EU Prepares "Right to Repair" Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans(bleepingcomputer.com)
bleepingcomputer.com
EU Prepares "Right to Repair" Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/eu-prepares-right-to-repair-legislation-to-fight-short-product-lifespans/
344 comments
Instead of legislation that simply says that products must be repairable I would prefer to see some form of scaling "repairability tax" on purchases of consumer products.
It would be based on the following...
* The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched.
* Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them.
* Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues.
* Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device.
The more repairable a product is the less this tax would be, potentially dropping to zero. Crucially, the actual price of the products would play no part in the calculation. Cheap disposable Android tablets would attract the same rate that a high end smartphone would if they were equally as repairable.
I'd also levy a reduced, or even zero, rate of VAT on repair services to encourage repair over replacement.
I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.
It would be based on the following...
* The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched.
* Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them.
* Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues.
* Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device.
The more repairable a product is the less this tax would be, potentially dropping to zero. Crucially, the actual price of the products would play no part in the calculation. Cheap disposable Android tablets would attract the same rate that a high end smartphone would if they were equally as repairable.
I'd also levy a reduced, or even zero, rate of VAT on repair services to encourage repair over replacement.
I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.
> * The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched.
Reasonable on the surface, but what about trade secrets?
* Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them.
That’s reasonable.
* Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues.
What about when those special glues ARE needed? For example: water resistance (IP67).
* Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device.
The problem is that users are stupid. If you allow people to downgrade, you open them up to security holes. There’s a reason Apple doesn’t let you downgrade iOS, and it’s not money (what money do they make from preventing downgrades?), it’s security. People are gullible and could easily be tricked by some scam site to downgrade their device in order to “win”.
> I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.
What about Apple? If you recycle your device through Apple, they attempt to recycle as much as they can.
Reasonable on the surface, but what about trade secrets?
* Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them.
That’s reasonable.
* Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues.
What about when those special glues ARE needed? For example: water resistance (IP67).
* Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device.
The problem is that users are stupid. If you allow people to downgrade, you open them up to security holes. There’s a reason Apple doesn’t let you downgrade iOS, and it’s not money (what money do they make from preventing downgrades?), it’s security. People are gullible and could easily be tricked by some scam site to downgrade their device in order to “win”.
> I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.
What about Apple? If you recycle your device through Apple, they attempt to recycle as much as they can.
People are not stupid to downgrade. They just want to use their legacy software and familair UIs?
Speaking of stupid, what hard with beefing up the code while "allowing" backward compatibility and familiar UIs?
Speaking of stupid, what hard with beefing up the code while "allowing" backward compatibility and familiar UIs?
Funny timing, yesterday we moved a fridge from some neighbor to an old lady house. As we take her old heavy fridge out to make some room; she giggled '60 years old fridge...'. I was shocked by that figure. That thing ran for 60 years. 60.
Planned obsolescence made people sad they couldn't have 20 yo appliances .. but 60. When that thing left the store my mother was a few months old.
Planned obsolescence made people sad they couldn't have 20 yo appliances .. but 60. When that thing left the store my mother was a few months old.
Modern fridges use roughly 25% as much energy as fridges from the 70s according to this page though: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html
I doubt keeping a 60 year old fridge running is the cheapest option.
I doubt keeping a 60 year old fridge running is the cheapest option.
The question is, why do modern fridges seem to break more frequently after a few years than older fridges. Is it:
1. modern fridges are more complicated, thus more things can break
2. The manufacturer wants it to break after about 5 years so you buy a new one (planned obsolescence)
3. Old fridges did indeed break as much as the ones today... and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)
1. modern fridges are more complicated, thus more things can break
2. The manufacturer wants it to break after about 5 years so you buy a new one (planned obsolescence)
3. Old fridges did indeed break as much as the ones today... and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)
There are at least a few additional options to those three to consider here:
- The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly.
- smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed.
- throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading)
- some combination of all of the above.
Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.
- The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly.
- smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed.
- throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading)
- some combination of all of the above.
Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.
I'd say it's certainly possible to get everyone involved to pursue profits in such a way as to accidentally completely disregard longevity.
I think it's possible too. But also think it's a little implausible nobody realized what was going on: longevity is too important (if only for guarantee purposes) for producers to have completely forgotten about it - well, most of em anyhow. And given how commercially self-serving the outcome, and how actively firms strategize for all kinds of income flows, I can't really buy the idea that it's all a benign unfortunate accident. It's possible; sure - but it wouldn't be my first guess for most non-tiny firms anyhow.
It doesn't take "nobody" to realize what was going on; it only takes the decision makers to either not realize it or to actively decide for profit against longevity.
Imagine a situation: Investors say: give me investment returns! People in charge say: give me profits! People making decisions say: profits or quality! People conducting day-to-day operations say: worry about regulations first, then profits, then quality! People doing the work say: this quality is poor, but I need my job and don't want to rock the boat!
Maybe it's just anecdotal evidence, but that's generally been my experience over the past 10 to 15 years of doing things
Imagine a situation: Investors say: give me investment returns! People in charge say: give me profits! People making decisions say: profits or quality! People conducting day-to-day operations say: worry about regulations first, then profits, then quality! People doing the work say: this quality is poor, but I need my job and don't want to rock the boat!
Maybe it's just anecdotal evidence, but that's generally been my experience over the past 10 to 15 years of doing things
Yeah, I agree completely. I just think that kind of behavior deserves a certain small amount of opprobrium ;-).
My uncle repairs appliances. A couple of factors that he's encountered in his years of experience:
1. Energy star compliance. Many of the pumps now use far less power but are more prone to burnout. Keeping a fridge door accidentally open too long is much more detrimental to pumps than it used to be.
2. Firmware. Never been an issue with older fridges but it's now another point of failure.
There's certainly many more but those are some of the most common ones he runs into.
There's certainly many more but those are some of the most common ones he runs into.
I don't believe in full fledged Survivor Bias here. Too many people were naturally angry at recent devices. They all noticed a substantial regression. Especially since you also naturally expect companies to have mastered and made progress and provide something better.
In my electronics/audio experience, the market twist the design toward shittier components that provide acceptable function with a few marketing buzzwords (HD audio, 24 bit audio) that will make people buy something; where their old gear was clearly superior in terms of quality. It's a reflex to think economies of scale provide improvements and progress.
In my electronics/audio experience, the market twist the design toward shittier components that provide acceptable function with a few marketing buzzwords (HD audio, 24 bit audio) that will make people buy something; where their old gear was clearly superior in terms of quality. It's a reflex to think economies of scale provide improvements and progress.
I think the budget options available now didn't exist in the past either; components are cheap now — you may be able to get a fridge for $300 that lasts 5 years, but 50 years ago your only option might be paying the equivilant of $2k for something that lasted 30 years. Today I'd guess a $3,000 fridge lasts longer than a $300 one, and most people are buying a $300 fridge (if someone can prove otherwise, I'd be happy to be proven wrong).
Even a $3000 fridge only has a 1 year warranty these days, and speaking from recent experience spending $2k on a fridge does not make it more reliable - in fact most refrigerators are made with the same internals and body but minor tweaks and sold at 3-5 different price points under different brand names (see Whirlpool - Frigidaire - Kitchenaid). Nothing that's changed between the different brands changes the reliability, only the aesthetics.
So on a component level in terms of the cooling elements: the $3,000 and the $300 are essentially the same to a consumer?
Is there no market for a refrigerator produced with high-quality components? or does higher-quality component price outpace the gained longevity?
What about so-called "commercial grade" appliances — surely they should have a longer lifespan?
Is there no market for a refrigerator produced with high-quality components? or does higher-quality component price outpace the gained longevity?
What about so-called "commercial grade" appliances — surely they should have a longer lifespan?
Miele offers long warranties. It's simple: Buy the appliance with the longest warranty and disregard other things.
Commercial is different. I'd guess things like serviceability and a local repair network to be the most important qualities there. And although mean time between services are important, commercial also disregards stuff like noise.
Commercial is different. I'd guess things like serviceability and a local repair network to be the most important qualities there. And although mean time between services are important, commercial also disregards stuff like noise.
> and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)
No, old gear was definitely constructed better. I've repaired many appliances over the years and stuff from the 60's was built to last with a noticeable degradation in quality over the 70's and the 80's, since the 90's it's pretty much a constant. There is absolutely no way that a household appliance made after 1975 lasts for 60 years.
No, old gear was definitely constructed better. I've repaired many appliances over the years and stuff from the 60's was built to last with a noticeable degradation in quality over the 70's and the 80's, since the 90's it's pretty much a constant. There is absolutely no way that a household appliance made after 1975 lasts for 60 years.
Do you think it's a natural market behavior that enticed manufacturers to aim at entry level market by cutting corners AMAP then realizing it also increased frequency of renewal thus making even more economical sense ?
Personally I believe this is the default behaviour of unrestricted market competition. Under competitive pressure, companies try to cut costs by gradually optimizing the product into the cheapest version that still sells - which in the end will be so tight on tolerances that it'll break quickly.
I suppose at some point there were business people who noticed that planned obsolescence creates repeat purchases, and that pricing is an arbitrary thing so they can sell the same hyper-optimized crap on different price tiers and people mostly won't notice - but I think the main driving force wasn't malice, just the usual thing that happens in the market economy.
In this way, I see the period of 1960s - 1990s as a time of discovering new ways to cheap out on materials and construction. After all, optimizing for manufacturing costs takes time and lots of smarts. Barely working crap doesn't happen by default (conversely, and this reminds me of the discussions around Juicero teardown, the initial design of any working appliance will likely be heavily overengineered).
I suppose at some point there were business people who noticed that planned obsolescence creates repeat purchases, and that pricing is an arbitrary thing so they can sell the same hyper-optimized crap on different price tiers and people mostly won't notice - but I think the main driving force wasn't malice, just the usual thing that happens in the market economy.
In this way, I see the period of 1960s - 1990s as a time of discovering new ways to cheap out on materials and construction. After all, optimizing for manufacturing costs takes time and lots of smarts. Barely working crap doesn't happen by default (conversely, and this reminds me of the discussions around Juicero teardown, the initial design of any working appliance will likely be heavily overengineered).
yeah I know that cutting cost is almost a definition of business, I meant the fact that in the same time it forces a different rhythm that is very self sustaining; it's a double win, and I wonder how long they knew that fact. It's probably a naive question, I remember seeing old quotes about "if doctor cured you of all, they'd be jobless" or one about Michelin "they knew how to make 10x better 10x cheaper, but why should they release that".. it's just the dual.
The cost of disposing goods is not borne by the manufacturer. If it were, you might start seeing products that last longer.
[deleted]
When I bought a fridge some years ago, the capital cost of a new fridge was about €100, the annual operating cost was about €50. Investing in a more efficient fridge pays of quickly. Second hand fridges (€50 capital, €80 operating) made no sense.
And this is not a mere frugality argument. The economics more or less reflects environmental impact as well. There is a point where discarding a perfectly functioning but inefficient appliance for a newer is the environmental choice.
And this is not a mere frugality argument. The economics more or less reflects environmental impact as well. There is a point where discarding a perfectly functioning but inefficient appliance for a newer is the environmental choice.
My wife and I want to get a new fridge, but almost everything new out there (consumer-oriented) won't fit into the space our current fridge occupies.
Our house was built in the 1970s, with 8 foot ceilings. Also, in the kitchen area for the fridge, the standard thing was to put a cabinet above the fridge; so we are limited in height. Newer homes have 9 foot or higher ceilings, and recently, new fridges has grown a bit taller. Tall enough, so that while one might fit into our space, it wouldn't have enough clearance around the top to provide proper air circulation for the unit.
So our choices have been limited by what the market wants:
1. Remove the cabinets (which would be really expensive for the small remodelling effort on top of the cost of a new fridge).
2. Get an ugly new fridge (some of the over-unders will fit, but they tend to be much smaller than we want, and have other features missing - though they do tend to be much cheaper).
3. Move to a new house (not a reasonable option at this time).
4. Purchase an older fridge that'll fit.
So right now, we're "nursing" our current side-by-side along; it still runs ok and keeps things cold, but the ice maker no longer works, nor does the water on the door. We've considered getting those fixed, but it would likely cost several hundred dollars, and the fridge is closing in on 20 years old anyway.
One other option we're considering is going with a commercial unit; unfortunately, from what we've researched, such units are not sized properly at all for a consumer kitchen (too deep, too tall, too narrow, or too wide).
So our only real option is #4 - unless we want to spend a big chunk of change in one manner or another.
Our house was built in the 1970s, with 8 foot ceilings. Also, in the kitchen area for the fridge, the standard thing was to put a cabinet above the fridge; so we are limited in height. Newer homes have 9 foot or higher ceilings, and recently, new fridges has grown a bit taller. Tall enough, so that while one might fit into our space, it wouldn't have enough clearance around the top to provide proper air circulation for the unit.
So our choices have been limited by what the market wants:
1. Remove the cabinets (which would be really expensive for the small remodelling effort on top of the cost of a new fridge).
2. Get an ugly new fridge (some of the over-unders will fit, but they tend to be much smaller than we want, and have other features missing - though they do tend to be much cheaper).
3. Move to a new house (not a reasonable option at this time).
4. Purchase an older fridge that'll fit.
So right now, we're "nursing" our current side-by-side along; it still runs ok and keeps things cold, but the ice maker no longer works, nor does the water on the door. We've considered getting those fixed, but it would likely cost several hundred dollars, and the fridge is closing in on 20 years old anyway.
One other option we're considering is going with a commercial unit; unfortunately, from what we've researched, such units are not sized properly at all for a consumer kitchen (too deep, too tall, too narrow, or too wide).
So our only real option is #4 - unless we want to spend a big chunk of change in one manner or another.
We paid around €700 for an A+++ fridge from AEG which produced way too much ice and condensation and broke down after 6 years. Horrible investment. We replaced it with a €850 AEG fridge.
I'm curious, you seemed to have a pretty bad experience with your first AEG fridge. What made you go for the same brand again?
It wasn't my first choice, but when ordering an entire kitchen, it's easiest when all machines come from the same manufacturer. Bosch was another option, but slightly more expensive. AEG let us stay within our budget.
And although I admit I've hated AEG for their crappy fridge, it's probably not AEG's fault. It was installed by an independent installer, and it seems he royally fucked up. Although I think we did have an AEG mechanic take a look at the fridge, and he didn't fix the problems. So AEG isn't entirely blameless.
Still, they're supposed to be good, even if our fridge was basically wasted.
In the end, though, it was really my wife who made the decision. She apparently doesn't hold irrational grudges against manufacturers like I do.
And although I admit I've hated AEG for their crappy fridge, it's probably not AEG's fault. It was installed by an independent installer, and it seems he royally fucked up. Although I think we did have an AEG mechanic take a look at the fridge, and he didn't fix the problems. So AEG isn't entirely blameless.
Still, they're supposed to be good, even if our fridge was basically wasted.
In the end, though, it was really my wife who made the decision. She apparently doesn't hold irrational grudges against manufacturers like I do.
I think a brand is a very poor predictor of quality. For starters, the link between brand and manufacturer is tenuous at best. Brands get sold all the time.
There are only two or three big manufacturers left, and they each own many brands. They rotate which one is reliable to create more consumer confusion and trick you into buying major appliances more frequently.
The difference between a 3 year and 20 year fridge is usually only a few dollars (maybe 10), and has nothing to do with efficiency.
Case in point: The outer shell of new chest freezers are made of substantially thinner sheet metal and paint. This causes them to dent rapidly, and, in moist climates, rust through. It also reduces shipping and manufacturing costs, since it cuts the weight by a few pounds.
The difference between a 3 year and 20 year fridge is usually only a few dollars (maybe 10), and has nothing to do with efficiency.
Case in point: The outer shell of new chest freezers are made of substantially thinner sheet metal and paint. This causes them to dent rapidly, and, in moist climates, rust through. It also reduces shipping and manufacturing costs, since it cuts the weight by a few pounds.
> They rotate which one is reliable to create more consumer confusion and trick you into buying major appliances more frequently.
Do you have a source for this? It may well be true, but to my ear it sounds like one of those "everybody knows..." conspiracy theories.
Do you have a source for this? It may well be true, but to my ear it sounds like one of those "everybody knows..." conspiracy theories.
Interesting, a €100 fridge is good enough ? I had to buy an expensive one for idiotic reasons, but I thought that cheap ones were probably innefficient.
Ikea, at least at the time, had very affordable fridges with A++ and A+++ energy certification. I trusted the energy certification, and assumed name-brands had no significant advantage over white-labeled (since it's all Chinese import anyway). It lasted a at least decade till I sold it to the next tenant (at a profit ;)).
Interesting, thanks.
We have a small fridge in our small kitchen which will need replacing soon as the door has gone rusty underneath and the seal is beginning to go.
It used to be a standard size of fridge but they're all wider and deeper now (maybe to allow thicker walls for better efficiency - the internal dimensions are often no bigger) and we can't find a name brand model to fit in the space, only cheap budget brands. So it's good to know that a cheap fridge can be just as good.
Meanwhile, our other name brand white goods have needed replacing after 2-3 years each. It's impossible to find anything with a decent warranty. Strange to remember that my parents' fridge, cooker, washer, drier when I was a teenager were all older than me.
We have a small fridge in our small kitchen which will need replacing soon as the door has gone rusty underneath and the seal is beginning to go.
It used to be a standard size of fridge but they're all wider and deeper now (maybe to allow thicker walls for better efficiency - the internal dimensions are often no bigger) and we can't find a name brand model to fit in the space, only cheap budget brands. So it's good to know that a cheap fridge can be just as good.
Meanwhile, our other name brand white goods have needed replacing after 2-3 years each. It's impossible to find anything with a decent warranty. Strange to remember that my parents' fridge, cooker, washer, drier when I was a teenager were all older than me.
Ikea also has a 5 year warranty on their electrical appliances.
actually big appliances don't make that much sense to build in China and import... because they're big. there are quite a few factories on EU territory for this reason. always worth checking.
The cost of moving things like fridges is almost entirely in the last few miles. Shipping heavy things is really, really cheap (in bulk).
i understand that it's not about weight but volume/footprint and by correlation time from factory to warehouse to shop/customer. having factory on the same continent cuts your supply chain response time by months which means you can allocate floor area better.
OTOH i don't sell fridges, so that's all just thinking aloud :)
OTOH i don't sell fridges, so that's all just thinking aloud :)
Still, Poland is a major production hub for heavy appliances (fridges, washers, dishwashers).
Well, maybe they're actually simply competitive ;-). And don't forget that factories cost a lot, as does training personnel - so if poland happened to have a stable enough climate and rules that don't scare away investors, then than might well compensate for a higher hourly wage (and in any case, wages in china aren't exactly what they were 20 years ago!). Finally, I'm not sure what kind of tariffs and bureaucratic issues there are - some perhaps overhead; but some to ensure product safety and standardization - but that too means importing has some extra costs.
