully internalised. So even if people are not buying extended warranties, and that truly reflects an indifference to product lifespan, there may well be an argument that by "forcing them to buy an extended warranty" — which also forces the manufacturer to take responsibility for the product over a longer period, and thus pay more attention to how long it generally lasts — you get higher social welfare, despite some constraint on individual consumer freedom.
Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking may help them in the long run.
TL;DR: I think this measure has potential to be a really good thing all round.
Yes, you can argue that warranties are overpriced, but if everyone factored the price of the extended warranty into every purchase they made, then manufacturers would naturally be forced to reduce the cost of the warranty, by making their product either more reparable or increasing initial quality.
> Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking may help them in the long run.
Here it may just be my Yankee self-reliance talking, but this smacks of the worst sort of paternalism. Arguing slippery slope arguments is in itself a slippery slope, but why stop here? If buying a bigger TV is not going to make me happy (or make me unhappier) then surely a regulation should exist to prevent me from buying it.
When there are significant externalities (like leaded gasoline) then government regulation is easy to justify. When the externalities are second-hand (the reduction in demand for product longevity causes reparability to become a secondary concern for manufacturers) then I'm more inclined to err on the side of "let the customer set the price of their own risk", rather than "let's just increase costs for everyone because it may or may not have a net societal benefit".
I don't trust that regulatory authorities are above the myopia and are truly able to see long-term more than anyone else.
> Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking may help them in the long run.
Here it may just be my Yankee self-reliance talking, but this smacks of the worst sort of paternalism. Arguing slippery slope arguments is in itself a slippery slope, but why stop here? If buying a bigger TV is not going to make me happy (or make me unhappier) then surely a regulation should exist to prevent me from buying it.
When there are significant externalities (like leaded gasoline) then government regulation is easy to justify. When the externalities are second-hand (the reduction in demand for product longevity causes reparability to become a secondary concern for manufacturers) then I'm more inclined to err on the side of "let the customer set the price of their own risk", rather than "let's just increase costs for everyone because it may or may not have a net societal benefit".
I don't trust that regulatory authorities are above the myopia and are truly able to see long-term more than anyone else.
On the last point, yes this is paternalism, but I'm not convinced it's the worst sort.
On your big TV example, you probably shouldn't be prevented from buying it, but other measures to discourage you from buying it could in theory be welfare-improving on a societal level, and if they were then that would constitute part of a case for imposing them.
On your big TV example, you probably shouldn't be prevented from buying it, but other measures to discourage you from buying it could in theory be welfare-improving on a societal level, and if they were then that would constitute part of a case for imposing them.
Most countries with strong pro-consumer groups already have minimum 2 year warranties.
US-centric pro-corporatist thinking doesn't always apply to the rest of the world.
This is my favorite bit of legalease:
https://www.apple.com/au/legal/statutory-warranty/
That page has become more friendly over time, but when they first put it up it was amazingly passive aggressive.
US-centric pro-corporatist thinking doesn't always apply to the rest of the world.
This is my favorite bit of legalease:
https://www.apple.com/au/legal/statutory-warranty/
That page has become more friendly over time, but when they first put it up it was amazingly passive aggressive.
I guess what you see as pro-corporatist I see as pro-consumer in this case. Specifically, forcing the consumer to purchase a warranty that they would rather not purchase.
I have no problem, for example, with common-law tenants of implied warranties, and in general, the right of customers to demand redress for obvious failures to meet expectations or deception on the part of companies (be the corporations or otherwise).
I believe, though, that the consumer has a right to set a price on their own preference for risk, in general. In specific cases, especially where there are externalities involved, then it's reasonable to limit it (leaded gasoline, for example, or healthcare, for a more controversial (in the US) one), but I feel the starting point should be to let the consumer decide for themselves.
I have no problem, for example, with common-law tenants of implied warranties, and in general, the right of customers to demand redress for obvious failures to meet expectations or deception on the part of companies (be the corporations or otherwise).
I believe, though, that the consumer has a right to set a price on their own preference for risk, in general. In specific cases, especially where there are externalities involved, then it's reasonable to limit it (leaded gasoline, for example, or healthcare, for a more controversial (in the US) one), but I feel the starting point should be to let the consumer decide for themselves.
Maybe in the EU things are different, but in the US....
I've only had a couple of "extended warranties", and they were worded in such a way that they were useless. "This warranty does not cover normal wear and tear on $common_failing_part..." and the like.
If they were useful, I'd buy them all the time.
I've only had a couple of "extended warranties", and they were worded in such a way that they were useless. "This warranty does not cover normal wear and tear on $common_failing_part..." and the like.
If they were useful, I'd buy them all the time.
This is probably closer to the fatal flaw in my argument. Even AppleCare, which is manufacturer-based, only allows two screen replacements, and charges you for both of them.
I guess a middle ground could be to force (through regulation) the companies to offer a manufacturer's warranty, but I'm not sure that this approach is any better than the recommendations that the EU is calling for.
I guess a middle ground could be to force (through regulation) the companies to offer a manufacturer's warranty, but I'm not sure that this approach is any better than the recommendations that the EU is calling for.
David Harum.
It's a race to the bottom without standards enforcement.