I'm totally no expert, but any or all of that sounds more plausible than shipping cost issues; I did some quick googling and rough guesstimation (40ft container fits 67 cubic meters, so say 33000$ of goods, at around 1000$ to ship from shanghai to rotterdam), and I guess it's no more than a 3% surcharge; possibly less if you consider I bet I didn't find the best deals. It's not nothing, but neither is it particularly shocking (and you might save on trucking costs because you can pick the port and that port is likely particularly well connected).
I'm totally no expert, but any or all of that sounds more plausible than shipping cost issues; I did some quick googling and rough guesstimation (40ft container fits 67 cubic meters, so say 33000$ of goods, at around 1000$ to ship from shanghai to rotterdam), and I guess it's no more than a 3% surcharge; possibly less if you consider I bet I didn't find the best deals. It's not nothing, but neither is it particularly shocking (and you might save on trucking costs because you can pick the port and that port is likely particularly well connected).
That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years.
This is not only about electrical stuff, but also, say, simple mechanical kitchen tools: they break easily today. Like a cheese grater. The one my mom has is 50 years old and almost as good as new. Stained a bit, maybe, but works perfectly. She got it from her mom as a present. It's sheet metal, relatively cheap stuff, but still decent enough quality made to last long. They tried to make it simple, durable, and affordable.
Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings, but these things are still made to look good, not to last long. You can bet there are small plastic pins hidden somewhere that break off soon, probably due to some unnecessary bell or whistle. This is the pain of today's products.
[edit: language]
This is not only about electrical stuff, but also, say, simple mechanical kitchen tools: they break easily today. Like a cheese grater. The one my mom has is 50 years old and almost as good as new. Stained a bit, maybe, but works perfectly. She got it from her mom as a present. It's sheet metal, relatively cheap stuff, but still decent enough quality made to last long. They tried to make it simple, durable, and affordable.
Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings, but these things are still made to look good, not to last long. You can bet there are small plastic pins hidden somewhere that break off soon, probably due to some unnecessary bell or whistle. This is the pain of today's products.
[edit: language]
> That a new fridge is more energy efficient than an old one is not the point, because, of course, you can always choose to have a new one while the old one still works, for whatever reason. The point it: that things was built in a way that it lasted 60 years.
Isn't it possible that the complexity that makes something energy efficient also causes it break sooner?
Isn't it possible that the complexity that makes something energy efficient also causes it break sooner?
It is. For instance, if elements that move under power are changed from metal (heavy) to plastic (light), you need less power to move them.
However if making something more energy efficient causes it to break more often, you have to expand the scope to include the energy costs of manufacturing a replacement copy. Even if the marginal costs of manufacturing an appliance are so low repairs no longer make sense, I still doubt that e.g. more efficient washing machine that you have to replace 3 times over 10 years uses, in total, more energy than one less efficient washing machine that doesn't break for 10 years.
However if making something more energy efficient causes it to break more often, you have to expand the scope to include the energy costs of manufacturing a replacement copy. Even if the marginal costs of manufacturing an appliance are so low repairs no longer make sense, I still doubt that e.g. more efficient washing machine that you have to replace 3 times over 10 years uses, in total, more energy than one less efficient washing machine that doesn't break for 10 years.
No. The complexity does not make anything break. You only have to engineer something once, and coordinating the failure rates of the different subsystems is part of the engineering.
If anything, managing the additional complexity by skimping on the engineering work is what causes the failures--that is, engineering a more complex device with the same or smaller engineering effort.
The ideal situation when engineering a new device is that every part of it is likely to break simultaneously, the day after the warranty runs out. If that happens, you know that your device was made as cheaply as possible, but no cheaper, and that you will never need to repair such a device, because buying a new one will always be cheaper.
Repairs are only an issue when different parts are likely to break at different times.
If anything, managing the additional complexity by skimping on the engineering work is what causes the failures--that is, engineering a more complex device with the same or smaller engineering effort.
The ideal situation when engineering a new device is that every part of it is likely to break simultaneously, the day after the warranty runs out. If that happens, you know that your device was made as cheaply as possible, but no cheaper, and that you will never need to repair such a device, because buying a new one will always be cheaper.
Repairs are only an issue when different parts are likely to break at different times.
>Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings
Huh? I have owned the same stainless steel cheese grater for probably at least a decade, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It is also just sheet metal after all. It's totally beyond me how you think you're going to break a "shiny stainless solid steel..." grater like this [1].
[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHBF1VE/
Huh? I have owned the same stainless steel cheese grater for probably at least a decade, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It is also just sheet metal after all. It's totally beyond me how you think you're going to break a "shiny stainless solid steel..." grater like this [1].
[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LHBF1VE/
Based on the images, I'd imagine those soft formed parts around the base and handle would become brittle, crack, and either peel off in one piece or crumble away bit by bit.
The point grandparent was making is that the "deluxe" models often use the visible metal parts to provide the appearance of durability, when the internals are identical between models. It applies more to refrigerator doors than to box graters. That stainless steel fridge is going to have the same crappy plastic blower fan as one with a painted door, but may sell at a higher price, because it looks more durable to anyone who doesn't own a screwdriver.
The usual implication is that that the manufacturer didn't cut that specific corner, so there may be other corners that were not cut. It's like replacing the hood ornament of your VW beetle with one made from solid gold. It will then be the only part that doesn't rust all the way through.
The point grandparent was making is that the "deluxe" models often use the visible metal parts to provide the appearance of durability, when the internals are identical between models. It applies more to refrigerator doors than to box graters. That stainless steel fridge is going to have the same crappy plastic blower fan as one with a painted door, but may sell at a higher price, because it looks more durable to anyone who doesn't own a screwdriver.
The usual implication is that that the manufacturer didn't cut that specific corner, so there may be other corners that were not cut. It's like replacing the hood ornament of your VW beetle with one made from solid gold. It will then be the only part that doesn't rust all the way through.
1/4 of consumption but 1/10 of lifespan, does this balance ?
If the total cost of energy exceeds the purchase cost, yes. A rough indication of the annual running cost of a refrigerator with freezer for a new model from that year¹:
1 (Dutch): http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-...
1990 €110 (500kWh)
2000 €77 (350kWh)
2010 €46 (210kWh)
2015 €32 (145kWh)
1 (Dutch): http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-...
Uhm, I think I'm going to stick a meter on my fridge and see how much energy it's using.
All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top.
This makes "do the cheapest thing possible" a surprisingly good proxy for "do the most energy efficient thing".
Of course, if you know something about the manufacturing chain, you can use that knowledge to do something better, but that is usually taking second order effects into account.
Taking cars as an example: buying a $100,000 Model S Tesla instead of a $35K gas guzzler to save $10K on gas is probably bad for the environment, if you only look at the marginal effect of that one car (and ignore subsidizing Tesla R&D, etc).
If the Tesla is only $35K, then you saved $10K of gas and the Tesla manufacturing process had a much lower energy footprint, so it is probably a huge win.
This makes "do the cheapest thing possible" a surprisingly good proxy for "do the most energy efficient thing".
Of course, if you know something about the manufacturing chain, you can use that knowledge to do something better, but that is usually taking second order effects into account.
Taking cars as an example: buying a $100,000 Model S Tesla instead of a $35K gas guzzler to save $10K on gas is probably bad for the environment, if you only look at the marginal effect of that one car (and ignore subsidizing Tesla R&D, etc).
If the Tesla is only $35K, then you saved $10K of gas and the Tesla manufacturing process had a much lower energy footprint, so it is probably a huge win.
> All else being equal (i.e., in steady state, low-innovation, markets with healthy competition), the purchase price of something is just labor + energy costs of mining/recycling the raw materials, and manufacturing, with a small profit margin tacked on top.
That would be if markets were efficient :).
As it is, the costs of goods are still dominated by middle men - people who have nothing to do with neither manufacturing nor selling the thing to the end customer. Prices today aren't good signals, because they're pretty arbitrary - shaped by supply/demand in long term, yes, but in short term directed by various business tricks (like market segmentation, brand value, contracts, etc.).
Your Tesla example actually shows it pretty well - in order to quantify its environment impact, you need to know at least that a) Tesla is electric, b) where your energy comes from.
Price would be a good proxy for a lot of things, if it wasn't so messed up by various parties trying to profit at each level of the supply chain.
That would be if markets were efficient :).
As it is, the costs of goods are still dominated by middle men - people who have nothing to do with neither manufacturing nor selling the thing to the end customer. Prices today aren't good signals, because they're pretty arbitrary - shaped by supply/demand in long term, yes, but in short term directed by various business tricks (like market segmentation, brand value, contracts, etc.).
Your Tesla example actually shows it pretty well - in order to quantify its environment impact, you need to know at least that a) Tesla is electric, b) where your energy comes from.
Price would be a good proxy for a lot of things, if it wasn't so messed up by various parties trying to profit at each level of the supply chain.
Do you think we could design a distribution system that would enforce price nearing cost instead of submitting to market demand bias ?
Friendly reminder that energy footprint is measured in joules and not dollars :)
That fridge is a survivor by definition. It may even be the last surviving fridge of that type. There may have been 10,000 similar fridges once upon a time, but how many of them broke within the first year? How many of them lasted 10 years?
How many fridges of any model sold since the 90' survived 15 years or more ?
My grandma fridge was 30 years old.
So yeah 60 years is an exception, but one that could just not happen today.
My grandma fridge was 30 years old.
So yeah 60 years is an exception, but one that could just not happen today.
Speaking of fridges, they along with other large appliances, seem like the perfect products for repair rather than replacement. I imagine that most fridges that stop working do so because of the cooling system. Yet fridges, especially the higher end ones I see in stores, have a ton of large, precision machined metal pieces. The same can be said for washers/dryers. It seems like such a shame to throw something like that out when the cooling or motor breaks down.
Edit: I went to an antiques market in Long Beach a few months ago and there was a vendor displaying meticulously restored, and fully functional, fridges from the 50s-60s along with similar era stoves and ranges. They were fairly expensive, I assume the resto work is quite labor intensive, and since the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen, but it was great to see them continuing to function.
Edit: I went to an antiques market in Long Beach a few months ago and there was a vendor displaying meticulously restored, and fully functional, fridges from the 50s-60s along with similar era stoves and ranges. They were fairly expensive, I assume the resto work is quite labor intensive, and since the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen, but it was great to see them continuing to function.
Minus one detail, old fridge might be using illegal cooling fluid/gas. So it might be a complex job to fix it.
You're right, I hadn't considered that. This thread makes me curious how hard replacing and modernizing the cooling system of an older fridge would be.
Google. "R12 to R134 conversion"
People do it on cars all the time. It would be harder on something that isn't designed to be disassembled but it's nor hard.
People do it on cars all the time. It would be harder on something that isn't designed to be disassembled but it's nor hard.
I understand your point though, minus legal/toxic issues, I like the idea of repairing/repurposing things.
Much of our machines have tiny motors that can be reused in about anything you want. Fridge compressors too.
Much of our machines have tiny motors that can be reused in about anything you want. Fridge compressors too.
I'm pretty sure the parts are mostly stamped. The parts that come out of the process are high quality, but it is a rapid process. This How It's Made for a fridge starts with the forming of the body:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE-TqX-FBeI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE-TqX-FBeI
Yeah, "machined" was an embarrassingly poor choice of words on my part. Cool video.
>>the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen
Apart from the looks, why the hell would you want 60s kitchen appliances? Clunky, loud as hell, inefficient washing machines and dishwashers are something that people not only actively search for, but are willing to pay premium for?
Apart from the looks, why the hell would you want 60s kitchen appliances? Clunky, loud as hell, inefficient washing machines and dishwashers are something that people not only actively search for, but are willing to pay premium for?
That old Zoppas fridge inner design was actually interesting; a bit more cute, a bit more solid and thoughtful than the fridge I had to buy last year. It felt entirely made for pleasure of using it, instead of the recent ones who put cute LEDs to be like smartphones.
>Apart from the looks
I'm pretty sure the main reason is aesthetics. And to be clear, I only saw fridges and stoves/ranges, no washing machines or dishwashers.
There are actually quite a lot of very nice smaller MCM homes in the area, Long Beach specifically has some great ones, and they are becoming fairly popular to renovate while keeping the original design. Some are quite small, by modern standards, and I think maybe the smaller size of the appliances are also attractive, but I haven't been appliance shopping much and I've never done a kitchen renovation so don't take this as gospel.
Edit: messed up formatting
I'm pretty sure the main reason is aesthetics. And to be clear, I only saw fridges and stoves/ranges, no washing machines or dishwashers.
There are actually quite a lot of very nice smaller MCM homes in the area, Long Beach specifically has some great ones, and they are becoming fairly popular to renovate while keeping the original design. Some are quite small, by modern standards, and I think maybe the smaller size of the appliances are also attractive, but I haven't been appliance shopping much and I've never done a kitchen renovation so don't take this as gospel.
Edit: messed up formatting
Hmmmm ok, fair enough.
I just think that if someone has the money then a company like AGA makes cookers which I'm sure have looked exactly the same for the past 60 years - so you get the vintage look but modern efficiency:
http://www.agaliving.com/aga-range-cookers/range-cookers
I just think that if someone has the money then a company like AGA makes cookers which I'm sure have looked exactly the same for the past 60 years - so you get the vintage look but modern efficiency:
http://www.agaliving.com/aga-range-cookers/range-cookers
Those AGA stoves do indeed look great. This was a few months ago so my memory is a bit hazy, but I believe the prices for the smaller 24" cast iron stoves were around $3000, which I found to be pricey. The AGA cast iron stoves in that size range seem to be $7000+ here in the US, although this was a quick look at pricing so I may be off. I can see why someone looking for that style might go with a restored stove.
On another note, I can definitely see that modern appliances like dishwashers or washing machines/dryers would be much better and more effective than older versions. I do wonder if there's any noticable difference in comparing something like an old cast iron gas stove to a modern gas stove?
On another note, I can definitely see that modern appliances like dishwashers or washing machines/dryers would be much better and more effective than older versions. I do wonder if there's any noticable difference in comparing something like an old cast iron gas stove to a modern gas stove?
In my experience, the main thing that distinguishes gas stoves is how precise the flame control is and how much heat you can throw off on at least one burner. (And, I guess, the flame pattern although given decently thick-bottomed pans it doesn't really matter much.)
But in general, a gas stove is a ring of flame. There's not much to it. You need enough flame and you need to be able to control it. If you have those two things, an old stovetop is fine.
Ovens are more complicated and I'm not generally a fan of gas ovens.
But in general, a gas stove is a ring of flame. There's not much to it. You need enough flame and you need to be able to control it. If you have those two things, an old stovetop is fine.
Ovens are more complicated and I'm not generally a fan of gas ovens.
I would love to give my wife a fully restored, cobalt blue O'Keefe-Merritt Grillevator stove (as part of a full kitchen remodel to boot, because it would require it). Unfortunately, we don't have gas in our neighborhood, and the nearest supply is at the corner of our street (I once asked the utility what it would cost to run a hookup to our house - it would be cheaper to buy another house).
Which is unfortunate - they are awesome looking and very functional units; there is nothing on the market like them today.
Which is unfortunate - they are awesome looking and very functional units; there is nothing on the market like them today.
How much does it cost to install a large propane tank and convert the old appliance? Older appliances are easier to convert than newer ones.
And if it hasn't been restored yet, just convert as part of the refurbishment process.
And if it hasn't been restored yet, just convert as part of the refurbishment process.
> I imagine that most fridges that stop working do so because of the cooling system
What else is there in a fridge that could stop working except for the cooling system?
What else is there in a fridge that could stop working except for the cooling system?
There are many other components in a modern fridge besides the cooling system, from thermostats to multiple circuit boards, and the rubber around the freezer door is heated.
Fridge issues are often caused by software bugs and are fixed by reprogramming the circuit board with newer firmware, or just by reinstalling the current version. This also applies to other house appliances with programmable parts, including washing machines.
Fridge issues are often caused by software bugs and are fixed by reprogramming the circuit board with newer firmware, or just by reinstalling the current version. This also applies to other house appliances with programmable parts, including washing machines.
The little light that helps you decide what delicious snacks you can munch on at midnight. :)
And on a less frivolous note: the rubber around the doors can perish/tear.
And on a less frivolous note: the rubber around the doors can perish/tear.
The door gasket is likely a 5 minute repair. Pulls out, snaps in.
I recently did it. The biggest issue was that the first one the company sent was dirty and poorly made.
I recently did it. The biggest issue was that the first one the company sent was dirty and poorly made.
That's good to know, actually. I have grown up with an "it's broken - chuck it and buy a new one" mentality, and the fact that it often costs a comparable amount: £30 for a repair guy to come out and "see if he can fix the problem", and then undefined labour costs and parts vs known cost of a new one doesn't help.
I suppose if you're chucking the old one out anyway, it's worth trying to fix it yourself for a bit, but I've always got time constraints (I'm a serial procrastinator), and I never do.
I suppose if you're chucking the old one out anyway, it's worth trying to fix it yourself for a bit, but I've always got time constraints (I'm a serial procrastinator), and I never do.
Well, that was kind of my point. I doubt many fridges break because the metal corrodes or the doors fall off. A fridge is made of quite a bit of material that isn't comprised of the cooling system, and it seems like a shame to throw it all out when the cooling system could be replaced.
That's a very particular spot to discuss. I often wonder what the hell is in a new washing machine. I suspect that most of the new machines mostly give you a bit newer dashboard and a few program options.
All in all, if house appliance were designed to be modular, you could keep a piece and use another one with it.
Alas I don't want it to end up like the computer world where standard competes and forces other problems.
Maybe a middle ground with blocks that aren't too coupled/soldered and more modder communities to discuss how to adapt etc
All in all, if house appliance were designed to be modular, you could keep a piece and use another one with it.
Alas I don't want it to end up like the computer world where standard competes and forces other problems.
Maybe a middle ground with blocks that aren't too coupled/soldered and more modder communities to discuss how to adapt etc
You would need standard form factors. Like my ATX tower computer case, which hosted a grand total of three different motherboards before I ended up with some free cap-rot era Dell workstations. After re-capping their boards, I discovered they were not ATX compliant, and couldn't be moved to any other case. My high-quality ATX case thus sits idle, awaiting the day when I get a new board for my newer mini-ITX case, and make it my backup machine.
Those non-standard Dell cases and power supplies will go into the trash.
Those non-standard Dell cases and power supplies will go into the trash.
It's more economical to recycle the metal parts and built new appliances than to reuse existing bodies. There is no technical uniformity in refrigerator designs, so retrofitting each one becomes bespoke engineering rather than simple assembly. Costs would skyrocket.
It would probably be more efficient (from an economic as well as an environmental standpoint) to force manufacturers to design appliances that can be fully disassembled and recycled with a minimum of effort (in terms of labour and energy). That way the raw materials used stay in use with minimal loss, and buying a new one won't be a waste at all.
It would probably be more efficient (from an economic as well as an environmental standpoint) to force manufacturers to design appliances that can be fully disassembled and recycled with a minimum of effort (in terms of labour and energy). That way the raw materials used stay in use with minimal loss, and buying a new one won't be a waste at all.
People will not fork over loads of money for restoration and bespoke craftsmanship because they think its economical.
Restoration is purely a design/aesthetic choice for a rarefied high-end market.
Restoration is purely a design/aesthetic choice for a rarefied high-end market.
Not necessarily. In my own case, if I had known, I'd have hacked my now dead fridge. The new ones are below it in every department. The market can aim at stupid if it provides sales and profit; while old models were designed to be actually useful.
We even asked with a two doors large fridge was the same price as vertical-stack slightly thinner one, the salesman ended up admitting that it was because it's designed to be more practical (better volumes).
We even asked with a two doors large fridge was the same price as vertical-stack slightly thinner one, the salesman ended up admitting that it was because it's designed to be more practical (better volumes).
We still have a 1995 fridge that runs continuously and never had a single problem with it. I suspect even the bulbs are still original. And no, it wasn't an expensive fancy model - just a cheap Electrolux larder fridge.
So...22 years and counting? What I mean is that it doesn't prove absolutely anything. Our electrolux fridge might survive another 40 years. Or it might break tomorrow.
I would lean on the side of that 60-year old fridge being an extremely weird exception, rather than a rule or proof of longevity of old stuff.
So...22 years and counting? What I mean is that it doesn't prove absolutely anything. Our electrolux fridge might survive another 40 years. Or it might break tomorrow.
I would lean on the side of that 60-year old fridge being an extremely weird exception, rather than a rule or proof of longevity of old stuff.
You know I didn't mean to say all lived 60 years, but more a "we were wrong on the limit". I've never heard of even 40 years lifespan. At best once a 30yo washing machine. The usual is 20 years (and tears). 3x
That certainly has never been my experience. Oh, I've had repairs now and then. Ice makers are notoriously finicky in freezers. And there was one apparently designed PCB for the display in my oven. (A remanufactured board seems to have finally fixed things.)
But I've got a dryer that was old when I moved into my house 20 years ago. And everything except the washer--which also was in the house when I arrived--was installed shortly after I moved in. I think all my dad's appliances, except for the microwave, are at least as old.
Probably between lower prices in general and more delicate electronics the situation is worse today but major appliances really do last for quite a while most of the time. (TVs have been far worse for me but, then, there tend to be reasons to upgrade them over time.)
But I've got a dryer that was old when I moved into my house 20 years ago. And everything except the washer--which also was in the house when I arrived--was installed shortly after I moved in. I think all my dad's appliances, except for the microwave, are at least as old.
Probably between lower prices in general and more delicate electronics the situation is worse today but major appliances really do last for quite a while most of the time. (TVs have been far worse for me but, then, there tend to be reasons to upgrade them over time.)
Until two years ago I had a Miele washing machine that I bought used from an old lady for 20 € (an inlet pipe was broken but could easily be fixed), and I used it for almost four years before getting a new one and selling the old one to the next owner (it still worked perfectly). And while the new machine is more efficient in terms of energy and water use, the quality of the results is not much better actually. The old machine was built in 1983 and weighed close to 100 kg, with almost all exterior parts realized as enameled metal and all mechanical parts built with (seemingly) large tolerances. The new machine, on the other hand (which is also a Miele) sports many plastic parts and (obviously) is much more complex on the inside, with more control programs and a digital display (it is also significantly lighter, which might be good or bad). I'm not saying that the new model is worse than the old one (it definitely has its merit), I just find it awesome that Miele built machines with such a large lifespan, and I hope they'll continue doing so. We'll see if the new one also lasts 30 years ;)
I've had multiple fridges which were two or three decades old, through renting prefurnished or buying along with a home. I've never had a fridge break down on me. It seems reasonable for a fridge made today to last 60 years.
How many would have lasted years longer, but the owners decided to upgrade to better features?
Realistically, those old devices should have been shot in the head years ago. Energy wasters, space wasters, toxic materials used in their manufacture, environmental hazards.
We recently had to replace a built-in fridge that broke after 6 years. Repairing was not an option; it had to be replaced. This was an expensive A brand (AEG) fridge that was supposedly very energy efficient, but it seems it had been installed wrong and probably wasted way too much energy.
The fridge I had before that was my parents' old stand-alone fridge which was 20 years old when I got it, and was still working perfectly fine 8 years later when we replaced it because we bought a new kitchen with built-in fridge. It never had any problems.
I recently came across a recommendation to replace old fridges because they were energy inefficient, but I have my doubts. I do think stand-alone fridges are probably always going to be better than built-in ones. Easier access, easier to repair, and no issues with somebody installing it incorrectly.
The fridge I had before that was my parents' old stand-alone fridge which was 20 years old when I got it, and was still working perfectly fine 8 years later when we replaced it because we bought a new kitchen with built-in fridge. It never had any problems.
I recently came across a recommendation to replace old fridges because they were energy inefficient, but I have my doubts. I do think stand-alone fridges are probably always going to be better than built-in ones. Easier access, easier to repair, and no issues with somebody installing it incorrectly.
All in all, the issue is too much hearsay and not enough ways to check anything. Maybe old fridge are less efficient than new ones, but for what reason ? electric conversion ? bad radiator ? stupid motor ??
How these built in fridge done ? how many ? (I guess a standalone is made in more numbers so they have more know-how and mileage)
Also brands are deceitful after some time. At once they meant skills (say 60-90s SONY) but after a while, on mainstream product it's mostly a tag. For instance I found an AEG beard trimmer and was thrilled because AEG means gold in my eyes, when opened, it was a generic chinese PCB / assembly with a cute and sexy AEG case (you pay for the rubber).
How these built in fridge done ? how many ? (I guess a standalone is made in more numbers so they have more know-how and mileage)
Also brands are deceitful after some time. At once they meant skills (say 60-90s SONY) but after a while, on mainstream product it's mostly a tag. For instance I found an AEG beard trimmer and was thrilled because AEG means gold in my eyes, when opened, it was a generic chinese PCB / assembly with a cute and sexy AEG case (you pay for the rubber).
> Maybe old fridge are less efficient than new ones, but for what reason ? electric conversion ? bad radiator ? stupid motor ??
Motors are simple. My blind guess is that it's a mixture of improved insulation and improved heat flow.
Though speaking of heat flow, stand-alone fridges always come with requirements that they need a certain amount of space for the heat to escape the rear of the fridge. Builtin fridges don't have that heat. I now find myself wondering whether builtin fridges can ever be as efficient as standalone ones.
And you're right that it can be advantageous in the short term for quality companies to cut costs by cutting corners while coasting on their reputation. Who knows, AEG might be doing that right now. Your AEG beard trimmer makes me regret we didn't go with Bosch or Miele after all.
Motors are simple. My blind guess is that it's a mixture of improved insulation and improved heat flow.
Though speaking of heat flow, stand-alone fridges always come with requirements that they need a certain amount of space for the heat to escape the rear of the fridge. Builtin fridges don't have that heat. I now find myself wondering whether builtin fridges can ever be as efficient as standalone ones.
And you're right that it can be advantageous in the short term for quality companies to cut costs by cutting corners while coasting on their reputation. Who knows, AEG might be doing that right now. Your AEG beard trimmer makes me regret we didn't go with Bosch or Miele after all.
Yeah I recently read about thermodynamics and understand it needs a way to push heat away otherwise the gradient will lower.
I also read about people plugging water circuit on top to tranfer heat into a hot water container, it's probably useful for a hot shower..
I also read about people plugging water circuit on top to tranfer heat into a hot water container, it's probably useful for a hot shower..
there are many examples of mechanical SLRs from the 60s that still work and require only about an hour of reading instructions and watching Youtube to restore to mint condition.
There are a ton of Asahi Pentax cameras that come with a classic 55mm Takumar lens for $20-30 on Yahoo Auctions (Japan) right now.
There are a ton of Asahi Pentax cameras that come with a classic 55mm Takumar lens for $20-30 on Yahoo Auctions (Japan) right now.
Mechanical cameras are wonderful. I shoot with a 1960s Rollei and a 1970s Olympus, and it's a delight. No PCBs or transistors to worry about, I expect to keep using them for many years to come.
My guess is that early versions of products are over-engineered and therefore have long lifespans. The manufacturers haven't yet learnt where they can cut costs without risking immediate breakdown. So the best time to buy, say, a microwave would have been around 1980...
> So the best time to buy, say, a microwave would have been around 1980...
Actually, 1980s consumer microwaves weren't much better than today's microwave ovens as far a quality is concerned. They were roughly comparable.
If you want a microwave that will last - then or now - get a commercial unit. Not only will it last longer, it will be much easier to use (most have a single knob, and a single temperature - high), and much easier to clean (stainless steel, wipe down interior and exterior with few places for gunk and crumbs to hide, no turntable with gaps and parts that can break, etc).
The two main brands in this arena are the Amana Radar Range, and the various models Sharp makes.
The best way to figure out what to buy is to talk to restaurant managers about what they use, and ask them how theirs have worked out. You'll want to look for the regular sized microwaves (they do make commercial units that scale upwards of 10 kilowatts with multiple magnetrons for large-scale cooking/reheating - these are not what you are interested in for a home).
Another option to look into (if you have the counterspace and don't mind the commercial look) is to get a TurboChef; I don't know how to explain these machines, other than that they are something of a combination broiler, convection oven, and microwave system designed to cook food in record time, but without the downsides of the individual units. For instance, you can have the equivalent of a nice seared and grilled steak in a few minutes (from cold) - versus what it would take conventionally. If you eaten at a restaurant, chances are high that you've eaten a meal made with a TurboChef.
Actually, 1980s consumer microwaves weren't much better than today's microwave ovens as far a quality is concerned. They were roughly comparable.
If you want a microwave that will last - then or now - get a commercial unit. Not only will it last longer, it will be much easier to use (most have a single knob, and a single temperature - high), and much easier to clean (stainless steel, wipe down interior and exterior with few places for gunk and crumbs to hide, no turntable with gaps and parts that can break, etc).
The two main brands in this arena are the Amana Radar Range, and the various models Sharp makes.
The best way to figure out what to buy is to talk to restaurant managers about what they use, and ask them how theirs have worked out. You'll want to look for the regular sized microwaves (they do make commercial units that scale upwards of 10 kilowatts with multiple magnetrons for large-scale cooking/reheating - these are not what you are interested in for a home).
Another option to look into (if you have the counterspace and don't mind the commercial look) is to get a TurboChef; I don't know how to explain these machines, other than that they are something of a combination broiler, convection oven, and microwave system designed to cook food in record time, but without the downsides of the individual units. For instance, you can have the equivalent of a nice seared and grilled steak in a few minutes (from cold) - versus what it would take conventionally. If you eaten at a restaurant, chances are high that you've eaten a meal made with a TurboChef.
Thank you.
Reminds me of the TV I grew up with. Grandma bought it in the late 50's/early 60's and it was color enabled, even though color television was not here yet. The fact that she bought a television that would not have it's full feature set available for a few years is telling, they expected it to last. It was given to my parents when they bought their house in the mid 70's and remained in place until 1999, it was replaced for the 2000 Olympics (and had awful picture quality by then).
A few more years and it would have entertained a fourth generation, but I think lasting 4 decades and surviving long enough to play N64 games was quite an achievement.
A few more years and it would have entertained a fourth generation, but I think lasting 4 decades and surviving long enough to play N64 games was quite an achievement.
Is there any plan to improve the current EU laws on products guarantees? Because the current one has a big problem:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
"The legal guarantee is valid for a period of two years throughout the EU. But there are certain conditions. [...] Any fault that appears within six months will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The seller must then repair or replace your phone free of charge - or reimburse you if repairs or replacement are impossible. [...] After six months, you can still hold the seller responsible for any defects during the full two-year guarantee period. However, if the seller contests this, you must be able to prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery. This is often difficult, and you will probably have to involve a technical expert."
Because of the burden-of-proof condition it's basically only a 6 months guarantee instead of 2 years. Countries may improve these conditions and I think some countries like the UK actually do.
This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible.
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
"The legal guarantee is valid for a period of two years throughout the EU. But there are certain conditions. [...] Any fault that appears within six months will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The seller must then repair or replace your phone free of charge - or reimburse you if repairs or replacement are impossible. [...] After six months, you can still hold the seller responsible for any defects during the full two-year guarantee period. However, if the seller contests this, you must be able to prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery. This is often difficult, and you will probably have to involve a technical expert."
Because of the burden-of-proof condition it's basically only a 6 months guarantee instead of 2 years. Countries may improve these conditions and I think some countries like the UK actually do.
This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible.
Other institutions help consumers in this respect. Consumer organizations, collective claims and legal assistance insurance come to mind.
The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum.
I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.
The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum.
I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.
And how many people are going to involve some third parties instead of just tossing the item and buying a new one?
The problem is to think of a market structure where third parties are involved:
Current EU-system, the seller is always first point of contact in case of defects. So the seller should involve a third party and then share costs (after 5, 10, 12 years depending on reasonable durability). So the market for third party repair isn't a consumer market!
The only products I know third party repairs exists are: cars and household appliances. And even for household appliances the above holds, much goes via the seller. That it doesn't hold for cars is, I imagine, mostly lobbying. Even there collective consumer action is on the rise.
Then there is an additional problem: technical progress. Having recently replaced many household appliances (mid-30s now, so everything was 10yrs+ old), my machines use 30-40% less energy (from A to A+++). I'd be an economic fool to keep the old machines. Law requires the supplier to take care of the waste, so I really have no incentive to keep the old machine in use.
I'm a big proponent of 'right to repair'-rules BTW, but think they do not add much to the bigger picture. Pricing of household appliances as a function of the running costs have fallen dramatically. So repairing just makes little economic sense. The environmental impact, I'm not sure. I guess 100 kg of waste is a lot more damaging than a few thousand KWhs. But that all depends on the way disposed machines are treated. Cradle-to-cradle could make a lot bigger impact than right-to-repair imho.
Current EU-system, the seller is always first point of contact in case of defects. So the seller should involve a third party and then share costs (after 5, 10, 12 years depending on reasonable durability). So the market for third party repair isn't a consumer market!
The only products I know third party repairs exists are: cars and household appliances. And even for household appliances the above holds, much goes via the seller. That it doesn't hold for cars is, I imagine, mostly lobbying. Even there collective consumer action is on the rise.
Then there is an additional problem: technical progress. Having recently replaced many household appliances (mid-30s now, so everything was 10yrs+ old), my machines use 30-40% less energy (from A to A+++). I'd be an economic fool to keep the old machines. Law requires the supplier to take care of the waste, so I really have no incentive to keep the old machine in use.
I'm a big proponent of 'right to repair'-rules BTW, but think they do not add much to the bigger picture. Pricing of household appliances as a function of the running costs have fallen dramatically. So repairing just makes little economic sense. The environmental impact, I'm not sure. I guess 100 kg of waste is a lot more damaging than a few thousand KWhs. But that all depends on the way disposed machines are treated. Cradle-to-cradle could make a lot bigger impact than right-to-repair imho.
Depends on the price of an item relative to one's wealth. I pulled the book on a seller just once in my life - I had a shitty job, and I saved up for an expensive tablet, only to get one that was broken and have the seller (a big brand in my country) try to weasel out of replacing it. It took a strongly worded letter to company's HQ to finally get them to replace the product, and while I was ultimately successful, the whole experience was pretty mentally taxing. I'd say taxing enough that it's not worth it if the item costs less than 10% of your monthly income.
However, I do know of people who fight for their rights as consumers as a matter of principle, and I actually applaud them. They do a good work for the commons.
However, I do know of people who fight for their rights as consumers as a matter of principle, and I actually applaud them. They do a good work for the commons.
I've had similar experiences with electronic shops. One thing that's really helped me is legal counsel insurance. It's about €5,- a month for the entire household and if a shop doesn't offer a fair solution, I just give the insurer a call and they take care of everything. It's saved me a lot of time and headaches.
Didn't even know that such a thing exists. Thanks!
More than zero. Beyond that, it doesn't matter because it's not relevant.
Of course it's relevant. If enough people don't bother with getting their stuff repaired the increased warranty has no meaning. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to keep producing crappy stuff and fix it for the small number of people who care about their rights than to increase the quality (and the price) of their products. The waste problem remains.
I live in EU, and I've never had complaints from the producers within the 2 years warranty (I buy most of the things online, so after 2 weeks, for any problem, I always deal with the producer).
I even had two items (headphones and oven) breaking 1/2 month before the expiry, and still, they have been replaced.
I even had two items (headphones and oven) breaking 1/2 month before the expiry, and still, they have been replaced.
> This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible.
I can imagine cases where this works against the consumer, but in most cases where I buy things, the seller is far more accessible, and perhaps more importantly, also far more exposed to EU jurisdiction such that they bother to actually comply with these kinds of EU regulations. For example, if I buy a microwave at Wilko, it works to my advantage that Wilko, not whatever company in China manufactured it, is the responsible party.
I can imagine cases where this works against the consumer, but in most cases where I buy things, the seller is far more accessible, and perhaps more importantly, also far more exposed to EU jurisdiction such that they bother to actually comply with these kinds of EU regulations. For example, if I buy a microwave at Wilko, it works to my advantage that Wilko, not whatever company in China manufactured it, is the responsible party.
The problem is that two years is worse than what we already have in Norway so if it is harmonised we will lose out. If they set a minimum instead that would be better. At the moment brown goods (TV, computer, etc.) and white goods (fridge, washing machine and the like) are expected to last at least five years here.
Consumer protection in the EU generally follows the minimum approach, meaning that every state may implement higher standards and the EU wide standard is only the necessary minimum of protection. This would probably be the case with this new idea as well (at least I don't see a reason why it shouldn't).
Why is a TV brown and a fridge white?
Never heard that kind of lingo before, it's weird ;)
Never heard that kind of lingo before, it's weird ;)
I have never heard it in English either, and don't think it is a common term at all, but in Norwegian it is very common usage, where hvitevarer (white goods) is fridges, washing machines, dishwashers etc, and brunevarer (brown goods) are steroes, TVs etc.
If you go some decades back, almost all steroes and TVs were brown (typically wood or brown plastic), while dishwashers and fridges were nearly always painted white.
If you go some decades back, almost all steroes and TVs were brown (typically wood or brown plastic), while dishwashers and fridges were nearly always painted white.
Same here in Germany, wondered a lot in the 90s writing my first eCommerce shop and the business owners talked about brown and white ware.
The British consumer magazine 'Which?' [1] routinely uses the term 'white goods' to refer to kitchen appliances.
[1] www.which.co.uk
[1] www.which.co.uk
'White goods' is common in Mexico, but I have never heard 'brown goods'
Brown goods because televisions and radios used to be in wooden cases, white goods because fridges and washing machines, etc. are typically painted white.
It's ordinary British English and as someone else pointed out common in other languages too. English: brown goods, white goods = Norwegian brunevarer, hvitevarer.
It's ordinary British English and as someone else pointed out common in other languages too. English: brown goods, white goods = Norwegian brunevarer, hvitevarer.
I'm not familiar with the "brown goods" term but I imagine it dates to when televisions with CRTs were typically housed in wood-paneled furniture while kitchen and washing appliances were typically white.