Also Market for Lemons: good product is driven out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harum
It's a race to the bottom without standards enforcement.
Also Market for Lemons: good product is driven out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harum
>Provided by... A retail seller
I used to work at best buy and our "extended warranty" was basically us floating you a new unit while we RMA'd the broken one.
I used to work at best buy and our "extended warranty" was basically us floating you a new unit while we RMA'd the broken one.
The article says that consumers are discouraged by the cost of repair.
A few weeks ago, I repaired an eltronical appliance and was surprised to see that all screws were screwed into plastic. As I unscrewed them to access the inside of the device, the plastic around the screw broke.
I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. That just makes no sense appart from upfront cost. Once the plastic is broken, there is no way but to throw the broken device away. Unless you can somehow glue everything back together, but that seems unpractical.
It's like devices are not even planned to be repaired. They are designed to be sold and then abandoned. That's the real issue. Not cost of repair.
A few weeks ago, I repaired an eltronical appliance and was surprised to see that all screws were screwed into plastic. As I unscrewed them to access the inside of the device, the plastic around the screw broke.
I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. That just makes no sense appart from upfront cost. Once the plastic is broken, there is no way but to throw the broken device away. Unless you can somehow glue everything back together, but that seems unpractical.
It's like devices are not even planned to be repaired. They are designed to be sold and then abandoned. That's the real issue. Not cost of repair.
À better law would be something around: "devices should be made so that they can be taken apart and reassembled at least n times".
That would discourage copious amounts or glue and still let the engineers use the methods they want.
That would discourage copious amounts or glue and still let the engineers use the methods they want.
> It's like devices are not even planned to be repaired. They are designed to be sold and then abandoned. That's the real issue. Not cost of repair.
Absolutely. Smartphones are the best example, the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly.
Absolutely. Smartphones are the best example, the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly.
> the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly.
Or, alternatively, the (practically) mandatory updates make the previously perfectly fine phone slow to the point of being unusable.
I'm saying that the updates are practically mandatory because if you don't apply them, your apps gradually stop working (as they cannot talk to their respective server backends, which are being updated without maintaining backcompat) - and of course, the current version of the app requires the current(ish) version of iOS. This all amounts to an engineered obsolescence of millions of perfectly good phones.
Or, alternatively, the (practically) mandatory updates make the previously perfectly fine phone slow to the point of being unusable.
I'm saying that the updates are practically mandatory because if you don't apply them, your apps gradually stop working (as they cannot talk to their respective server backends, which are being updated without maintaining backcompat) - and of course, the current version of the app requires the current(ish) version of iOS. This all amounts to an engineered obsolescence of millions of perfectly good phones.
Or, alternatively, last night my (untampered) phone got bricked by an ota update.
Agreed. Software and hardware should be sold separately.
How does that work? Computers would be sold without operating systems? Good luck pitching that idea.
Very simple: you buy hardware and software from different vendors. Each device must have enough information available publicly so that other companies can write software for it.
You might be able to purchase software and hardware at the same time, but there should be a choice of software and the price of the software should be listed separately on the bill.
The prevalent software business model of lock-in has infected hardware. This has disastrous consequences for the environment. Just because some software is unsupported, expensive hardware is bricked.
The parliament recommendation has this to say about this problem: "software solutions which prevent repairs from being performed, other than by approved firms or bodies, should be discouraged".
You might be able to purchase software and hardware at the same time, but there should be a choice of software and the price of the software should be listed separately on the bill.
The prevalent software business model of lock-in has infected hardware. This has disastrous consequences for the environment. Just because some software is unsupported, expensive hardware is bricked.
The parliament recommendation has this to say about this problem: "software solutions which prevent repairs from being performed, other than by approved firms or bodies, should be discouraged".
Better would be to force them to open source the drivers and specifications and repair guides for all devices, who knows if I can use my PS3 in 10 years, we will have to hope that open source community can make drivers for it.
Technically that works when you assemble one yourself and en-masse won't make any sense.
It's not "like", they are and they've got a term for it; planned obsolescence.
Rubbish. Planned obsolescence is extremely rare. The low quality of products is because of cost cutting.
Manufacturers design for a minimum lifetime as cheaply as possible. "It must last 2 years. How can we save money?" Virtually nobody is going "It must break after 2 years." Except in a very small number of cases that is conspiracy theory nonsense.
Manufacturers design for a minimum lifetime as cheaply as possible. "It must last 2 years. How can we save money?" Virtually nobody is going "It must break after 2 years." Except in a very small number of cases that is conspiracy theory nonsense.
But that's effectively the same goal. If you engineer it to work for 2 years as cheaply as possible, you're probably engineering it to break after 2 years. Would we get better results from "it must cost max X, how can we make it last as long as possible and be repairable?" Probably, but the incentives don't reward it.
Yes but the intent is vastly different. It's like the difference between accidentally and deliberately killing someone. Same result but they're not the same are they?
Depends on the systematicity and avoidability of the accidents, I would say. Negligence is different from manslaughter, but it seems like a spectrum.
>>I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic.
And the beauty of glue would be everywhere. Glue is such a great engineering tool, easy to apply and no need to worry about repairs ever.