In some countries the terms are "black" and "white" and it's not weird - you can quickly tell apart appliances.
I think there is a middle ground here. I'm okay with items lasting at least 2 with 3 expected as long as it is repairable by third parties without OEM parts. So they'd have to release schematics ect.
There is 0 reason I should not be able to replace seals and motors in my washing machine, and the electronics should last 20 years or more. Unless of course it is engineered it to fail and they should just release schematics so an independend shop can replace the crappy parts with something more durable.
There is 0 reason I should not be able to replace seals and motors in my washing machine, and the electronics should last 20 years or more. Unless of course it is engineered it to fail and they should just release schematics so an independend shop can replace the crappy parts with something more durable.
Have been wondering if these consumer protection things also extend to software side. For example is a mobile phone or Internet router considered broken, if the software contains critical security problem for which no patch exists?
I believe the answer should be yes, but not sure how courts and consumer protection officials view this thing. If they would go with defining security bugs as defects, this would have implications for example to IoT security. This would create more incentives for manufacturers to focus on security and figure out how to patch the products that are out there.
I believe the answer should be yes, but not sure how courts and consumer protection officials view this thing. If they would go with defining security bugs as defects, this would have implications for example to IoT security. This would create more incentives for manufacturers to focus on security and figure out how to patch the products that are out there.
In Norway, people got to turni their Playstation when they removed the ability to run Linux, as it no longer worked as advertised.
> Have been wondering if these consumer protection things also extend to software side. For example is a mobile phone or Internet router considered broken, if the software contains critical security problem for which no patch exists?
Would you consider your front door broken if it is vulnerable to being opened with a screwdriver? What about a wine glass that breaks unless you aren't extremely careful when washing it?
In my opinion it depends on how it was marketed.
Would you consider your front door broken if it is vulnerable to being opened with a screwdriver? What about a wine glass that breaks unless you aren't extremely careful when washing it?
In my opinion it depends on how it was marketed.
This might also increase the price for a lot of this stuff. I bought a router for my mother in law for £30, you don't get much after sales support for £30.
An option is to include a 'reasonableness' test like is in the Australian Consumer Law[1].
1) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
1) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
Washing machine, television, fridge, sure, 5 years minimum should be mandatory I think.
For smartphones I would stay at the current 2 years requirement though. A phone stays most of the time on a person, which is one of the most harsh conditions if you think about it.
For smartphones I would stay at the current 2 years requirement though. A phone stays most of the time on a person, which is one of the most harsh conditions if you think about it.
If you ask me there should be a 5 year minimum on security software patches for smartphones. As it is now, it's as if a huge portion of the mobile world is still running "windows 98".
I would say there should be a lifetime security warranty on all software. If you have a machine running Windows 98 Microsoft should still be providing security fixes. Note that this is just security, all other bugs are on you, as are device drivers.
I'm fine with saying that Windows 3.1 wasn't designed to be connected to the internet (it wasn't) so they are doing nothing. I recently got a recall notice from GM for a 13 year old car - they found a safety problem and it needs to be fixed even though the rest of the warranty ran out about 10 years ago.
I'm fine with saying that Windows 3.1 wasn't designed to be connected to the internet (it wasn't) so they are doing nothing. I recently got a recall notice from GM for a 13 year old car - they found a safety problem and it needs to be fixed even though the rest of the warranty ran out about 10 years ago.
That's not fair to the manufacturer. No company on Earth can fix security holes in every version of their software that's ever been released. It would take a small nation's GDP to do that. Even Linux doesn't fix security holes in old versions of the kernel.
What this would cause is for there to be one "product" such as "Windows" that Microsoft keeps up to date forever. They release patches and you apply them. The version never changes and everyone's machine is running the same product, but some of them are out of date and could be updated easily via Windows Update.
What this would cause is for there to be one "product" such as "Windows" that Microsoft keeps up to date forever. They release patches and you apply them. The version never changes and everyone's machine is running the same product, but some of them are out of date and could be updated easily via Windows Update.
> That's not fair to the manufacturer. No company on Earth can fix security holes in every version of their software that's ever been released. It would take a small nation's GDP to do that. Even Linux doesn't fix security holes in old versions of the kernel.
That’s their problem then.
EDIT: It’s not acceptable for consumers, especially in an age of "smart things" where their toilet, car, or in the next few years, even their house/apartment might fail, stop working, be infected by ransomware, etc due to missing security updates. At least if you sell software for Smart Things, you should have to put the source code in an escrow, and it would be published as soon as you stop supporting it.
That’s their problem then.
EDIT: It’s not acceptable for consumers, especially in an age of "smart things" where their toilet, car, or in the next few years, even their house/apartment might fail, stop working, be infected by ransomware, etc due to missing security updates. At least if you sell software for Smart Things, you should have to put the source code in an escrow, and it would be published as soon as you stop supporting it.
Yes, security patches are a different story and they apply to smartphones but also routers, smart TVs, internet enabled home automation etc.
We have had a related rule in the EU for a decade and a half: If a consumer buys an item from a professional, and the consumer complaints about a defect within the first 6 months from the purchase, then the assumption is that the defect was already there when the item was purchased.
So in other words, the burden of proof is on the seller to show that the defect was not already there when the item was bought. See article 5(3) in this directive from 1999: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:319...
I think it has worked really well. This kind of rules are a great innovation in consumer law since they make it really easy for companies to know what they "are up against".
So in other words, the burden of proof is on the seller to show that the defect was not already there when the item was bought. See article 5(3) in this directive from 1999: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:319...
I think it has worked really well. This kind of rules are a great innovation in consumer law since they make it really easy for companies to know what they "are up against".
> ... the producer will have to fix or replace it.
That's a common misconception. It's actually the seller that has to fix or replace it, not the producer. It would make a lot more sense though if it were the producer.
That's a common misconception. It's actually the seller that has to fix or replace it, not the producer. It would make a lot more sense though if it were the producer.
Why would/should the store be responsible? The manufacture should be the one!
There is a benefit of abstraction here. If the manufacturer sells unreliable products that cost the retailer money then the retailer will not want to sell it. This will cause unreliable products and manufacturers to die rapidly which is a good thing for the customer and satisfaction across the board.
> I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.
It's not so easy.
You (or a generic user) would expect "5 years minimum", but at the same time would also expect no increase in price.
Using as reference insurances on home appliances, extension to 5 years is around the lines of 15%, which is a lot.
I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but I think it's a complex subject.
Right to repair is for example another take on the the problem (I'm not arguing it's better or worse), as the increase in price wouldn't trickle down to consumers who don't want it.
It's not so easy.
You (or a generic user) would expect "5 years minimum", but at the same time would also expect no increase in price.
Using as reference insurances on home appliances, extension to 5 years is around the lines of 15%, which is a lot.
I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but I think it's a complex subject.
Right to repair is for example another take on the the problem (I'm not arguing it's better or worse), as the increase in price wouldn't trickle down to consumers who don't want it.
You don't have to give up on price: there are other areas in which sacrifices could be made.
You could give up some model churn, lowering actual costs by using the same parts in many model years. It's hard enough to maintain parts inventory in an automotive repair context, and there's just not enough money in the devices to sustain a similar level of complexity in appliance repair.
You could sacrifice some compactness, using interchangeable brackets and larger assemblies that connect together with fasteners instead of custom-molded brackets and glued-up assemblies that can only be assembled, never disassembled. These might be more expensive for a single model, but over several years economies of scale would catch up.
Finally, you could make these replacement parts available at home improvement stores and at the same retailers that sell the devices, instead of through distribution chains only usable by licensed professionals. I was able to repair my furnace this winter when the exhaust blower failed (and my AC when the capacitor failed) because I could buy the part I needed on Amazon with next-day shipping. I had the day off, and was willing to drive around, but on calling 12 different places within an hour I found none that would sell the parts to me. And just a visit for a quote would have cost more and taken more time than shipping the failed component from Amazon.
The manufacturers would prefer that you buy an entire new appliance from them, and have made decisions which harm the environment and harm consumers, but benefit them. Regulation is required.
You could give up some model churn, lowering actual costs by using the same parts in many model years. It's hard enough to maintain parts inventory in an automotive repair context, and there's just not enough money in the devices to sustain a similar level of complexity in appliance repair.
You could sacrifice some compactness, using interchangeable brackets and larger assemblies that connect together with fasteners instead of custom-molded brackets and glued-up assemblies that can only be assembled, never disassembled. These might be more expensive for a single model, but over several years economies of scale would catch up.
Finally, you could make these replacement parts available at home improvement stores and at the same retailers that sell the devices, instead of through distribution chains only usable by licensed professionals. I was able to repair my furnace this winter when the exhaust blower failed (and my AC when the capacitor failed) because I could buy the part I needed on Amazon with next-day shipping. I had the day off, and was willing to drive around, but on calling 12 different places within an hour I found none that would sell the parts to me. And just a visit for a quote would have cost more and taken more time than shipping the failed component from Amazon.
The manufacturers would prefer that you buy an entire new appliance from them, and have made decisions which harm the environment and harm consumers, but benefit them. Regulation is required.
I'm not sure your beef is really with the manufacturer in this case although, in general, the manufacturer would prefer to sell you something new.
As you note, you were able to order the part online and there are a fair number of online providers of appliance parts. (Including Sears, while they're still around, although they centrally stock rather than at individual stores.)
I suspect the local stores just don't want to deal with consumers, many of whom may need more handholding than the store provides.
As you note, you were able to order the part online and there are a fair number of online providers of appliance parts. (Including Sears, while they're still around, although they centrally stock rather than at individual stores.)
I suspect the local stores just don't want to deal with consumers, many of whom may need more handholding than the store provides.
if the price of the good includes the cost of proper disposal/recycling/environmental impact of the good, and this proper disposal/recycling actually happens (unlike e.g. many CRT monitors in the US), then I think that other regulation around product lifespans probably isn't needed and allowing consumers to decide based on price is fine.
but if those costs aren't correctly accounted for in the price then being able to choose a "low priced thing" is just pushing the clean up costs onto society.
that said, people who have historically gotten a benefit and pushed costs on to third parties will of course probably be unhappy about a change that forces them to pay for the costs. see also: capitalism generally, climate change.
but if those costs aren't correctly accounted for in the price then being able to choose a "low priced thing" is just pushing the clean up costs onto society.
that said, people who have historically gotten a benefit and pushed costs on to third parties will of course probably be unhappy about a change that forces them to pay for the costs. see also: capitalism generally, climate change.
I think this is bad. Sometimes I want a cheap Chinese piece of crap that breaks in 3 months because I only need to use it one or two times. I shouldn't be forced to shell out for a high-quality BIFL model if that doesn't correspond to my needs.
This type of legislation is not about you, it's about the environment.
Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.
Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.
If you think cheap Chinese gizmos are even worth our consideration over environmental concerns, you're looking in entirely ways the wrong place. Heavy industry, food production, and transport are vastly more significant targets.
I'd love to see some numbers. Given that cheap Chinese gizmos seem to form most of non-food purchases people make, and that they require intercontinental transport, I'd say their footprint is not insignificant.
From the late David JC MacKay's book "sustainable energy: without the hot air" [1] we have the following estimates for per-capita energy consumption in the UK:
all units are kWh/d
The combined energy cost of stuff and stuff transports is the biggest impact on the list.
although arguably the car is the worst offender if you account for the energy cost of the stuff lifecycle and the energy costs to oeprate it. The estimated energy cost of manufacturing a car with a 15 year lifespan accounts for 14kWh/day of the 48+ kWh/day "stuff" estimate, so if the use of a car was replaced with a magical transport device that required no energy to manufacture or run or dispose of, that would eliminate 14kWh/day from "stuff" and also eliminate the 40 kWh/day car operational energy cost too.
[1] - https://www.withouthotair.com/
all units are kWh/d
* "defence": 4
* transporting stuff: 12
* stuff: 48+
* food, farming, fertilizer: 15
* gadgets: 5
* light: 4
* heating, cooling: 37
* jet flights: 30
* car: 40
The combined energy cost of stuff and stuff transports is the biggest impact on the list.
although arguably the car is the worst offender if you account for the energy cost of the stuff lifecycle and the energy costs to oeprate it. The estimated energy cost of manufacturing a car with a 15 year lifespan accounts for 14kWh/day of the 48+ kWh/day "stuff" estimate, so if the use of a car was replaced with a magical transport device that required no energy to manufacture or run or dispose of, that would eliminate 14kWh/day from "stuff" and also eliminate the 40 kWh/day car operational energy cost too.
[1] - https://www.withouthotair.com/
Shoo posted some hard figures, but I'd like to add that intercontinental product transport by boat is incredibly efficient.
Efficient in what terms? AFAIK, not in ecological terms, due to the use of low-grade ship bunker fuel: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping...
That's something I could never reconcile. On the one hand, I hear that container ships are the most energy-efficient way we have of moving cargo across long distances. On the other hand, we have those issues with crappy fuel.
I wonder:
- What's the total ecological impact of container ships vs. alternative forms of transport using better fuel?
- Would container ships be a Good Thing if we could somehow make them use clean energy? (I just imagined a dream future of fully autonomous, nuclear-powered container ships.)
- If so, why are they still using that shit fuel?
I wonder:
- What's the total ecological impact of container ships vs. alternative forms of transport using better fuel?
- Would container ships be a Good Thing if we could somehow make them use clean energy? (I just imagined a dream future of fully autonomous, nuclear-powered container ships.)
- If so, why are they still using that shit fuel?
> I just imagined a dream future of fully autonomous, nuclear-powered container ships.
You might want to read about these then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutsu_(nuclear_ship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
You might want to read about these then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutsu_(nuclear_ship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
It's probably simply a question of the "lawless" open seas permitting absurdly excessive tragedy of the commons-style tradeoffs.
You don't need to go all the way to nuke-carriers; plain old combustion can be much, much cleaner than some ships at negligible (but non-zero) cost - witness similar engines/powerplants on land. But in an extremely competitive market, what sane operator would do that?
You don't need to go all the way to nuke-carriers; plain old combustion can be much, much cleaner than some ships at negligible (but non-zero) cost - witness similar engines/powerplants on land. But in an extremely competitive market, what sane operator would do that?
[deleted]
Did you know that you can sell products you no longer need instead of throwing them into the trash?
Or just rent it if you only need it one or two times?
Or just rent it if you only need it one or two times?
If that were worth my time, I would do it.
The environmental cost of a Chinese gizmo is negligible compared to the loss of utility associated with having to rent a USB stick or some nail clippers. We don't have to live like we're in the Middle Ages.
The environmental cost of a Chinese gizmo is negligible compared to the loss of utility associated with having to rent a USB stick or some nail clippers. We don't have to live like we're in the Middle Ages.
You can work around that disutility in various ways; meanwhile, environmental costs are additive and will come back to bite us hard.
Personally, I'd be much more in favour of "disposable economy" (because of those utility costs you mention) if I could trust that all of the trash actually gets recycled into further products.
Personally, I'd be much more in favour of "disposable economy" (because of those utility costs you mention) if I could trust that all of the trash actually gets recycled into further products.
> If that were worth my time, I would do it.
Well, now it will be :)
Well, now it will be :)
Forcing people into less-optimal behavior isn't a win just because it more closely matches one's expectations for what optimal behavior should be.
Instead of throwing the things away you could donate them to charity. Let someone else use or sell the stuff.
I do, if it's convenient. Traveling 60 miles to Goodwill also has a cost (direct and environmental).
Where could you possibly live that it's 60 miles to the nearest secondhand store (or rather, what's the fraction of people that live similarly far from them)? I have four Goodwills within 25 miles of me, plus a bunch of secondhand clothing botiques, flea markets, a couple Salvation Armies and a Habitat ReStore.
A rural area...
It's remarkable to me sometimes how painfully and obviously ignorant many people on HN are about the lifestyles of the huge portion of the global population that lives in relatively undeveloped rural/agrarian areas. You don't even have to live there, just visit sometimes.
I spend a good fraction of the year in locations that are at least 10 miles to the nearest business of any kind, let alone something like a second hand store that requires a reasonable population to sustain.
It's remarkable to me sometimes how painfully and obviously ignorant many people on HN are about the lifestyles of the huge portion of the global population that lives in relatively undeveloped rural/agrarian areas. You don't even have to live there, just visit sometimes.
I spend a good fraction of the year in locations that are at least 10 miles to the nearest business of any kind, let alone something like a second hand store that requires a reasonable population to sustain.
Living in a rural area is your choice, and you have to consider your environmental impact. Still, as 'PeterisP pointed out, cases like yours don't have noticeable impact on the topic we're discussing, and therefore don't form a good argument.
I'm not sure how something being a choice is even remotely relevant to demography.
Per the WBG, 45% of the global population absolutely has a "noticeable impact".
Per the WBG, 45% of the global population absolutely has a "noticeable impact".
Depopulated rural areas by definition don't have many people, so they don't have a huge portion of the population. This article is about the first world, which is highly urbanized; EU had only something like 20% people living in rural regions, and out of these most are living in regional centers. IIRC something like 5% are actually living in rural/agrarian conditions, certainly not a huge portion.
Places that don't have the services which require a reasonable population to sustain are getting emptier and emptier every decade; there are farms with no people living on them, where people commute from a town that does have a reasonable population to maintain all the modern services, do their work and go home.
The growing urbanization means that almost all of society lives in a somewhat urban environment, and the number of people who don't shrinks rapidly every decade, with no sign of stopping.
Places that don't have the services which require a reasonable population to sustain are getting emptier and emptier every decade; there are farms with no people living on them, where people commute from a town that does have a reasonable population to maintain all the modern services, do their work and go home.
The growing urbanization means that almost all of society lives in a somewhat urban environment, and the number of people who don't shrinks rapidly every decade, with no sign of stopping.
> Depopulated rural areas by definition don't have many people, so they don't have a huge portion of the population.
I hope for your sake that this was an off-the cuff comment and not something you actually put thought into.
Cities are very small, and unpopulated areas are very big. Amount = density * area.
The US has about 15% of people living in rural counties. China has about 60% of people living in rural areas. 63% of sub-saharans live in rural areas. It's around 45% globally, per the world bank group.
I hope for your sake that this was an off-the cuff comment and not something you actually put thought into.
Cities are very small, and unpopulated areas are very big. Amount = density * area.
The US has about 15% of people living in rural counties. China has about 60% of people living in rural areas. 63% of sub-saharans live in rural areas. It's around 45% globally, per the world bank group.
I do mean that seriously - first, as I pointed out, the local rural ratio of EU matters, and that is materially different than the current global average situation or e.g. China.
In Western EU, the depopulated rural areas don't have many people, don't have a huge portion of population, and the size of them doesn't matter.
And rapid urbanization is continuing everywhere. Within a few decades, sub-Saharan Africa will have the urbanization rate that China has now and China will be closer to towards the urbanization rate of the western world than the current ratio.
And if nothing changes, USA will very soon be as urbanized as Western EU (it's currently a bit more rural) and Western EU will be even more urbanized as it is today.