I like repairing my stuff...
And the beauty of glue would be everywhere. Glue is such a great engineering tool, easy to apply and no need to worry about repairs ever.
I like repairing my stuff...
A law requiring a particular material? Unless it’s health or safety related, no way. The last place I want to see government is regulating how a product must be constructed (unless it’s health or safety critical obviously.)
If you want a device without plastic screw holes, pay more money and find one or make one yourself, market it and sell it to other like-minded people.
If I have a toaster that breaks, the time it would take me to go to a repair shop is more valuable to me than the cost of a new toaster – not to mention the cost of the repair itself.
In China, you often do get smaller appliances repaired because the labor cost is so low. So it makes economic sense to get those kinds of items repaired.
But in France, if I want to get a microwave fixed, the item is either still under warranty or the depreciated value is less than the repair cost. Perhaps if government lowered taxes and relaxed the labor code, then repair shops could charge less and it would incentivize people to get repairs on smaller ticket items rather than buying replacements. But I certainly am not going to spend €65 getting a €150 microwave repaired when the microwave is already several years old. I migh spend €20 for that repair if I really liked the microwave.
I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be used. The increase cost wouldn’t even be in materials as much as the buereaucratic cost of implementing such requirements.
Health and safety regulations – of course. Regulations because you’re unhappy with screw holes? Not a chance.
If you want a device without plastic screw holes, pay more money and find one or make one yourself, market it and sell it to other like-minded people.
If I have a toaster that breaks, the time it would take me to go to a repair shop is more valuable to me than the cost of a new toaster – not to mention the cost of the repair itself.
In China, you often do get smaller appliances repaired because the labor cost is so low. So it makes economic sense to get those kinds of items repaired.
But in France, if I want to get a microwave fixed, the item is either still under warranty or the depreciated value is less than the repair cost. Perhaps if government lowered taxes and relaxed the labor code, then repair shops could charge less and it would incentivize people to get repairs on smaller ticket items rather than buying replacements. But I certainly am not going to spend €65 getting a €150 microwave repaired when the microwave is already several years old. I migh spend €20 for that repair if I really liked the microwave.
I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be used. The increase cost wouldn’t even be in materials as much as the buereaucratic cost of implementing such requirements.
Health and safety regulations – of course. Regulations because you’re unhappy with screw holes? Not a chance.
The electronics could have a 'repairability' rating similar to energy-efficiency one.
Otherwise there is no feasible way to know what's the build quality before opening it yourself.
Otherwise there is no feasible way to know what's the build quality before opening it yourself.
Generalising and mandating some sort of 'star rating' + notes along the lines of the ifixit Repairability Score[1] system would be a good first step.
AIUI, for products marketed in the US there are often internal photographs & other documentation (e.g, a totally random example product I found with one of the FCC ID search engines: https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900)
Having some semi-standardised set of robustness and repairability criteria and requiring that businesses publish an evaluation of their products against the criteria would at least allow people to get some idea of the 'build quality' or other potential decisionmaking info before buying.
Of course, it would be easy for unscrupulous product manufacturers to find ways to game the evaluations, or just outright lie, so you need some teeth to the rules if caught.
And on the other hand, you're imposing further regulatory burdens on those producing new products, increasing costs and maybe time to market. So there are definitely downsides.
Balancing everything and making it useful without being burdensome is the real problem.
As an afterthought, even if you look inside one instance of a product, there isn't any degree of certainty that if you buy an (externally) identical, matching model number/SKU, it will be the same.
Some regulatory system that actually required version-numbering, or different model-numbering on non-trivial changes would be useful, especially if combined with some obligation to record/announce those version releases, maybe even with some actual change notes.
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability
AIUI, for products marketed in the US there are often internal photographs & other documentation (e.g, a totally random example product I found with one of the FCC ID search engines: https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900)
Having some semi-standardised set of robustness and repairability criteria and requiring that businesses publish an evaluation of their products against the criteria would at least allow people to get some idea of the 'build quality' or other potential decisionmaking info before buying.
Of course, it would be easy for unscrupulous product manufacturers to find ways to game the evaluations, or just outright lie, so you need some teeth to the rules if caught.
And on the other hand, you're imposing further regulatory burdens on those producing new products, increasing costs and maybe time to market. So there are definitely downsides.
Balancing everything and making it useful without being burdensome is the real problem.
As an afterthought, even if you look inside one instance of a product, there isn't any degree of certainty that if you buy an (externally) identical, matching model number/SKU, it will be the same.
Some regulatory system that actually required version-numbering, or different model-numbering on non-trivial changes would be useful, especially if combined with some obligation to record/announce those version releases, maybe even with some actual change notes.
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability
For me, the point is that when we throw out a device because it's too expensive to repair, then we diminish our health, because we pollute our environment.
It's hard to measure, like a lot of things, but we should not throw away a microwave because a single transistor broke. We should get someone to repair it. We would collectively save money (instead of paying people with the RSA doing nothing, we should get some of them to learn how to repair stuff) and save the environment.
As for the tone, you might want to be a little more respectful than to simplify other people's thoughts down to "regulations because you're unhappy with screw holes". It does not help you in any way.