The rural areas are getting more empty, quality of life is decreasing due to depopulation, and because of that they're getting even more empty. In the long run, the population rural areas would likely converge to whatever portion of workforce is needed to run the primary agriculture, which used to be ~2% in 20th century for advanced societies and now with increasing automation is likely to drop to 1%. Within two generations, rural USA will not have anywhere close to 15% in rural counties, and that's unavoidable.
In Western EU, the depopulated rural areas don't have many people, don't have a huge portion of population, and the size of them doesn't matter.
And rapid urbanization is continuing everywhere. Within a few decades, sub-Saharan Africa will have the urbanization rate that China has now and China will be closer to towards the urbanization rate of the western world than the current ratio.
And if nothing changes, USA will very soon be as urbanized as Western EU (it's currently a bit more rural) and Western EU will be even more urbanized as it is today.
The rural areas are getting more empty, quality of life is decreasing due to depopulation, and because of that they're getting even more empty. In the long run, the population rural areas would likely converge to whatever portion of workforce is needed to run the primary agriculture, which used to be ~2% in 20th century for advanced societies and now with increasing automation is likely to drop to 1%. Within two generations, rural USA will not have anywhere close to 15% in rural counties, and that's unavoidable.
[deleted]
x2.
A lot of them live in a bubble. Just ignore it. The tall nail gets the hammer. Loud minority opinions get run out of town.
A lot of them live in a bubble. Just ignore it. The tall nail gets the hammer. Loud minority opinions get run out of town.
Minorities have, by definition, a minor impact on things. This is not a bubble, it's the opposite - taking the global view.
"The global view" is that nearly half of the world population is rural by most metrics.
Your claim is also incorrect for more fundamental reasons, although it doesn't really apply here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Cooperating minorities can have an effect drastically out of proportion with their share of the population.
Your claim is also incorrect for more fundamental reasons, although it doesn't really apply here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Cooperating minorities can have an effect drastically out of proportion with their share of the population.
Or a lot of us don't like having to subsidize your lifestyle, and are tired of the excuses that are entirely the product of your choice of lifestyle.
At some point, this person is going to have to realize they cannot keep doing what they are doing, no matter how much they may "want" to do so.
At some point, this person is going to have to realize they cannot keep doing what they are doing, no matter how much they may "want" to do so.
And what do you do with the broken thing once you're done with it? What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing?
Longer-lived more durable products might also be amenable to app-based rental ""sharing economy"", for people who don't want to keep the thing.
Longer-lived more durable products might also be amenable to app-based rental ""sharing economy"", for people who don't want to keep the thing.
> What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing?
What quantity went into the more expensive version I'm forced to buy so some upper-class do-gooder can satisfy their sense of moral superiority?
If you think that "questionable labour" is a problem, fix that directly instead of making vaguely related warranty regulations.
I'd be perfectly happy with efforts to make the price of items more closely match their total cost including externalities, but piecemeal regulation of warranty policy is not the way to do that.
What quantity went into the more expensive version I'm forced to buy so some upper-class do-gooder can satisfy their sense of moral superiority?
If you think that "questionable labour" is a problem, fix that directly instead of making vaguely related warranty regulations.
I'd be perfectly happy with efforts to make the price of items more closely match their total cost including externalities, but piecemeal regulation of warranty policy is not the way to do that.
Likely about the same amount, don't you think? Obviously, over the product's lifetime one could imagine there's a big difference, which is likely the point.
It may well be worse for the cheaper one, as they have to cut costs somewhere - e.g. Apple recently announced they would move to use recycled rare-earth minerals only, and stop buying from war zones. Which is obviously the way it should be, right?
It's just that there are things we still haven't solved when it comes to conflicts, business, government and industry, leading to all of us here walking around with minerals mined by hand, by children, at gunpoint.
Now, if we want to change this, regulation has proved to be a workable way. As you hint, there are surely others and I hope we can pursue them as soon as possible! With the current regime in the US, change likely won't come from that way in a while, so I'm glad to see the EU making progress.
(Also, you're coming across as slightly entitled with the aggressive tone when saying you want the world to keep an unworkable production system just because it's convenient to you.)
It may well be worse for the cheaper one, as they have to cut costs somewhere - e.g. Apple recently announced they would move to use recycled rare-earth minerals only, and stop buying from war zones. Which is obviously the way it should be, right?
It's just that there are things we still haven't solved when it comes to conflicts, business, government and industry, leading to all of us here walking around with minerals mined by hand, by children, at gunpoint.
Now, if we want to change this, regulation has proved to be a workable way. As you hint, there are surely others and I hope we can pursue them as soon as possible! With the current regime in the US, change likely won't come from that way in a while, so I'm glad to see the EU making progress.
(Also, you're coming across as slightly entitled with the aggressive tone when saying you want the world to keep an unworkable production system just because it's convenient to you.)
Movement in the wrong direction just for the sake of movement isn't "progress". Mandatory warranty periods are simply bad economics, and it's not hard to see that this will go wrong for the reasons I mentioned (and more).
Please expound on how disposable goods are "unworkable".
If I'm coming across as entitled, it's because I'm very tired of people directly and noticeably harming my quality of life for the sake of trivial (and often counterproductive) environmental benefits. I shouldn't have to break the law (but I do have to) to have a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. If you aren't familiar with the ways "progressive" little environmental regulations in the US have fucked up all of those things to negligible environmental benefit, I'd be happy to explain any of them.
Please expound on how disposable goods are "unworkable".
If I'm coming across as entitled, it's because I'm very tired of people directly and noticeably harming my quality of life for the sake of trivial (and often counterproductive) environmental benefits. I shouldn't have to break the law (but I do have to) to have a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. If you aren't familiar with the ways "progressive" little environmental regulations in the US have fucked up all of those things to negligible environmental benefit, I'd be happy to explain any of them.
Please do explain, because this is interesting.
I assume that you either 1) have a different vision of how we can maximize wealth and convenience while minimizing waste and environmental damage, or 2) you don't care about waste and environmental damage.
If 1) is true, I'd like to learn what your vision is.
I assume that you either 1) have a different vision of how we can maximize wealth and convenience while minimizing waste and environmental damage, or 2) you don't care about waste and environmental damage.
If 1) is true, I'd like to learn what your vision is.
In the US we have the EPA, which is tasked with protecting the environment. It is not tasked with optimizing the net social utility of humanity. So, the EPA does everything it can to help the environment, so as to fulfill its organizational directive, even if the human cost is vastly out of proportion with the environmental benefit.
My dream vision is that the government tries to bring about a practical approximation of the preconditions of the Coase theorem. This is very, very different from the piecemeal and economically unsound approach it is using right now.
My dream vision is that the government tries to bring about a practical approximation of the preconditions of the Coase theorem. This is very, very different from the piecemeal and economically unsound approach it is using right now.
>a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation.
Can you elaborate on these points. I feel like I have all of them (with the exception that I don't have a car) without doing anything environmentally illegal.
(In fact, I have specifically noticed that well designed modern toilets are far more effective than old ones that use tonnes of water.)
Can you elaborate on these points. I feel like I have all of them (with the exception that I don't have a car) without doing anything environmentally illegal.
(In fact, I have specifically noticed that well designed modern toilets are far more effective than old ones that use tonnes of water.)
Low-flow showers and toilets are the bane of many people's existences. You might be happy with the "well designed" ones but a lot of people aren't. (Or don't have whatever the well designed one is -- my newly built office has had so many complaints with its toilets they're replacing them building wide, bets on how much better the new ones will be?) Some people will find solutions that would result in fines if found out. And it's not a new thing either: https://youtu.be/vMITcQUe-9M
Not sure what is meant by working gas can on the car... I personally just hate the gas hoses at stations which have the pressure contraption so I have to keep it physically pushed in to the hole and can't say let it start and clean my windshield, but it also has a hyper sensitive fume/fluid sensor so it cuts off if I try to have a flow over 50%. I love older stations with older pump hoses, no problems. Don't have to break the law for them, yet.
Clean clothes and home probably refer to some effective cleaning agents being banned because they're known to the state of California to cause cancer or something. I can't say I have that problem but I might not know what I'm missing.
Not sure what is meant by working gas can on the car... I personally just hate the gas hoses at stations which have the pressure contraption so I have to keep it physically pushed in to the hole and can't say let it start and clean my windshield, but it also has a hyper sensitive fume/fluid sensor so it cuts off if I try to have a flow over 50%. I love older stations with older pump hoses, no problems. Don't have to break the law for them, yet.
Clean clothes and home probably refer to some effective cleaning agents being banned because they're known to the state of California to cause cancer or something. I can't say I have that problem but I might not know what I'm missing.
The nice thing about the low flow shower heads and toilets is if you find one that works (which I have), you do save a little bit of money every month. Water is cheap in the US so it's not that much, but since I don't mind the low flow items I have, I have no complaints. :)
I'd have to read up more, but as I understand it, that style of gas pump (as well as "new gas cans" which also get a lot of complaints) were made to counter gas vapor leaks that reportedly contributed significantly to smog. Was it trivial in nature? I'd have to see a study.
Separately, the last big thing I knew with clothes cleaning was how phosphates were removed from detergents some years back due to environmental concerns; from my understanding, phosphates in consumer detergent caused far more than "trivial" nutrient pollution (example paper: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25038382?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...). I noticed when non-phosphate dishwashing detergents were introduced, with our hard water they left lots of spots. But there are non-phosphate ways around that issue. The actual cleaning part is fine.
I'd have to read up more, but as I understand it, that style of gas pump (as well as "new gas cans" which also get a lot of complaints) were made to counter gas vapor leaks that reportedly contributed significantly to smog. Was it trivial in nature? I'd have to see a study.
Separately, the last big thing I knew with clothes cleaning was how phosphates were removed from detergents some years back due to environmental concerns; from my understanding, phosphates in consumer detergent caused far more than "trivial" nutrient pollution (example paper: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25038382?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...). I noticed when non-phosphate dishwashing detergents were introduced, with our hard water they left lots of spots. But there are non-phosphate ways around that issue. The actual cleaning part is fine.
Yeah I hear you about when you find something nice that also has side benefits like saving money it's great. Since 2014 I've lived in 4 different houses, each one my friend and I replace all the lights with LEDs and only switch them back when we move out. (Plus they're white LEDs, I can't go back to yellow...) It's been great watching the price of those come down too, for our move in 2014 we bought an 8 pack for the same amount that one bulb with slightly higher wattage would have cost only a couple years beforehand.
Now that you bring up gas cans, I bought a new small one and I really don't like it over an old one I have. Instead of countering gas leaks it seems to encourage them, I can't keep it in the garage like the older one because when it gets warm its cheap plastic expands and eventually the gas leaks out of the nozzle (some 'safety' feature) and then gets into the furnace which happily pumps gas smells with the AC into the rest of the house... The can's not even half full either.
I vaguely remember the phosphates drama now. But I agree, I don't have any issues sanitizing things...
Now that you bring up gas cans, I bought a new small one and I really don't like it over an old one I have. Instead of countering gas leaks it seems to encourage them, I can't keep it in the garage like the older one because when it gets warm its cheap plastic expands and eventually the gas leaks out of the nozzle (some 'safety' feature) and then gets into the furnace which happily pumps gas smells with the AC into the rest of the house... The can's not even half full either.
I vaguely remember the phosphates drama now. But I agree, I don't have any issues sanitizing things...
Re: Gas Cans
There are (in my opinion) only two good gas cans out there:
1. The standard US/NATO steel gerry cans with the welded seams (not the crimped seams that you see on the new versions today; you have to do some searching for these nice older cans that were built properly); nozzles can be found at army surplus stores and online.
2. RotoPax - seriously, if you want a modern solution made from plastic, and price isn't an object, RotoPax is what you want.
There are (in my opinion) only two good gas cans out there:
1. The standard US/NATO steel gerry cans with the welded seams (not the crimped seams that you see on the new versions today; you have to do some searching for these nice older cans that were built properly); nozzles can be found at army surplus stores and online.
2. RotoPax - seriously, if you want a modern solution made from plastic, and price isn't an object, RotoPax is what you want.
The cost savings are negligible compared to the extra time wasted cleaning and inferior shower experience. I'm willing to pay an extra 5 cents for a good shower. If water conservation is really such an issue, make the price of water reflect that somehow. I'm willing to pay an extra X% if it means I actually get to choose how to use my water.
The EPA has mandated flow regulators on showers to save water. The end result is that showers in the US offer an inferior cleaning experience and I have to take longer showers anyway. I waste time, use similar amounts of water, and am less satisfied with my shower. The same is true for water pressure regulations in the US. You simply aren't allowed to have a good water pressure. This hurts especially for multi-story buildings because you can't increase pressure downstairs to get good pressure upstairs. You have to use an expensive pump, so almost no one bothers. I have to illegally drill out my shower heads, and as of yet I have been unable to find a way to get good water pressure.
Toilets jam more frequently and are less sanitary than they were without flush volume restrictions. I usually modify the float mechanism in my toilet to help fix this.
Basically, if water wastage is such a problem, we should let the price of water reflect its actual cost including externalities. No one would go thirsty, and people would be able to optimally choose the amount of water they use, rather than the government trying to dictate it.
Thanks to CARB regulations, it is illegal to have a well-functioning gas can. You are required to use these piece of shit overcomplicated "spill proof" mechanisms, which are not spill proof, are absurdly slow, and break constantly because they're so complicated. The one time I really needed a gas can, the piece of shit broke, something shot off into the trees under spring pressure, and the gas was stuck in the can. Since then, I always use a non-compliant "water can" to store gas. These actually work, and they spill less than the "spill proof" models.
It's illegal to use various effective cleaning solutions like TSP because there is some evidence that they contribute to algal growth in rivers. Modern cleaning products in the US are drastically inferior and you have to mix your own with bulk chemicals if you want a good clean. IIRC, the guy at the EPA responsible for this is on record as saying he wants everyone to go back to washing with vinegar, so there's another example of placing environmental interest over net human interest.
Another cleaning product I'm not allowed to use: hot water. To effectively and safely sanitize surfaces, water has to be at least 170 degrees Fahrenheit. It is illegal for domestic water heaters to go that high in the US. I would accept a legal default of e.g. 130F for safety reasons, but it should be up to me if I want to e.g. wire my kitchen with water suitable for sanitization. Instead you have to use chemical products like bleach. I'd prefer the risk of occasional mild water burns while cleaning over having to inhale bleach fumes all the time.
Toilets jam more frequently and are less sanitary than they were without flush volume restrictions. I usually modify the float mechanism in my toilet to help fix this.
Basically, if water wastage is such a problem, we should let the price of water reflect its actual cost including externalities. No one would go thirsty, and people would be able to optimally choose the amount of water they use, rather than the government trying to dictate it.
Thanks to CARB regulations, it is illegal to have a well-functioning gas can. You are required to use these piece of shit overcomplicated "spill proof" mechanisms, which are not spill proof, are absurdly slow, and break constantly because they're so complicated. The one time I really needed a gas can, the piece of shit broke, something shot off into the trees under spring pressure, and the gas was stuck in the can. Since then, I always use a non-compliant "water can" to store gas. These actually work, and they spill less than the "spill proof" models.
It's illegal to use various effective cleaning solutions like TSP because there is some evidence that they contribute to algal growth in rivers. Modern cleaning products in the US are drastically inferior and you have to mix your own with bulk chemicals if you want a good clean. IIRC, the guy at the EPA responsible for this is on record as saying he wants everyone to go back to washing with vinegar, so there's another example of placing environmental interest over net human interest.
Another cleaning product I'm not allowed to use: hot water. To effectively and safely sanitize surfaces, water has to be at least 170 degrees Fahrenheit. It is illegal for domestic water heaters to go that high in the US. I would accept a legal default of e.g. 130F for safety reasons, but it should be up to me if I want to e.g. wire my kitchen with water suitable for sanitization. Instead you have to use chemical products like bleach. I'd prefer the risk of occasional mild water burns while cleaning over having to inhale bleach fumes all the time.
Makes me think of the late Terry Pratchett's "Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice".
FYI and TLDR: you're spending more money than you should by using this method. (and wasting resources, but that doesn't seem to hold weight against you)
(edit: yes i'm aware this from a fantasy book, but there's also actual evidence behind it as well, even if presented in a humoristic way)
FYI and TLDR: you're spending more money than you should by using this method. (and wasting resources, but that doesn't seem to hold weight against you)
(edit: yes i'm aware this from a fantasy book, but there's also actual evidence behind it as well, even if presented in a humoristic way)
The whole point of that theory was that it was based around a product you use a lot, and have to replace sooner.
If you use something 20 times, you don't care whether it breaks after 100 uses or 1000 uses.
If you use something 20 times, you don't care whether it breaks after 100 uses or 1000 uses.
You do realize that the disc world books aren't actually economics research papers, yes?
Perhaps this is the level of economic background I should expect from internet commenters.
The quoted theory might be relevant if I were using my e.g. USB drives to exhaustion (and sometimes I do, and I buy the nice SSD drives), but sometimes I only need to use them once or twice, and buying a high-quality drive would be a waste.
Perhaps this is the level of economic background I should expect from internet commenters.
The quoted theory might be relevant if I were using my e.g. USB drives to exhaustion (and sometimes I do, and I buy the nice SSD drives), but sometimes I only need to use them once or twice, and buying a high-quality drive would be a waste.
>You do realize that the disc world books aren't actually economics research papers, yes?
Based on your downvotes, it seems that people on HN think that fiction can prove economic theory.
Based on your downvotes, it seems that people on HN think that fiction can prove economic theory.
I personally consider Terry Pratchett's quote as a rather elegant way of explaining one aspect of a "poverty trap", a concept which is well known in economics.
[deleted]
Mother Earth just cried a bit there.
Nope, Mother Earth doesn't care. She's not going anywhere. We are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
> I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.
Are you aware this will make everything way more expensive? Why don't they let people who care about extra warranty pay the premium and let the rest of us who don't care about it avoid the fee and pay cheaper. How about we let willing adults contract freely with each others instead of using the force of law and guns to force people into contracts governments think are better for us because we're too dumb to know better what's good for us and what to do with our own money? Crazy thoughts I know.
Are you aware this will make everything way more expensive? Why don't they let people who care about extra warranty pay the premium and let the rest of us who don't care about it avoid the fee and pay cheaper. How about we let willing adults contract freely with each others instead of using the force of law and guns to force people into contracts governments think are better for us because we're too dumb to know better what's good for us and what to do with our own money? Crazy thoughts I know.
>Are you aware this will make everything way more expensive?
That depends how long things last on average. If things get 25% more expensive, but tend to last twice as long as a result of the legislation, they're actually much cheaper than they were before.
The problem is, consumers don't have a good way to compare product lifetimes, so they tend to judge based on sticker price. Mandating minimum lifetime makes these prices more meaningfully comparable.
Although personally, I think an even better market solution would be to mandate that products list price per guarantee-year prominently.
That depends how long things last on average. If things get 25% more expensive, but tend to last twice as long as a result of the legislation, they're actually much cheaper than they were before.
The problem is, consumers don't have a good way to compare product lifetimes, so they tend to judge based on sticker price. Mandating minimum lifetime makes these prices more meaningfully comparable.
Although personally, I think an even better market solution would be to mandate that products list price per guarantee-year prominently.
> price per guarantee-year
This is an interesting lead. Increasing consumer awareness would also incentivize companies to increase guarantee years, reducing perceived price.
This is an interesting lead. Increasing consumer awareness would also incentivize companies to increase guarantee years, reducing perceived price.
Most large appliances in Europe, even the cheap ones, will have some claim on the packaging like 5-15 year guarantee. However for the cheaper ones, once you try to actually use them beyond the EU 2 year minimum[1], you'll find there's all kinds of hidden terms and fees. 50$ callout, doesn't include labour, etc.
So in practice, consumers have been conditioned to just assume that nothing is really guaranteed to last, therefore just buy the cheapest one. With the exception of certain brands such as Miele who are very popular among people with enough money to drop on the high up front price.
You're right in that this could potentially be addressed other ways, for example with packaging regulations. If it says "15 year warranty", then it shouldn't have any hidden terms or charges.
[1] Although with the EU guarantee after 6 months it's technically your responsibility to show fault, with large non-moving appliances the usual assumption is it's probably the device's fault.
So in practice, consumers have been conditioned to just assume that nothing is really guaranteed to last, therefore just buy the cheapest one. With the exception of certain brands such as Miele who are very popular among people with enough money to drop on the high up front price.
You're right in that this could potentially be addressed other ways, for example with packaging regulations. If it says "15 year warranty", then it shouldn't have any hidden terms or charges.
[1] Although with the EU guarantee after 6 months it's technically your responsibility to show fault, with large non-moving appliances the usual assumption is it's probably the device's fault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
I know it's a difficult balance to find, but sometimes you have to restrict the individual's freedom of choice to protect the environment and society as a whole.
Wasteful short product cycles may just fall into the category. Long-lasting products won't prevent you from buying the new stuff all the time. But instead of throwing away the old stuff, you might be incentivized to sell it to others who happily use older stuff.
I know it's a difficult balance to find, but sometimes you have to restrict the individual's freedom of choice to protect the environment and society as a whole.
Wasteful short product cycles may just fall into the category. Long-lasting products won't prevent you from buying the new stuff all the time. But instead of throwing away the old stuff, you might be incentivized to sell it to others who happily use older stuff.
I know it's a difficult balance to find, but sometimes you have to restrict the individual's freedom of choice to protect the environment and society as a whole.
You should be honest and say: this will hurt consumers but help the environment, and I feel that is worth it.
You should be honest and say: this will hurt consumers but help the environment, and I feel that is worth it.
I think the parent also makes a very good point about creating a better market for reselling older products. The impact of new products being more expensive should be a relatively short-lived one given that consumers who do want the new, shiny gizmo will have much greater incentive to resell what they have, and those who want/need to pay less will just need to seek those used products out. Instead of buying something brand new that will only last a year or two, you're getting something with the same durability to you, but without the environmental impact of making an entirely new Widget.
The article has an argument that has nothing to do with the government knowing what's best for you: the tremendous amount of waste that this generates, which are an externality on the whole society.
One could argue that this increased cost together with the mandatory warranty will reduce the pace at which we burn through the earth's resources at a global scale, that it has an impact which in the end will benefit the private person more than that extra money in the bank will.
And can we please try to keep the snark out of the snarko-capitalist rethoric?
And can we please try to keep the snark out of the snarko-capitalist rethoric?
Because of the tragedy of the commons [1], which is hard to solve without a third-party (i.e. the government)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
From your own link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Non-gov...
Like that link says, such systems mostly work when the commons are restricted to a small and stable local community, which can use a strong social network to manage it. It doesn't work that well on a large scale like a country.
Still, if you have some specific suggestions to avoid this legislation, I'd honestly very much like to hear them.
Still, if you have some specific suggestions to avoid this legislation, I'd honestly very much like to hear them.
> A final condition is that there be appropriate community-based rules and procedures in place with built-in incentives for responsible use and punishments for overuse.
This is just a government by another name.
This is just a government by another name.
I'm a bit worried about the unintended consequences of this.
Prices will definitely go up which isn't a bad thing if you can afford it and there will be consolidation of manufacturing on the margin. Laws like this sound nice but they almost always restrict choice and make it harder for new entrants to enter the market.
Prices will definitely go up which isn't a bad thing if you can afford it and there will be consolidation of manufacturing on the margin. Laws like this sound nice but they almost always restrict choice and make it harder for new entrants to enter the market.
Are you sure?
The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost.
We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.
The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost.
We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.
No, I am not sure to be honest.
Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc.
There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc.
There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
I'm not sure about it either, but I think the cost increase would be at least partially eaten by savings of companies developing further the more durability/repair-friendly business models.
> This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition.
I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.
> This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition.
I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.
At the time of purchase there is not much the consumer can know about how long devices will last. The 50% more expensive option may last 50% longer, twice as long or half as long as the cheaper model.
Manufacturers might signal a bit with extended warranties, but there is no need to be a correlation to longevity. They might just decide to take the occasional hit and write it off on their margins.
It can often be a hassle to make use of a warranty, and when they are manufacturer specific it can be hard to get help from consumers protection agencies also.
Can you elaborate on that? You seem to be arguing that having companies that sell cheap junk that breaks too early too often (and sometimes on purpose) is a good thing ... because ... more choice?
As a consumer I'd much rather have such non-choices out of the way, so that I can have the assurance that if I buy a wash machine it'll still be around in several years.
As a consumer I'd much rather have such non-choices out of the way, so that I can have the assurance that if I buy a wash machine it'll still be around in several years.
I'm not "arguing" for anything but choice. You probably don't use a $30 cell phone but there is a time and place for them and as a consumer, I like knowing I have the option to pick one up if I want to. If I want quality, I pay for it. If I want an electric screw driver that is going to last long enough for me to setup my Ikea furniture for a 10th of the price of a brand new Dewalt what business is it of anyone but me?
I think it's an unwarranted assumption that cheap necessarily implies "breaks quickly". Some cheap things last for eons; others don't - if anything, the low-end market may well be a place where the largest improvements can be had.
And even if longer-lasting stuff implies es some extra cost, I question whether that extra cost is significant in the sense that it would change market positioning (i.e. a 10% BOM increase is huge considering the kind of markets this affects, but still not nearly enough to close the gap with the more luxuriously branded stuff).
And even if longer-lasting stuff implies es some extra cost, I question whether that extra cost is significant in the sense that it would change market positioning (i.e. a 10% BOM increase is huge considering the kind of markets this affects, but still not nearly enough to close the gap with the more luxuriously branded stuff).
> If I want an electric screw driver that is going to last long enough for me to setup my Ikea furniture for a 10th of the price of a brand new Dewalt what business is it of anyone but me?
If they were "manufactured on demand", I would agree. You'd pay more or less depending on your needs. As it is today, each product you can get off the shelf is being manufactured in millions of copies, and is a part of purchasing environment. It affects the market for everyone, and its production affects the environment.
I'm of belief that tools barely suited to their function are a waste of materials, energy and production effort - and therefore should not exist. Worse than that, they also provide a price floor on the whole category. You get two categories of items - "crap" items, for which price is pushed down to minimum, and "premium" items, for which the price can stay higher, because customers going for them are not price-sensitive.
I currently believe (though this is not a very strong belief) that if we could somehow raise the floor of minimum acceptable product quality, we'd have much less waste, and the better items would be cheaper than they're now (supply and demand, after all).
If they were "manufactured on demand", I would agree. You'd pay more or less depending on your needs. As it is today, each product you can get off the shelf is being manufactured in millions of copies, and is a part of purchasing environment. It affects the market for everyone, and its production affects the environment.
I'm of belief that tools barely suited to their function are a waste of materials, energy and production effort - and therefore should not exist. Worse than that, they also provide a price floor on the whole category. You get two categories of items - "crap" items, for which price is pushed down to minimum, and "premium" items, for which the price can stay higher, because customers going for them are not price-sensitive.
I currently believe (though this is not a very strong belief) that if we could somehow raise the floor of minimum acceptable product quality, we'd have much less waste, and the better items would be cheaper than they're now (supply and demand, after all).
I'm of belief that tools barely suited to their function are a waste of materials, energy and production effort - and therefore should not exist.
Is this a correct read on what you're saying: You feel other people buying low-cost poor-quality products are making the wrong choice 100% of the time. If you were in charge, you would pass legislation to ban these crap products from being sold. This will protect consumers from making poor purchasing decisions.
Is this a correct read on what you're saying: You feel other people buying low-cost poor-quality products are making the wrong choice 100% of the time. If you were in charge, you would pass legislation to ban these crap products from being sold. This will protect consumers from making poor purchasing decisions.
More along the lines: crap quality products are a huge resource waste and damaging to environment. Consumers will buy lowest-cost goods because that's what consumers do. There's no point to blame individuals, because there isn't much agency on the consumer side to talk about. Raising the quality floor will remove "cheap crap" option from people (they'll go for "slightly more expensive but much less crappy" option instead). Both lives of consumers and our energy use will improve.
You may say it's patronizing view, but I don't blame individual customers because I don't believe they have a meaningful choice in the matter. There's no agency here - people buying cheapest, barely functioning crap is an obvious consequence of it being available.
You may say it's patronizing view, but I don't blame individual customers because I don't believe they have a meaningful choice in the matter. There's no agency here - people buying cheapest, barely functioning crap is an obvious consequence of it being available.
What's stopping you, though? Miele already offers washing machines with 10 year guarantees.
Well, it should also create higher quality, more skilled work force, less waste, etc etc.
[deleted]
Is this really a good idea? Sure, "right to repair" and longer lifespans might sound good. But think of all the advancements made by people like Apple with almost all of their products that would be prohibitively hard to do under this legislation. How would you design a iMac where the user could easily fix broken parts (without using a suction cup to remove the whole front glass) or a superthin Macbook Pro where no parts could be fastned by glue, like the batteries. Not to mention the iPhone. I imagine that by demanding easy user repair would make everything look like the bulky Lenovo machines.
I don't believe that Apple design their stuff with the intention to make it hard to repair for end users, but rather that they make trade-offs that improve other things with the cost of making user repairs hard. But I might be wrong...
I don't believe that Apple design their stuff with the intention to make it hard to repair for end users, but rather that they make trade-offs that improve other things with the cost of making user repairs hard. But I might be wrong...
Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem.
The problem is lack of genuine replacement parts, lack of (legally available) schematics and other technical documentation, and software/firmware that prevents repairs by bricking devices [1].
[1] - https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-error-53-c...
The problem is lack of genuine replacement parts, lack of (legally available) schematics and other technical documentation, and software/firmware that prevents repairs by bricking devices [1].
[1] - https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-error-53-c...
>Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem.
This is already not true for independent auto repair shops. Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools can cost them tens of thousands each and often they don't have the same level of tools as the dealers.
This is already not true for independent auto repair shops. Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools can cost them tens of thousands each and often they don't have the same level of tools as the dealers.
> Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools
The tools themselves aren't the issue, the only thing specific to these tools is a complete mapping of proprietary error codes. If manufacturers were forced to release a list of all error codes and their meanings as part of the owner's manual this would be a non-issue.
The tools themselves aren't the issue, the only thing specific to these tools is a complete mapping of proprietary error codes. If manufacturers were forced to release a list of all error codes and their meanings as part of the owner's manual this would be a non-issue.
Keep an eye on projects like this: https://github.com/commaai/opendbc
I've never had a problem finding replacement parts for phones, tablets and other devices including batteries, screens, power buttons, headphones jacks, etc. All are readily available if you're willing to wait a few weeks for shipping.
Maybe a few things aren't "genuine", like finding OEM batteries is pretty tricky with some devices, but the ones you get do the job with no significant issues in my experience - just beware of the risks of faked specs and buy the cheapest rather than paying more for faked spec.
The thing about repair is it's often not economically viable, especially if you're paying for labor - for example, I could have payed someone $100 to replace the phone screen on my Nexus 5 - a brand new one on ebay goes for $170. I may as well just buy a new phone or use it as an excuse to upgrade. So in many ways, the repair shops are a bigger impedance to repairs than the parts situation in my opinion. Instead I was able to buy a replacement screen assembly directly out of China for $30 and do the replacement myself for free, it's the only way the repair made economic sense.
Maybe a few things aren't "genuine", like finding OEM batteries is pretty tricky with some devices, but the ones you get do the job with no significant issues in my experience - just beware of the risks of faked specs and buy the cheapest rather than paying more for faked spec.
The thing about repair is it's often not economically viable, especially if you're paying for labor - for example, I could have payed someone $100 to replace the phone screen on my Nexus 5 - a brand new one on ebay goes for $170. I may as well just buy a new phone or use it as an excuse to upgrade. So in many ways, the repair shops are a bigger impedance to repairs than the parts situation in my opinion. Instead I was able to buy a replacement screen assembly directly out of China for $30 and do the replacement myself for free, it's the only way the repair made economic sense.
I think most people see eye to eye with you on this, at some point a product is just so tightly integrated that it is almost impossible to repair without specialised equipment. That is completely fine.
However, I think the main purpose here is to make spare parts available for the people who really want to try. Designing for repairability in mind is such a vague concept that Apple & Co. will be able to legally weasel out of it anyway.
However, I think the main purpose here is to make spare parts available for the people who really want to try. Designing for repairability in mind is such a vague concept that Apple & Co. will be able to legally weasel out of it anyway.
As someone who bought a super-costly iMac that isn't upgradeable, I disagree with you. If the EU were to force Apple to make the iMac just an inch thicker to make it upgradeable, I'd take it. It wouldn't increase the computer's footprint (the space on my table that it consumes).
I know upgradeability isn't exactly the same as repairability, but they're close.
I know upgradeability isn't exactly the same as repairability, but they're close.
You bought it fully aware of the limitations with regards to repairability/upgradeability, and even though I agree with you that it would be nice to upgrade it (even if it's just something as simple as RAM replacement), I feel it's wrong to force Apple to move that trade-off with legislation.
It's not as you can't buy a computer thats easily upgradeable (every PC ever almost) if you would like to made that trade-off yourself. (Again I would also like to see an upgradeable iMac / cheaper Mac Pro)
It's not as you can't buy a computer thats easily upgradeable (every PC ever almost) if you would like to made that trade-off yourself. (Again I would also like to see an upgradeable iMac / cheaper Mac Pro)
You seem to be saying market forces will sort it out, but the premise behind legislation is that they haven't.
(In my specific case, as an iOS developer, I can't buy anything but a Mac.)
(In my specific case, as an iOS developer, I can't buy anything but a Mac.)
Well, my point is that everything has a cost, even repairability/upgradeability, either in monetary value, or in lack of some features. With this in mind, then manufacturers have to consider where on that spectrum they want to be. What things to give up in order to provide "optimum" user value. And I think, for many people, that the current limited upgradeability of for example iPads is quite close to the optima. Screens and batteries can be quite easily changed, but you can't upgrade the storage or other internal components. The lack of repairability does not necessarily, in my opinion, show any market force failure. All the failed attempts of modular phones might even show the opposite.
And don't take me wrong, I would looove a more upgradeable Mac (also an iOS developer), but I feel that Apple should be allowed to make those choices by themselves. If upgradeability would be so important for me I could always be an .NET-dev.
And don't take me wrong, I would looove a more upgradeable Mac (also an iOS developer), but I feel that Apple should be allowed to make those choices by themselves. If upgradeability would be so important for me I could always be an .NET-dev.
One thing to remember is that manufacturers don't optimize for "user value" as in "how much users will like it", but for the value they can take from users, i.e. profit. The two are correlated, but not perfectly and not equally well in every dimension.
I see where you're coming from, but I wasn't talking about phones or tablets. I specifically mentioned the iMac — for a desktop computer, the costs are negligible. You're not holding or carrying it, so weight and thickness are not that important. My iMac is already 10kg. Nobody would notice it if it were 10.5. The benefits far outweigh any negligible costs.
In my assessment, Apple hasn't make the right decisions when left to themselves. And it's not just me saying that. Even some Apple fans are saying so: https://marco.org/2017/04/15/mac-pro-audacity-of-yes
You're still free to disagree, but in that case we should agree to disagree.
In my assessment, Apple hasn't make the right decisions when left to themselves. And it's not just me saying that. Even some Apple fans are saying so: https://marco.org/2017/04/15/mac-pro-audacity-of-yes
You're still free to disagree, but in that case we should agree to disagree.
Market forces sort a lot out given time. The first iPhone was only 10 years ago. You didn't have to be an iOS developer. At the same time you don't have to be one in the future unless legislation comes along to force you to maintain your apps.
That's not a practical reality for many of us.
Economics textbooks assume there are an infinite number of suppliers to choose from, but in reality there's often only two or three, so "do something else" isn't often an option.
Economics textbooks assume there are an infinite number of suppliers to choose from, but in reality there's often only two or three, so "do something else" isn't often an option.
I mean if you're dead set on mobile development, yeah, your choices are iOS and Android, and if you want to make more money, prioritizing iOS. But you don't have to be in mobile development. "Do something else" is an option, because there are a vast number of opportunities in the wider tech arena. That's what I'm getting at.
Edit: also do you have any thoughts on the idea of legislation forcing you to maintain an old app? There's a Go game scoring app I use on android but it's buggy as hell, not as good as it used to be, as far as I can tell the developer keeps some servers on but hasn't updated it for a very long time. Should there be a law requiring him to keep the servers on? I can't use anything else on android (that I know of), I'd have to develop it myself.
Edit: also do you have any thoughts on the idea of legislation forcing you to maintain an old app? There's a Go game scoring app I use on android but it's buggy as hell, not as good as it used to be, as far as I can tell the developer keeps some servers on but hasn't updated it for a very long time. Should there be a law requiring him to keep the servers on? I can't use anything else on android (that I know of), I'd have to develop it myself.
Regarding your second point, I think it would be a very bad idea. Many apps bring in little money. Mine doesn't even pay for my Internet bill, let alone my other expenses, as a concrete example. If I'm forced legally to maintain them, I won't be able to take the risk of building more. I'll have to quit and take up a 9-to-5 job again.
How much did you pay for that app? A few dollars? For that money, it's not realistic, given the economics, to expect support for a defined period of time. Enterprise contracts, as an example, do have a defined support period but are much costlier. Or you can outsource the development, or buy the app from the developer, all of which are much costlier than a few dollars. Or write it yourself, which is again much costlier in your time. It's simply not financially viable to guarantee that for a few dollars.
Instead, it's more like a one-time thing: you buy what is offered today. There's no promise of updates. Heck, there isn't even a promise that the developer will keep the servers running. If the business isn't working out, despite the developer trying everything possible to make it work, the only option is to shut it down, which is no different from other businesses. This is the unfortunate reality.
How much did you pay for that app? A few dollars? For that money, it's not realistic, given the economics, to expect support for a defined period of time. Enterprise contracts, as an example, do have a defined support period but are much costlier. Or you can outsource the development, or buy the app from the developer, all of which are much costlier than a few dollars. Or write it yourself, which is again much costlier in your time. It's simply not financially viable to guarantee that for a few dollars.