It's hard to measure, like a lot of things, but we should not throw away a microwave because a single transistor broke. We should get someone to repair it. We would collectively save money (instead of paying people with the RSA doing nothing, we should get some of them to learn how to repair stuff) and save the environment.
As for the tone, you might want to be a little more respectful than to simplify other people's thoughts down to "regulations because you're unhappy with screw holes". It does not help you in any way.
What about more expensive items like big TVs, washing machine is it fair to replace them instead of replacing one small component inside it, and if they would have spent maybe a few cents more and not use the cheapest parts on this expensive object and maybe added some protection for electrical and mechanical damage(water,dust) your device would work for 10 years.
For health, it is not so obvious: see the scandal of epipen.
>Perhaps if government lowered taxes and relaxed the labor code
Oh, Brian, we meet again, and we disagree once again. Taxes and the labor code are not what is making things expensive.
- The labor code is not even close to being the one reason companies do not hire : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2871900?sommaire=287202...
- Countless fiscal advantages have already been given and tried, effectively the same thing as lowering taxes on companies. That includes the CIE, CICE, CIR, the reduction of TVA in restaurants, fiscal benefits for life insurance holders, lowering the ISS to 34.6%, removing taxes on plus-value, the globalised worldwide profits regime, and the countless things that can be listed here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_fiscale
All of these happened, and the costs have not changed. Some of them were given in exchange of promise of jobs (the change of TVA in restaurants being one of the most notable), and none happened. Profits went up, though.
I would rather have microwave repair costs go up to 80€ than lower our living standards.
>I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be used.
hyperbole.txt
Oh, Brian, we meet again, and we disagree once again. Taxes and the labor code are not what is making things expensive.
- The labor code is not even close to being the one reason companies do not hire : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2871900?sommaire=287202...
- Countless fiscal advantages have already been given and tried, effectively the same thing as lowering taxes on companies. That includes the CIE, CICE, CIR, the reduction of TVA in restaurants, fiscal benefits for life insurance holders, lowering the ISS to 34.6%, removing taxes on plus-value, the globalised worldwide profits regime, and the countless things that can be listed here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_fiscale
All of these happened, and the costs have not changed. Some of them were given in exchange of promise of jobs (the change of TVA in restaurants being one of the most notable), and none happened. Profits went up, though.
I would rather have microwave repair costs go up to 80€ than lower our living standards.
>I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be used.
hyperbole.txt
This made me think about the lamp that shines for 100 years in a fire department somewhere. It even has a cam http://www.centennialbulb.org/
Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have more sales.
I think this was the article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbu...
Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have more sales.
I think this was the article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbu...
I mean, LED bulbs have made traditional ones redundant and have incredibly long lifespans, so this isn't really true any more.
The article makes some good points that lifespan was controlled, but not as drastically as you imply. They were talking about losing a third of the lifespan. While yes, they were clearly aiming to reduce the lifespan of bulbs, they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs.
If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would have (it's not like that cartel is still going - 1940 was a long time ago) - I don't think what they did was that dissimilar to desktop software moving to subscription models to increase profit - as long as they introduce value from that change to justify it, then it's not wrong.
The century-old bulb is an extreme outlier and there was never an expectation for anything to last that long. Trying to imply that modern bulbs are handicapped intentionally to such an extreme is just misleading.
The article makes some good points that lifespan was controlled, but not as drastically as you imply. They were talking about losing a third of the lifespan. While yes, they were clearly aiming to reduce the lifespan of bulbs, they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs.
If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would have (it's not like that cartel is still going - 1940 was a long time ago) - I don't think what they did was that dissimilar to desktop software moving to subscription models to increase profit - as long as they introduce value from that change to justify it, then it's not wrong.
The century-old bulb is an extreme outlier and there was never an expectation for anything to last that long. Trying to imply that modern bulbs are handicapped intentionally to such an extreme is just misleading.
Yeah, that old lightbulb is so dim that it's basically completely useless. Even if it lasts 300 years, I don't want it in my house. I want lightbulbs that can actually illuminate a book well enough to read the words.
It's hardly a conspiracy. You can keep an old car running forever, but I want a car with air conditioning, power locks, Bluetooth, ABS, power steering, variable valve timing, and good gas milage. All of those things are complicated systems that are expensive to repair and break easily. Doesn't mean the older car is better or newer cars are a rip off.
It's hardly a conspiracy. You can keep an old car running forever, but I want a car with air conditioning, power locks, Bluetooth, ABS, power steering, variable valve timing, and good gas milage. All of those things are complicated systems that are expensive to repair and break easily. Doesn't mean the older car is better or newer cars are a rip off.
> If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would have
No, they did, that's what is called a halogen lamp, quite a bit more efficient, lasts about twice as long.
No, they did, that's what is called a halogen lamp, quite a bit more efficient, lasts about twice as long.
And a lot hotter and more expensive - hence why they didn't replace normal bulbs.
Well, no. Yes, a bit more expensive to buy, but not more expensive TCO if they were actually on a lot, at least for the low-voltage versions.
And also, obviously not hotter, how could they be more efficient at producing light, and still be hotter? Yes, the filament in halogen lamps is running hotter, that's why they are more efficient (and the halogen process is what keeps the filament intact despite the high temperature), but they're also more compact--the total amount of thermal power produced by a halogen lamp of equal light output as a regular incandescent bulb is lower, and thus, if you put it into the same form factor and under the same cooling conditions, it's actually going to be cooler at the surface.
And also, obviously not hotter, how could they be more efficient at producing light, and still be hotter? Yes, the filament in halogen lamps is running hotter, that's why they are more efficient (and the halogen process is what keeps the filament intact despite the high temperature), but they're also more compact--the total amount of thermal power produced by a halogen lamp of equal light output as a regular incandescent bulb is lower, and thus, if you put it into the same form factor and under the same cooling conditions, it's actually going to be cooler at the surface.
> they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs.
Brighter and more efficient.
Brighter and more efficient.
> Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have more sales.
No, because it is (well, was, before CFLs and LEDs for lighting) actually more economical for the customer. At least in recent times, the largest chunk of the costs of owning and using a light bulb was the energy used over its lifetime, not the price to buy one. A typical 60 Watt ligh bulb cost 0.50 to maybe 1 dollar, the electricity to make it produce light for 1000 hours about 7 to 15 dollars.
The tradeoff was simply between making it more efficient at converting electricity into light, which requires running it at higher temperatures, which reduces the lifespan, or making it last longer, at the cost of making it less efficient and thus more expensive to use.
No, because it is (well, was, before CFLs and LEDs for lighting) actually more economical for the customer. At least in recent times, the largest chunk of the costs of owning and using a light bulb was the energy used over its lifetime, not the price to buy one. A typical 60 Watt ligh bulb cost 0.50 to maybe 1 dollar, the electricity to make it produce light for 1000 hours about 7 to 15 dollars.
The tradeoff was simply between making it more efficient at converting electricity into light, which requires running it at higher temperatures, which reduces the lifespan, or making it last longer, at the cost of making it less efficient and thus more expensive to use.
As I read through some of the comments on this thread what jumped out at me is that products today are designed with DFM in mind rather than DFR. Design for Manufacturing vs. Design for Repairs.
Industrial products are different. There's a class of product that must be designed for easy maintenance. Not so in consumer-land. For example, to replace some of the lights on a BMW you have to remove the front bumper. Crazy.
Industrial products are different. There's a class of product that must be designed for easy maintenance. Not so in consumer-land. For example, to replace some of the lights on a BMW you have to remove the front bumper. Crazy.
I kind of want these rules to go into effect in the EU just to see what happens.
I don't expect good things to happen, but one way or another it would be instructive.
I don't expect good things to happen, but one way or another it would be instructive.
Mandatory warranty of 2 years seems to be doing fine
It should be at least 5 years for large home appliances like washing machines, refrigerators, TVs, etc. Cars too.
I think this is absolutely the only way we're ever going to get better repairability and manufacturers who make products to last that length of time.
In Australia, we have the traditional warranty by law, but we also have a law that requires appliances to last as long as would be reasonably expected to by a consumer. [1] And they must meet any extra claims. Of course, this is an absolute pain to then try to get the manufacturer to uphold, and you may have to threaten legal action.
We did this with an Apple Watch that broke when dropped onto concrete. My argument was that the watch was repeatedly marketed as a "sports watch", and such a device should be able to withstand a small fall without being destroyed. Took a few months, but we got a replacement. Have had friends with good experiences with large appliances, but you certainly have to be prepared to fight.
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warr...
In Australia, we have the traditional warranty by law, but we also have a law that requires appliances to last as long as would be reasonably expected to by a consumer. [1] And they must meet any extra claims. Of course, this is an absolute pain to then try to get the manufacturer to uphold, and you may have to threaten legal action.
We did this with an Apple Watch that broke when dropped onto concrete. My argument was that the watch was repeatedly marketed as a "sports watch", and such a device should be able to withstand a small fall without being destroyed. Took a few months, but we got a replacement. Have had friends with good experiences with large appliances, but you certainly have to be prepared to fight.
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warr...
There are some elements of this already; WEEE makes it supposedly slightly more expensive to make disposable products, and a ban on smart cartridges that wear out early without being refillable: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/30/eu_tells_hp_et_al/
They can start by changing the warranty regulations [1] to be valid 10 years instead of a ridiculous two years.
[1]: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
[1]: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
The solution is metered trash/pollution for everyone.
The more you throw away, the more you pay. The more waste you produce, the more you pay. The more you harm the environment, the more you pay.
This will incentivize individuals to throw less away, hence buy less and seek more durable products.
The more you throw away, the more you pay. The more waste you produce, the more you pay. The more you harm the environment, the more you pay.
This will incentivize individuals to throw less away, hence buy less and seek more durable products.
From TFA: "if a repair takes longer than a month, the guarantee should be extended to match the repair time,"
Uh, no. That will insure that repairs always take 29 days, except in february where they will take 27 daze.
Simply always extend the guarantee by the amount of any repair time.
Uh, no. That will insure that repairs always take 29 days, except in february where they will take 27 daze.
Simply always extend the guarantee by the amount of any repair time.