Instead, it's more like a one-time thing: you buy what is offered today. There's no promise of updates. Heck, there isn't even a promise that the developer will keep the servers running. If the business isn't working out, despite the developer trying everything possible to make it work, the only option is to shut it down, which is no different from other businesses. This is the unfortunate reality.
> If the EU were to force Apple to make the iMac just an inch thicker to make it upgradeable, I'd take it
I wouldn't, and I hope Apple finds a way out of compromising its standards for the sake of random European regulations.
I wouldn't, and I hope Apple finds a way out of compromising its standards for the sake of random European regulations.
Can anyone with knowledge offer their opinion on how allowing more permissive repairs to something like an iPhone would impact it's security? Would allowing the use of third party replacements parts weaken security? What about genuine Apple parts that can be installed by third parties?
If your threat model includes nation states, then no.
They shouldn't take proactive measures to prevent you from opening the device (i.e. gluing it shut), and should in fact take proactive measures not to (i.e. using phillips head screws). There are lots of little things they can do to make it easier without compromising on the design.
Despite that, I don't think requiring specialized tools is a problem so long as they are (1) generally available and (2) reasonably priced.
Despite that, I don't think requiring specialized tools is a problem so long as they are (1) generally available and (2) reasonably priced.
> using phillips head screws
Let's hope they don't use those.
Simply because there's like 3 or 4 other types out there which look really, really close to a phillips, but aren't. They have slightly different shapes, and use different shaped bits/points on a screwdriver. Some are compatible with each other (but none are compatible with all!) - and others, if you use the wrong driver on the wrong screw, will tend to strip it out, or cam out with damage to either the screw, the tool, or both.
There are much better yet still easy to obtain drive profiles out there to use for screws (torx is one of them).
Let's hope they don't use those.
Simply because there's like 3 or 4 other types out there which look really, really close to a phillips, but aren't. They have slightly different shapes, and use different shaped bits/points on a screwdriver. Some are compatible with each other (but none are compatible with all!) - and others, if you use the wrong driver on the wrong screw, will tend to strip it out, or cam out with damage to either the screw, the tool, or both.
There are much better yet still easy to obtain drive profiles out there to use for screws (torx is one of them).
I really don't think this is a good idea. It will surely make things more expensive for consumers and as a consumer we agree to to buy the product regardless of the repairability. If you want to buy things that are repairable then you need to make it known to the manufacturer that this is something consumers want (i.e. vote with your wallet).
To me what's actually ridiculous is that this is even subject to debate. Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be assumed. Also, this raises a lot of frightening questions with regards to ownership (and its transfer) and how it's perceived by the Apples and Samsungs of this world. Realistically, if we let this slide, it could open up the door for many more abusive violations of rights, but I digress.
> Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be assumed.
Shouldn't my right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts also be assumed?
The problem with creating rules is that you don't really fix anything, you just force those who disagree to accept your preference (e.g. replaceable parts, at the higher cost this incurs). Most people purchase devices with non-replaceable parts because they prefer the low price that comes with mass-production versus being able to repair it. Why take away this ability?
Shouldn't my right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts also be assumed?
The problem with creating rules is that you don't really fix anything, you just force those who disagree to accept your preference (e.g. replaceable parts, at the higher cost this incurs). Most people purchase devices with non-replaceable parts because they prefer the low price that comes with mass-production versus being able to repair it. Why take away this ability?
There is no "right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts". You just made that up. But I'll answer your question anyway.
Because it's a giant waste that is destroying the planet, and is economically irresponsible and noncompetitive?
Why should the arseholes who produce things that break in one year have a competitive advantage over companies that do the right thing by their customers and by the planet?
Because it's a giant waste that is destroying the planet, and is economically irresponsible and noncompetitive?
Why should the arseholes who produce things that break in one year have a competitive advantage over companies that do the right thing by their customers and by the planet?
There is also no right to have companies build products that are easy to repair. The EU and a bunch of internet activists made this up.
You have the right to try to repair something. If it was built so that it was hard to repair, well you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.
Almost all rights are "made up". Anyway, I really hope this law passes because it will fuck up even more small businesses in the EU and drive them to the US.
You have the right to try to repair something. If it was built so that it was hard to repair, well you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.
Almost all rights are "made up". Anyway, I really hope this law passes because it will fuck up even more small businesses in the EU and drive them to the US.
People have (or should have) the right to manufacture whatever products they want, and other people should have the right to buy whatever products they want. The only restrictions should be to prevent fraud (product has to work as advertised) and protect consumer safety (product shouldn't blow up).
You already have the right to pay extra for an extended warranty, or go shopping around for a version of X product that is user-maintainable. You also have the right to pay less for a shorter warranty, or buy a compact, tightly-integrated, non-repairable product. The EU's "right of repair" is merely a ban on the second category of product.
You already have the right to pay extra for an extended warranty, or go shopping around for a version of X product that is user-maintainable. You also have the right to pay less for a shorter warranty, or buy a compact, tightly-integrated, non-repairable product. The EU's "right of repair" is merely a ban on the second category of product.
>There is no "right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts".
It's part of living in a free society, which means you have the right to do what you want by default.
So by default, yes, you have that right to free exchange of goods and services.
It's part of living in a free society, which means you have the right to do what you want by default.
So by default, yes, you have that right to free exchange of goods and services.
[deleted]
The right to repair is a good step, but I think the better approach to fight short product lifespans would be much longer and mandatory guarantees on products.
A mandatory 5-year guarantee on laptops and 10 years on washing machines or dryers doesn't sound unreasonably.
A mandatory 5-year guarantee on laptops and 10 years on washing machines or dryers doesn't sound unreasonably.
ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you can extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5, but they are significantly more expensive than a laptop in [random local PC store].
The first step would be to make people understand that the shiny new is most probably nothing better - not in power, keyboard, etc - than a 3-4 years old business rugged one (there are always exceptions, we're talking generic category here), so just go and get a used, perfectly functioniong business tank instead.
The first step would be to make people understand that the shiny new is most probably nothing better - not in power, keyboard, etc - than a 3-4 years old business rugged one (there are always exceptions, we're talking generic category here), so just go and get a used, perfectly functioniong business tank instead.
> ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you can extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5 [..]
I think this is a great solution. I don't see the purpose of preventing people from purchasing the laptop with a 3-year warranty by mandating a 5-year warranty. Why not just let the people who prefer the 5-year warranty pay for it?
I think this is a great solution. I don't see the purpose of preventing people from purchasing the laptop with a 3-year warranty by mandating a 5-year warranty. Why not just let the people who prefer the 5-year warranty pay for it?
Because this isn't about individuals. It's all about the whole society and the environment it's in. See also tragedy of the commons.
Yup. But sometimes sourcing an old thing at a good price is hard. It's further made difficult by misguided environmentalism like e.g. cash for clunkers that end up removing a ton of functioning old stuff from the market and forcing extra manufacture and purchase of new stuff.
Brands would probably start by turning the process into some kind of hell.
We're partly responsible for the status of things, too many consumers aim for cute and thin instead of modular. Today we could have some form of standard form factors that allows to swap parts and make opening machines easy.
We're partly responsible for the status of things, too many consumers aim for cute and thin instead of modular. Today we could have some form of standard form factors that allows to swap parts and make opening machines easy.
No one disputes that the sellers would prefer to make more profit. But we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist society (yet).
The article is about the EU preparing legislation that would require this sort of guarantee. A functioning government would not allow them to turn the process into a hellish ordeal.
The article is about the EU preparing legislation that would require this sort of guarantee. A functioning government would not allow them to turn the process into a hellish ordeal.
I find this notion naive. It's been the case forever. It's still hard to get decent phone support (meanwhile they're always right there if you ask to stop your membership).
The issue is that there's no efficient backpressure mechanism in place when these systems are in place. People just waste time, money and then half of them surrender because no one listens or it's worthless to wait for a proper solution.
The issue is that there's no efficient backpressure mechanism in place when these systems are in place. People just waste time, money and then half of them surrender because no one listens or it's worthless to wait for a proper solution.
I never had trouble getting things replaced under the Swedish 2-year repair law.
I agree. Any ideas on how to create some additional forms of backpressure?
Not really, I haven't thought about this particularly yet. It should be the normal function of a political structure.
IMO I'd be more willing to try a flatter system where users, forming a similar emotional class, could share and help themselves in case of need. So promoting this behavior culturally should be done, and maybe enough.
IMO I'd be more willing to try a flatter system where users, forming a similar emotional class, could share and help themselves in case of need. So promoting this behavior culturally should be done, and maybe enough.
The way this would work is that laptop prices would be massively inflated to pay for the expected multiple repairs that 90% of consumers wouldn't even want, given the choice. I buy a new laptop every two years or so; I shouldn't be forced to subsidize people on a slower upgrade cycle.
Right to repair means nothing without ability to get parts.
I work on embedded products. We have perfectly good working machines that don't need any changes, but the CPU (or some other off the shelf chip) is not going to be made anymore so we have to do an expensive port to a new CPU: EVERYBODY loses. We have to charge more for our products because the cost of engineering is only amortized over a few years. we have ideas for a different machine we could build, but that engineering budget (expertise as much as money) is stuck working on the port. If someone does find a bug we have to fix it in both versions.
In the mean time you can find parts for 100 year old cars. Part of that is someone in their garage making them (can you make a replacement chip in your garage given just the old one) but part of that is the molds to make oil filters still exist so they can make another batch on demand.
I work on embedded products. We have perfectly good working machines that don't need any changes, but the CPU (or some other off the shelf chip) is not going to be made anymore so we have to do an expensive port to a new CPU: EVERYBODY loses. We have to charge more for our products because the cost of engineering is only amortized over a few years. we have ideas for a different machine we could build, but that engineering budget (expertise as much as money) is stuck working on the port. If someone does find a bug we have to fix it in both versions.
In the mean time you can find parts for 100 year old cars. Part of that is someone in their garage making them (can you make a replacement chip in your garage given just the old one) but part of that is the molds to make oil filters still exist so they can make another batch on demand.
Yup, things can be a mess when you can no longer source a part with the same spec. I haven't read the proposed legislation yet but does it account for being unable to do repairs because e.g. no one makes 555 chips anymore? (Albeit those are relatively simple.)
You can delay the porting if you buy a bunch of spare parts in advance but that has inventory price overhead.
You can delay the porting if you buy a bunch of spare parts in advance but that has inventory price overhead.
How much of that would be easier if detailed specs were available? Could someone throw a pin-for-pin compatible implementation of that hypothetical 555 (to continue your example) out of a small FPGA?
Also, the most annoying to replace and most complicated parts are usually the ones that run software, which creates another problem. I bet half of the people at my local hackerspace could build a replacement board for their washing machine or fridge from just doing a visual inspection of the original, but it doesn't solve anything if you don't know what code the original was running. Having to hack the original into giving you its firmware blob raises the difficulty of replacement significantly, and you'll probably be breaking some laws too if you try it.
I wish we would be able to force companies into revealing both schematics and all code running on a device when they sunset it. But I know it won't happen, because the companies will immediately say that some of that old software is still being used on new devices, and therefore it is an Important Trade Secret.
Also, the most annoying to replace and most complicated parts are usually the ones that run software, which creates another problem. I bet half of the people at my local hackerspace could build a replacement board for their washing machine or fridge from just doing a visual inspection of the original, but it doesn't solve anything if you don't know what code the original was running. Having to hack the original into giving you its firmware blob raises the difficulty of replacement significantly, and you'll probably be breaking some laws too if you try it.
I wish we would be able to force companies into revealing both schematics and all code running on a device when they sunset it. But I know it won't happen, because the companies will immediately say that some of that old software is still being used on new devices, and therefore it is an Important Trade Secret.
For a washing machine your local hackathon could probably get most of the functionality in software as well. For years they were simple mechanical timers. Fill until the full switch trips, then run the motor for so long. then pump the water out, then run the motor at a higher speed....
Of course computers and modern sensors allow for "dirt sensors" which if they exist will be much harder to interface to.
Of course computers and modern sensors allow for "dirt sensors" which if they exist will be much harder to interface to.
Detailed specs make everything easier. :) Even if you just have the part name but not necessarily all the schematic info for how it's used that will help a lot because you can usually then go find the datasheet for it and from there figure out how to replace it if you need to. Replacement might be hard or easy, it really depends on the component. Functional specs would help but aren't necessarily enough, because there's extra information in the datasheet like value and thermal tolerances that the circuit might be relying on, and analog vs digital matters too. For 555 chips, those are used in analog circuits typically as clocks, so the functional spec would be something like what clock frequency is expected on the output line and maybe the shape of the wave. A clock is trivial with an FPGA or microcontroller but you can't simply stick one in the same pins as those are for digital circuits, at least not without some converter help. You might be able to replace a big chunk of the analog circuit with a digital timer though.
Binary blobs definitely are annoying. If the circuit is using a microcontroller but you don't have the code it was programmed with then as you say it's not exactly helpful that you could buy a blank replacement. But depending on the part you can sometimes get away with not knowing the code, or even being able to dump the code, and relying on capturing raw signals with an oscilloscope (assuming you have access to a functioning device) to develop a replacement. A lot of repairs don't always leave the thing just as good as before, so it might be acceptable to have a washing machine that only does a basic cycle because no one has yet deciphered the signal sequence to make it do other types. Or sacrifice the chime functionality. On the other hand modding to make a superior replacement is sometimes possible...
The only legislation I really like is not being able to go after modders/hackers/reverse engineers/repairers, even those making a profit as a side business. Mandating some sort of standard to make those things not exceed a certain level of difficulty seems really hairy to define and undesirable in general if it means a lot of things simply won't get made at all. Mandating opening after some time period or when a device is sunset might be workable and not impose any real expense but I don't see it being implemented any time soon. For binary blobs even if it's old or not a "trade secret", it's still "IP". (FPGA companies even call their programs "IP Cores".) We can't even get Green Eggs and Ham into the public domain for like another 40 years thanks to the 1978 law changes, so I wouldn't count on government force to get companies to open software up. The best approach seems to be the combination of cultural practice within software and slowly more and more of hardware communities, and pointing out the business incentives for sharing more things.
Binary blobs definitely are annoying. If the circuit is using a microcontroller but you don't have the code it was programmed with then as you say it's not exactly helpful that you could buy a blank replacement. But depending on the part you can sometimes get away with not knowing the code, or even being able to dump the code, and relying on capturing raw signals with an oscilloscope (assuming you have access to a functioning device) to develop a replacement. A lot of repairs don't always leave the thing just as good as before, so it might be acceptable to have a washing machine that only does a basic cycle because no one has yet deciphered the signal sequence to make it do other types. Or sacrifice the chime functionality. On the other hand modding to make a superior replacement is sometimes possible...
The only legislation I really like is not being able to go after modders/hackers/reverse engineers/repairers, even those making a profit as a side business. Mandating some sort of standard to make those things not exceed a certain level of difficulty seems really hairy to define and undesirable in general if it means a lot of things simply won't get made at all. Mandating opening after some time period or when a device is sunset might be workable and not impose any real expense but I don't see it being implemented any time soon. For binary blobs even if it's old or not a "trade secret", it's still "IP". (FPGA companies even call their programs "IP Cores".) We can't even get Green Eggs and Ham into the public domain for like another 40 years thanks to the 1978 law changes, so I wouldn't count on government force to get companies to open software up. The best approach seems to be the combination of cultural practice within software and slowly more and more of hardware communities, and pointing out the business incentives for sharing more things.
I'm pretty certain that the 555 is still being manufactured:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC
Umm - yep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC
Umm - yep.
I didn't say it actually stopped, it was just the first chip that sprang to mind as an example chip, for good reason. Guess I should have seen this coming.
Hey! You're threatening my livelihood there! Those updates put food on my table (I'm an embedded software guy). So no not EVERYBODY loses.
One company deserves a lot of praise for respecting the "right to repair" is Baratza[1], a coffee grinder manufacturer in Seattle.
Support for customers is one of their mission statements and they provide not only instructions but also all necessary parts and plenty of videos on You-Tube on how to fix their products. Sometimes they even provide upgrades on parts at no extra cost.
No, I am not associated with them in anyway other than being a customer.
[1] https://www.baratza.com/
Support for customers is one of their mission statements and they provide not only instructions but also all necessary parts and plenty of videos on You-Tube on how to fix their products. Sometimes they even provide upgrades on parts at no extra cost.
No, I am not associated with them in anyway other than being a customer.
[1] https://www.baratza.com/
Seconded. I have yet to have any problems with my Baratza grinder (which I've certainly had for more than two years) but if I do I've heard time and time again about their excellent support.
Also completely unassociated with them in any way.
Also completely unassociated with them in any way.
People are focusing on the wrong question.
The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks.
The question is: who should decide?
That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" - which means a ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which they want to buy?
A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the "Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for startups to spring up to fill it.
None of this requires the government.
The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks.
The question is: who should decide?
That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" - which means a ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which they want to buy?
A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the "Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for startups to spring up to fill it.
None of this requires the government.
In a perfect world, consumers have perfect information and understand the subtleties of repairability and all of the unseen costs of disposable products. This is not a perfect world.
Government needs to step in because waste is a serious problem that affects everyone, not just the purchasing consumer (and, additionally, to compensate for the fact that consumer ignorance is unavoidable). Contribution to global warming by requiring the purchase of more appliances and devices, for example, is a classic negative externality. One of the core purposes of government is to correct for externalities (according to Adam Smith).
Government needs to step in because waste is a serious problem that affects everyone, not just the purchasing consumer (and, additionally, to compensate for the fact that consumer ignorance is unavoidable). Contribution to global warming by requiring the purchase of more appliances and devices, for example, is a classic negative externality. One of the core purposes of government is to correct for externalities (according to Adam Smith).
This law being sold as being pro-consumer. It is called "Right to Repair" and not "Right to Restrict Freedom of Choice to Help the Enviroment".
Please provide an argument on why this law will benefit consumers. The focus here is not on the environment.
Please provide an argument on why this law will benefit consumers. The focus here is not on the environment.
It doesn't matter what they are selling it as. It's only important that it gets passed.
Electronics in general make use of a variety of "Rare Earth metals," that we are quickly running out of. At our current pace, we are set to run out of some of these Rare Earth metals in just a few decades. The United States is already 100% reliant on imports for many of them. Some sort of reduction scheme is necessary, otherwise the cost of all electronics will skyrocket in just a few years.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-wi...
https://www.bu.edu/cas/magazine/spring16/elements-of-conflic...
Electronics in general make use of a variety of "Rare Earth metals," that we are quickly running out of. At our current pace, we are set to run out of some of these Rare Earth metals in just a few decades. The United States is already 100% reliant on imports for many of them. Some sort of reduction scheme is necessary, otherwise the cost of all electronics will skyrocket in just a few years.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-wi...
https://www.bu.edu/cas/magazine/spring16/elements-of-conflic...
You are completely theoretically correct.