When I read about yet another EU regulation of this kind I always remember the cookie law :/
I want to write some comment to agree with you, but I can't find the words the express my frustration with the cookie thing. It beggars belief.
I think the idea's reasonable but it was implemented wrongly by everyone, making it stupid. The aim was to stop unnecessary tracking, not all tracking. See the list of exempt cookies here: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm
Finally.. Although I am not optimistic about seeing results soon. Companies will go to extremes to circumvent such rules.
But it's shocking to see their lack of insight:
> software should be easier to repair and update
ROFL!
But it's shocking to see their lack of insight:
> software should be easier to repair and update
ROFL!
Why ROFL? Fixing bugs is essentially repairing software, isn't it? And it seems perfectly reasonable to me that if I buy some software, I should be able to "repair" any defects in it.
Well this is the same people who gave you the cookie law.
You can call for anything, however it will happen only if it makes economic sense to manufacturers, sellers and customers.
The EU also has a 3-year minimum warranty requirement on consumer products.
Much of what the EU does is to make buying from another EU country within the EU a seamless experience. They just prohibited phone roaming charges within the EU, for example. This is the "single European market" concept.
Much of what the EU does is to make buying from another EU country within the EU a seamless experience. They just prohibited phone roaming charges within the EU, for example. This is the "single European market" concept.
Not 3 years, it's 2 years, and it's not exactly same as "warranty".
Directive 1999/44/EC says all EU countries have to ensure a retailer could be held liable for all "non-conformities" which manifest within two years from delivery.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-elect...
Directive 1999/44/EC says all EU countries have to ensure a retailer could be held liable for all "non-conformities" which manifest within two years from delivery.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-elect...
paradoxically we want longer lifetime for some products but not for IE 6, Windows XP, JDK 1 , name your product's support hell...
Arguably, Windows XP had an incredibly long lifetime (12 years!) in terms of actual support/updates. The problem is getting people to leave after that lifetime is over.
If something is going to get updates for twelve years, there's no problem with people continuing to use it.
If something is going to get updates for twelve years, there's no problem with people continuing to use it.
XP is still used in all sorts of (theoretically) non-networked applications.
Yes, we don't want long lifetimes on products that have externalities.
In other news, the parliament took a vote affirming previous decisions that TV shows should be funnier.
..I guess that was trite. The EU parliament is in a constitutional limbo state. It doesn’t have real power or a predefined legislative jurisdiction, so voters don’t take it seriously. They elect quirky, fring-ey members they wouldn’t elect to their own national parties.
I’m in favour of durable products, but I don’t see how this is en route to policies that affect this.
..I guess that was trite. The EU parliament is in a constitutional limbo state. It doesn’t have real power or a predefined legislative jurisdiction, so voters don’t take it seriously. They elect quirky, fring-ey members they wouldn’t elect to their own national parties.
I’m in favour of durable products, but I don’t see how this is en route to policies that affect this.
You probably do not live in Europe (or maybe you just like trolling?).
First I am a voter and I do take the EU parliament seriously. I also consider what the groups and candidates voted in the past before giving them my vote - especially on topics like world trade giant agreements (TTIP, TATFA, CETA... - yes they also vote on that and it is very meaningful for our future).
You may also read some documentation on the powers and functions of the EU Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and...
You may also just read the news:
-> UK just voted to get out of EU to escape EU funding and regulations - so probably those regulations do exist at a significant extend.
-> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation.
So probably - yes - they can set rules on repairability and durability.
First I am a voter and I do take the EU parliament seriously. I also consider what the groups and candidates voted in the past before giving them my vote - especially on topics like world trade giant agreements (TTIP, TATFA, CETA... - yes they also vote on that and it is very meaningful for our future).
You may also read some documentation on the powers and functions of the EU Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and...
You may also just read the news:
-> UK just voted to get out of EU to escape EU funding and regulations - so probably those regulations do exist at a significant extend.
-> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation.
So probably - yes - they can set rules on repairability and durability.
> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation.
Wasn't that the European Commission (and not Parliament) though? They seem to be significantly more powerful.
Wasn't that the European Commission (and not Parliament) though? They seem to be significantly more powerful.
EU law needs to be proposed by the Commission (though the Maastricht Treaty gives Parliament powers to request that the Commission should put forward proposals on their behalf), and then normally approved and/or amended by both Parliament and the Council, with drawn out conciliation procedures if one or the other changes the proposals too much.
The complexity stems from the legal status where the EU is in some respects a confederation of sovereign states, where the governments of the member states need to represent their respective nations, and in some respects a union of people. The gradual shift of power towards the Parliament represents attempts to shift it towards the latter, while the Commission and Council represents the treat realities where delegating more power to Parliament would require constitutional changes in a number of member states to cede the sovereignty (currently this is worked around by having the treaties bind the respective governments to take make the required decision - it's exploiting the wide latitude most governments have in exercising treating rights and obligations.
The complexity stems from the legal status where the EU is in some respects a confederation of sovereign states, where the governments of the member states need to represent their respective nations, and in some respects a union of people. The gradual shift of power towards the Parliament represents attempts to shift it towards the latter, while the Commission and Council represents the treat realities where delegating more power to Parliament would require constitutional changes in a number of member states to cede the sovereignty (currently this is worked around by having the treaties bind the respective governments to take make the required decision - it's exploiting the wide latitude most governments have in exercising treating rights and obligations.
Thanks for the writeup! This gives some insight into how convoluted the system is and hence why people don't trust it.
How is he trolling by stating the facts? You might wish it were different but the EU Parliament doesn't have any real power. It can call for things all it likes, but it can't make law, which raises the question of why it calls itself a Parliament. The single purpose of a Parliament is to make law, after all.
The wiki page you link to does say that.
Voters have been figuring it out. Turnout for EP elections has been falling steadily since the institution was first created:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-tur...
From 62% to around 40% on average. People don't bother voting because the EP can't/won't actually do much except cheerlead for the EU itself and demand it does more.
This sort of story appears from time to time. The EP calls for this, it calls for that. Nobody pays much attention because these "calls" don't matter. The EU's laws can only be changed by the Commission, and EU law is made entirely in secret (unlike every other legislature in the world save North Korea). So there's little point trying to get involved or care what they do - EU law just "appears" fully formed and gets implemented without debate.
https://euobserver.com/institutional/136630
The wiki page you link to does say that.
Voters have been figuring it out. Turnout for EP elections has been falling steadily since the institution was first created:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-tur...
From 62% to around 40% on average. People don't bother voting because the EP can't/won't actually do much except cheerlead for the EU itself and demand it does more.
This sort of story appears from time to time. The EP calls for this, it calls for that. Nobody pays much attention because these "calls" don't matter. The EU's laws can only be changed by the Commission, and EU law is made entirely in secret (unlike every other legislature in the world save North Korea). So there's little point trying to get involved or care what they do - EU law just "appears" fully formed and gets implemented without debate.
https://euobserver.com/institutional/136630
> You might wish it were different but the EU Parliament doesn't have any real power.
The EP can't initiate new law, but they can still vote on law proposed by the Commission, which does give them a certain amount of power. Your second link mentions MEPs doing back-room deals with the Commission and European diplomats, which they certainly couldn't do if they were entirely powerless.
I'm also skeptical on your claim that North Korea is the only other legislature where this secret law-making happens. Other autocracies aside, in any system with political parties, proposed legislation will most likely be circulated within the party for some time; then discussed informally with leaders of other parties that might be necessary for a majority, before it is first presented at a public hearing.
The EP can't initiate new law, but they can still vote on law proposed by the Commission, which does give them a certain amount of power. Your second link mentions MEPs doing back-room deals with the Commission and European diplomats, which they certainly couldn't do if they were entirely powerless.
I'm also skeptical on your claim that North Korea is the only other legislature where this secret law-making happens. Other autocracies aside, in any system with political parties, proposed legislation will most likely be circulated within the party for some time; then discussed informally with leaders of other parties that might be necessary for a majority, before it is first presented at a public hearing.
They can also extensively amend laws and have the right to ask the commission to submit a proposal, and as far as I understand, the commission routinely obliges.
So, while it might not have the jure initiative power, it does de facto.
So, while it might not have the jure initiative power, it does de facto.
The Commission frequently obliges because the EP is stuffed full of wildly unrepresentative EU fans whose proposals are usually of the form, "Please Commission, award yourself more power". This article being a good case in point - they're asking the EU Commission to regulate more at the EU level.
If the EP had made any serious attempt to prevent Brexit, for example by proposing to the Commission to let member states have more control over immigration, they'd simply have been ignored and thus they never both making proposals that they know would get rejected.
If the EP had made any serious attempt to prevent Brexit, for example by proposing to the Commission to let member states have more control over immigration, they'd simply have been ignored and thus they never both making proposals that they know would get rejected.
I live in Ireland, and I didn't intend to troll though I should have probably written that differently. I was reacting mostly to the language of the recommendations. Though, I also think we have a serious polity problem. I think many Europeans people treated recent EU parliamentary elections as an opportunity for protest or half-serious voting. I think this creates a negative feedback between disempowered parliament and an electorate that doesn't take it seriously or want to give it more power.
Extending the minimum warranty can help to make more durable products.
The EU already made mandatory 24 months warranty for all products sold in Europe.
I think this has been beneficial not only to European citizens but also to the US where there isn't a minimum warranty by default. Businesses who sell products on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have mirrored the imposed warranty of the EU in the US.
I am in favor of extending the minimum warranty.
PS: isn't there also some regulation that a business should provide pieces for repair for a period of 10 years? I seem to recall something like that.
I think this has been beneficial not only to European citizens but also to the US where there isn't a minimum warranty by default. Businesses who sell products on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have mirrored the imposed warranty of the EU in the US.
I am in favor of extending the minimum warranty.
PS: isn't there also some regulation that a business should provide pieces for repair for a period of 10 years? I seem to recall something like that.
The EU directive might say that but countries codify that into law differently. For example, here in Greece, there is actually no law stating warranties should be two years. It only says that the warranty should be "reasonable depending on the expected lifetime of the product".
Don't forget that the 24 month warranty is one of the stated reasons for justifying the sale price difference for the same product between the US and the EU.
If it's increased, manufacturers will just increase their EU prices so that their costs will be covered.
If it's increased, manufacturers will just increase their EU prices so that their costs will be covered.
The price difference seems mostly due to advertised prices.
In the US they advertise the price excluding tax, in the EU we advertise the price including tax.
When counting taxes, there isn't a big difference.
In the US they advertise the price excluding tax, in the EU we advertise the price including tax.
When counting taxes, there isn't a big difference.
I don't want to have to pay more for durable products. Please let me choose whether I want to buy extended warranty -- many manufacturers already offer it, but I'm not interested it in.
But extended warranty is just insurance, nothing to do with the product being durable or not.
I don't buy the argument that costs will skyrocket. Most manufacturers, won't give a lot of thought to making their products more durable while keeping the costs down, unless pressured, either by consumers, or the government. They're more focused on making money (rightfully so). The incentive to keep making money because their products break often causing people to re-buy, must be removed IMHO.
I don't buy the argument that costs will skyrocket. Most manufacturers, won't give a lot of thought to making their products more durable while keeping the costs down, unless pressured, either by consumers, or the government. They're more focused on making money (rightfully so). The incentive to keep making money because their products break often causing people to re-buy, must be removed IMHO.
I know that most people change their phones often but there are products that are expensive like washing machine, gas heaters that should be designed from the start to last 5 years or more. If 2 companies build washing machines and they need to increase the warranty time, the one that can do that with less price increase would sell more, the one that planned them to break down faster would lose and have to make a new dessign.
Why don't you just pay for the 5 year warranty if you want it, instead of wanting to make it mandatory that everyone pay?
The warranty doesn't make the product durable. Its just allows you to re-buy the same non-durable product using resources from a shared pool.
This is about addressing the fundamental problem.
This is about addressing the fundamental problem.
Would you buy a car if the seller gives 1 month warranty?
My opinion is that expensive products should have longer warranty by default. For cheaper products current 2 years is fine.
Maybe the fact that the people in the EU parliament are not in the focus of the electoral people is a good thing, they will not put a big effort into the political "game", back at home the guys don't usually vote on topics on what they personal believe is best but have to vote on how the party decide is best for themselves to get a good score at the next elections.
Some of their proposals are just the product of people who have no concept of how technology works. Hell some of it reads like an anti-Apple manifesto being that they integrate battery and LED and such. What would a tablet with a user replaceable battery look like? How many years must they last before they are long lasting? If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that sufficient?
With regards to products like cars where the makeup can come from hundreds of manufactures who decides what needs to adhere to the rules and what doesn't? Someone posted about a cracked screen on a radio, how far down the component tree do we go before we stop?
I do like one section, no software should enable the fixing of a user owned product. The exception would be software that locks out repairs that might allow for unauthorized access; what I mean is that this could be an end run to making touch id easily hacked by government by forcing it to be serviced by third parties.
With regards to products like cars where the makeup can come from hundreds of manufactures who decides what needs to adhere to the rules and what doesn't? Someone posted about a cracked screen on a radio, how far down the component tree do we go before we stop?
I do like one section, no software should enable the fixing of a user owned product. The exception would be software that locks out repairs that might allow for unauthorized access; what I mean is that this could be an end run to making touch id easily hacked by government by forcing it to be serviced by third parties.
> What would a tablet with a user replaceable battery look like?
https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability
It looks about the same as any other tablet, but with non-fragile latches holding it shut and no glue anywhere.
> If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that sufficient?
No, the consumer should be able to replace the battery every few years and keep using it for over a decade, assuming a typical situation where nothing else breaks.
https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability
It looks about the same as any other tablet, but with non-fragile latches holding it shut and no glue anywhere.
> If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that sufficient?
No, the consumer should be able to replace the battery every few years and keep using it for over a decade, assuming a typical situation where nothing else breaks.
>Hell some of it reads like an anti-Apple manifesto being that they integrate battery and LED and such.
Maybe because you are unfamiliar with other companies that do the same?
Recently the little magnet on my 5-6 year old iPad that holds the case has become weak. The ipad itself, works great. Its already out of warranty and it doesn't take a genius to popup open a case and put a new magnet in (instructions to do so are already on ifixit). But the supply of parts is intentionally prohibited by Apple, making such simple repairs impossible. While this regulation is addressing a different issue, citizens should be doing much more to penalize such anti-consumer behavior.
Maybe because you are unfamiliar with other companies that do the same?
Recently the little magnet on my 5-6 year old iPad that holds the case has become weak. The ipad itself, works great. Its already out of warranty and it doesn't take a genius to popup open a case and put a new magnet in (instructions to do so are already on ifixit). But the supply of parts is intentionally prohibited by Apple, making such simple repairs impossible. While this regulation is addressing a different issue, citizens should be doing much more to penalize such anti-consumer behavior.
Apple's marketing material reads like an anti-sustainability manifesto.
Cost to replace touch screen module: more than the entire value of the car! That is insane. Effectively, if I want to claim from insurance - crack the touch screen (it is a replaceable module) and have to scrap the entire car.
In this case, I managed to get a replacement (fitted) from a scrapped car for 1/10 of the price the Ford dealer was quoting me.