It might be nice for some products to have this designed into them, but the transition will be tough. It might mean redesigning a product well before the end of a natural product cycle. It will almost certainly raise costs (and thus prices) at transition.
Last big EU effort like this was RoHS, which actually lowered product lifespans and reliability substantially.
Even if it is overall a net good, the winners here will be those selling to EU people but exempt from the regulation during the transition (US, Canadian, etc retailers); once all the costs have been paid by EU consumers to the point that it makes sense to voluntarily adopt elsewhere, then global production might shift overall to selling these kind of devices only.
So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate ways.
Last big EU effort like this was RoHS, which actually lowered product lifespans and reliability substantially.
Even if it is overall a net good, the winners here will be those selling to EU people but exempt from the regulation during the transition (US, Canadian, etc retailers); once all the costs have been paid by EU consumers to the point that it makes sense to voluntarily adopt elsewhere, then global production might shift overall to selling these kind of devices only.
So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate ways.
> So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate ways.
Maybe, but as an EU citizen, I'd actually like them to do that - as long as I can hope it'll make a lasting change on the market. The market doesn't always find good solutions by itself; often it takes a powerful actor to push it in the right direction.
Maybe, but as an EU citizen, I'd actually like them to do that - as long as I can hope it'll make a lasting change on the market. The market doesn't always find good solutions by itself; often it takes a powerful actor to push it in the right direction.
Ths is good, but let's see how it clashes with copyright laws since "repairing" an obsolete electronic appliance might involve its reverse engineering and at least distributing information on how to do so if not complete binaries containing parts of the original firmware along with other parts which were hacked or developed from scratch. I expect some opposition by the usual suspects lobbied by the industry.
Making additional copies of a copyrightable work is not the intent of repair, even if copies of some of the parts art made during the repair process. Intent matters in law, and a repair should only leave the same single copy.
Trying to prevent someone from repairing a product (as or private act or as a for-profit service) is not a right granted by copyright. Preventing repair is a misuse of copyright, which allows copyright infringers to avoid liability[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse
[2] Lasercomb America v. Reynolds
Trying to prevent someone from repairing a product (as or private act or as a for-profit service) is not a right granted by copyright. Preventing repair is a misuse of copyright, which allows copyright infringers to avoid liability[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse
[2] Lasercomb America v. Reynolds
The EU doesn't have the DMCA foothold that allows ownership of your personal belongings by a copyright holder, but it will be interesting to see how the copyright cartel reacts to people owning the things they buy vs the cartel.
Related previous discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14700784
See the previous discussion on HN - "recraiglist" and "They Used To Last 50 Years" (1) - a well-circulated blog post by a successful used home appliance repair & trading entrepreneur.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365
How are planned obsolescense implemented in practice?
It isn't. What really happens is cost reduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_reduction). Basically the design is changed to make it as cheap as possible to manufacture, while still lasting the guarantee period.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability
Examples of what you might do:
* Change the design to relax tolerances.
* Switch from nuts/bolts to other fixings like glue, snap-fit, screws into plastic, etc.
* Reduce the thickness of plastic parts that rarely fail
* Switch to cheaper materials, e.g. metal->plastic
* Integrate electronics into fewer places / components / PCBs.
I have a theory that first generation products last longer than recent ones because they haven't had a chance to make them crap yet (though this may also be selection bias).
None of it is really done to screw the customer over, rather to maximise profit.
You can't compete on reliability nearly as easily as on price. It takes many years and lots of reviews for customers to learn the reliability of a product. It will probably be obsolete by the time its reliability is clear to the average person, so really only huge long-lived brands can compete on reliability. Cost is easy to compare.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability
Examples of what you might do:
* Change the design to relax tolerances.
* Switch from nuts/bolts to other fixings like glue, snap-fit, screws into plastic, etc.
* Reduce the thickness of plastic parts that rarely fail
* Switch to cheaper materials, e.g. metal->plastic
* Integrate electronics into fewer places / components / PCBs.
I have a theory that first generation products last longer than recent ones because they haven't had a chance to make them crap yet (though this may also be selection bias).
None of it is really done to screw the customer over, rather to maximise profit.
You can't compete on reliability nearly as easily as on price. It takes many years and lots of reviews for customers to learn the reliability of a product. It will probably be obsolete by the time its reliability is clear to the average person, so really only huge long-lived brands can compete on reliability. Cost is easy to compare.
> You can't compete on reliability nearly as easily as on price. It takes many years and lots of reviews for customers to learn the reliability of a product. It will probably be obsolete by the time its reliability is clear to the average person, so really only huge long-lived brands can compete on reliability. Cost is easy to compare.
That depends. There’s a reason people buy Miele.
You can also make reliability and quality your business model.
That depends. There’s a reason people buy Miele.
You can also make reliability and quality your business model.
You can offer some competition on reliability relatively easily. For example Asus publishizes the fact they use high quality long-lasting capacitors on motherboards.
Further options: 3rd party reliability testing as branding, tear down by trustworthy experts, easy to see repairability, guarrateed access to affordable repair parts
Further options: 3rd party reliability testing as branding, tear down by trustworthy experts, easy to see repairability, guarrateed access to affordable repair parts
Mostly by very tight tolerances on certain components that causes them to fail prematurely. The difference between planned obsolescence and just cheapening out on the BOM is mostly in the eye of the beholder.
There's also the classic "software driven obsolescence", such as pushing a software upgrade that performs poorly on older hardware. Again, you could argue that maintaining older versions of the software is costly for the vendor and it makes sense for them to push their newer, shinier version.
I think in many cases "planned obsolescence" is not so much about some evil corporate type saying "let's have this thing break on purpose two years from now" but rather some greedy corporate type saying "let's make this thing as cheap as possible".
There's also the classic "software driven obsolescence", such as pushing a software upgrade that performs poorly on older hardware. Again, you could argue that maintaining older versions of the software is costly for the vendor and it makes sense for them to push their newer, shinier version.
I think in many cases "planned obsolescence" is not so much about some evil corporate type saying "let's have this thing break on purpose two years from now" but rather some greedy corporate type saying "let's make this thing as cheap as possible".
Plastic bearings, where a metal one would last half a eternity.
Capacitators near heatsources.
Subconciously annoying the consumer, by making a product via software update laggy and unresponsive.
Capacitators near heatsources.
Subconciously annoying the consumer, by making a product via software update laggy and unresponsive.
To put it simply - bathtub curve [0]. Basically, every component has certain failure rate (probability that an item will fail after certain amount of use, usually hours) profile, which tends to resemble profile of a bathtub. It turns out to be possible to engineer a product in such a way, that combined probabilities form:
a) very steep bathtub profile (critical/expensive components fail one after another)
b) very flat bathtub profile (critical/expensive components have highly differing lifetimes)
c) something in between
Planned obsolence is a
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
--- edit ---
Reading other comments, I think it is important to make a distinction between terms "planned obsolescence" and "engineered to fail". My comment was (and the proposed law, as I understand, mostly is) regarding the latter, others commented on specific ways it can be implemented.
Even though these terms are used in various ways, obsolete product is still technically usable (at least to some degree), but is unattractive, malfeatured or expensive to maintain, compared to current competition, often all in conjunction.
a) very steep bathtub profile (critical/expensive components fail one after another)
b) very flat bathtub profile (critical/expensive components have highly differing lifetimes)
c) something in between
Planned obsolence is a
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
--- edit ---
Reading other comments, I think it is important to make a distinction between terms "planned obsolescence" and "engineered to fail". My comment was (and the proposed law, as I understand, mostly is) regarding the latter, others commented on specific ways it can be implemented.
Even though these terms are used in various ways, obsolete product is still technically usable (at least to some degree), but is unattractive, malfeatured or expensive to maintain, compared to current competition, often all in conjunction.
It could be something like in Formula 1, where an engine is built just strong enough to hold for a weekend of usage. Because then it will be lighter, so it will have a competitive advantage.
But that example is also great for another reason: very slight changes and a slightly less aggressive driving might well achieve orders of magnitude greater life expectancy at virtually no performance difference. The problem specifically for F1 is that even if you lose just 0.1% performance, that matters hugely (as in, a 0.1% speed difference seem to be a fairly normal 1st vs. 2nd spot difference, you can browse here: https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2017/races/959/aust...)!
Afterall, F1 is a competition: winner takes all (well, almost all). That last 0.1% really matters.
For a fridge? Or really for almost everything people actually use? Nobody cares about that last 0.1% - heck, I wouldn't notice huge gaping performance chasms such as say 2%, but that would allow much, much better quality.
Frankly, I doubt the advantages of skimping on longevity really amount to much in almost all cases.
Afterall, F1 is a competition: winner takes all (well, almost all). That last 0.1% really matters.
For a fridge? Or really for almost everything people actually use? Nobody cares about that last 0.1% - heck, I wouldn't notice huge gaping performance chasms such as say 2%, but that would allow much, much better quality.
Frankly, I doubt the advantages of skimping on longevity really amount to much in almost all cases.
My 40 year old microwave just died. Magic Chef, manufactured in October, 1977 in Anniston, GA. Ran like a champ up to its last moment. A faint wiff of overheated electronics, at the end of one run, and upon the next, the magnetron (or klystron, someone told me such an old unit might have?) wouldn't power up. Control panel still works just fine.
My previous furnace, a Lennox, was circa 35 years old when it was replaced. The blower motor was failing and I took the advice of the technician to put the money to repair instead towards a new unit. A Rheem, which came with at least two significant (and noisy) defects that took repeated, ineffective visits (with additional expenses) and over a year to finally partially mitigate. What a piece of shit, that "highly regarded" Rheem unit. And the subsequent support for it, under warranty. And, I understand it's expected lifetime is on the order of 15 years.
New stuff may be more efficient, but a lot of it is crap for endurance and sometimes even simple convenience. And, I am increasingly comparing the supposed savings (energy, water, etc.) against cost -- both in money and in time and effort -- of maintaining and replacing these... "chintzy" newer models.
Sure, slap a sheet of stainless steel on the exterior. Style it up. Inside, it's still kind of a piece of crap.
My parents replaced their many years old Kenmore washer with a top of the line top-loader made by LG. (For various reasons, a front-loader didn't work for them.) The clothes consistently come out of the LG wrinkled as well as covered with lint. If you air dry (which makes clothes last longer and not shrink and all sorts of good things), it's a real problem.
The suggested work-around passed on by the seller? Run all loads with the "Bulky Items" setting on. What does this do? Fills the drum to the top with water. There go the supposed water savings and some of the energy savings (from the mass of heated water consumed, as well as the additional power to move the extra water around). At least the unit has this setting -- thank goodness! Otherwise, it would be pretty unusable.
Someday, someone's going to take the time and effort to research and write up a book full of comparisons between our current household machinery and older generations. And, I suspect, some of the results aren't going to be pretty.
My previous furnace, a Lennox, was circa 35 years old when it was replaced. The blower motor was failing and I took the advice of the technician to put the money to repair instead towards a new unit. A Rheem, which came with at least two significant (and noisy) defects that took repeated, ineffective visits (with additional expenses) and over a year to finally partially mitigate. What a piece of shit, that "highly regarded" Rheem unit. And the subsequent support for it, under warranty. And, I understand it's expected lifetime is on the order of 15 years.
New stuff may be more efficient, but a lot of it is crap for endurance and sometimes even simple convenience. And, I am increasingly comparing the supposed savings (energy, water, etc.) against cost -- both in money and in time and effort -- of maintaining and replacing these... "chintzy" newer models.
Sure, slap a sheet of stainless steel on the exterior. Style it up. Inside, it's still kind of a piece of crap.
My parents replaced their many years old Kenmore washer with a top of the line top-loader made by LG. (For various reasons, a front-loader didn't work for them.) The clothes consistently come out of the LG wrinkled as well as covered with lint. If you air dry (which makes clothes last longer and not shrink and all sorts of good things), it's a real problem.
The suggested work-around passed on by the seller? Run all loads with the "Bulky Items" setting on. What does this do? Fills the drum to the top with water. There go the supposed water savings and some of the energy savings (from the mass of heated water consumed, as well as the additional power to move the extra water around). At least the unit has this setting -- thank goodness! Otherwise, it would be pretty unusable.
Someday, someone's going to take the time and effort to research and write up a book full of comparisons between our current household machinery and older generations. And, I suspect, some of the results aren't going to be pretty.
I have a feeling that in some cases less efficient manufacturing and more individually replaceable parts will be more damaging to the environment.
what worries me most is who is to decide what parts of a product must be user replaceable or replaceable at all? Does the piece have to comprise a certain percentage of the device or will the separate it down to only specific components? Components being battery, screen, and logic board.
what worries me most is who is to decide what parts of a product must be user replaceable or replaceable at all? Does the piece have to comprise a certain percentage of the device or will the separate it down to only specific components? Components being battery, screen, and logic board.
How can upgrading RAM or changing a broken fan in a laptop be more damaging to the environment than replacing the whole laptop? I just don't follow your logic.
This is highly welcome! I wish all the governments introduce this legislation 'coz we are losing our beautiful planet and its resources to capitalistic greeds. We should by all means, extend the life of products to efficiently utilize resources.
We should move to a service economy. If instead of buying a washing machine, I could buy the service of washing my clothes, the company has an incentive to keep that machine working.
As always in politics, getting the incentives right works wonders.
As always in politics, getting the incentives right works wonders.
Negative aspects of that idea:
- Suddenly the most basic things are much more complicated - you now enter a contract (likely with few pages of 8pt legalese you're expected to understand) to do your laundry.
- Service model assumes you always have proper cash flow. When you lose the job, you now have to worry not only about paying for rent, water, gas, electricity and consumables, but also for all the services you depend on. Your friend can't help you because their contract likely disallows washing clothes of third parties, and they can't even borrow you the detergent, because they don't have any.
- Oh, so the service sucks but you're in a year-long contract with them. Have fun. And no, free market will not help you in time - crappy services are the service economy's equivalent of crappy product in the ownership economy.
- You want to use your oven for a quick reflow job? Good luck getting the hot-food service provider to agree.
- What will you do when the only available laundry service in your area is the Comcast of clothes?
Ownership of products has some really useful aspects.
- Suddenly the most basic things are much more complicated - you now enter a contract (likely with few pages of 8pt legalese you're expected to understand) to do your laundry.
- Service model assumes you always have proper cash flow. When you lose the job, you now have to worry not only about paying for rent, water, gas, electricity and consumables, but also for all the services you depend on. Your friend can't help you because their contract likely disallows washing clothes of third parties, and they can't even borrow you the detergent, because they don't have any.
- Oh, so the service sucks but you're in a year-long contract with them. Have fun. And no, free market will not help you in time - crappy services are the service economy's equivalent of crappy product in the ownership economy.
- You want to use your oven for a quick reflow job? Good luck getting the hot-food service provider to agree.
- What will you do when the only available laundry service in your area is the Comcast of clothes?
Ownership of products has some really useful aspects.
You can already buy that service, there are probably dozens of startups that exist or have tried and failed and some established names in certain areas. It might even be a perk in some housing complexes. I think Google even offered/offers it as a work perk.
Let those who want a service pay for one, and those who don't not. Let's have a mixed free economy, not a centrally planned one with a bias.
Let those who want a service pay for one, and those who don't not. Let's have a mixed free economy, not a centrally planned one with a bias.
A central aspect of a market to function is transparency. With a service contract, there is more transparency, since you know exactly what the service will cost. Not so with products.
Also, let me ask: would you recommend the government to look for a service contract for their fridges/lighting/washing machines? Or would you recommend them to look into buying this equipment?
What would be different for companies and consumers?
Also, let me ask: would you recommend the government to look for a service contract for their fridges/lighting/washing machines? Or would you recommend them to look into buying this equipment?
What would be different for companies and consumers?
You know what the service costs, until the contract is up (or the contract can no longer be honored), and unless you do a cost calculation you won't know if you're being gouged. Some people don't care about potential gouging if the price seems fair to them though.
I would recommend all entities making purchasing decisions to do so based on some form of economic analysis (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics). The choice of a service contract vs anything else (which may involve other contracts, or may involve purchasing nothing) is the result of the analysis, not some broad sweeping bias. I also wouldn't mind seeing a prediction market for tracking how accurate analysis results tend to be.
I would recommend all entities making purchasing decisions to do so based on some form of economic analysis (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics). The choice of a service contract vs anything else (which may involve other contracts, or may involve purchasing nothing) is the result of the analysis, not some broad sweeping bias. I also wouldn't mind seeing a prediction market for tracking how accurate analysis results tend to be.
Please no. Software as a service is bad enough as it is.
Nice to hear, wish companies and consumers would stop chasing the thinness meme at all costs and get their priorities straight.
Removing socketed components to save a few cents off the BoM and a couple of mm off the thickness is a revolting trade-off.
Removing socketed components to save a few cents off the BoM and a couple of mm off the thickness is a revolting trade-off.
Replaceable batteries in smartphones will return? I might wait for that.
Clueless legislation. When you look inside a modern smartphone or laptop, you’ll find that all available space is crammed with components or batteries. If you want components to be replaceable, you’d need much more space for doors and hatches, and waterproofing would be all but impossible.
Especially when it comes to batteries, this is moronic. Ultrabooks are only possible, because multiple, weirdly shaped battery packs can be installed wherever there’s room inside the casing.
This effectively means that hardware producers would need to create a larger, shittier version of their products just for the EU market, and EU citizens would be forbidden from purchasing the good versions of things. I sense a massive wave of parallel imports coming…
Especially when it comes to batteries, this is moronic. Ultrabooks are only possible, because multiple, weirdly shaped battery packs can be installed wherever there’s room inside the casing.
This effectively means that hardware producers would need to create a larger, shittier version of their products just for the EU market, and EU citizens would be forbidden from purchasing the good versions of things. I sense a massive wave of parallel imports coming…
Repairabilty doesn't nessacry mean easily user swappable parts. It just means that it must be possible for a repair shop to perform the repairs. The legislation specifically targets DRM that's designed to specifically prevent unlicensed repairs and agreements that lock out independent third parties. I think it's a good idea as long as it isn't taken to an extreme.
That might sound nice, but smartphone producers can’t support any untrained idiot without a cleanroom opening devices and getting dust inside the screen assemblies and ruining the waterproofing.
Like it or not, at the level of miniturisation we’re at, you need skilled technicians with proper equipment, and the easiest way to guarantee that, is for producers to do the service themselves.
Otherwise, you’ll end up with lots of consumers with broken phones, because they chose the wrong repair-option.
Like it or not, at the level of miniturisation we’re at, you need skilled technicians with proper equipment, and the easiest way to guarantee that, is for producers to do the service themselves.
Otherwise, you’ll end up with lots of consumers with broken phones, because they chose the wrong repair-option.
> smartphone producers can’t support any untrained idiot without a cleanroom opening devices and getting dust inside the screen assemblies and ruining the waterproofing.
If I open my phone and break something it's obviously my fault. If I root my phone, that should never void warranty when e.g. internal storage wears out way before time without excessive writes (this happened to me). There are still millions of people averted to the idea of "rooting" because it supposedly voids warranty (it never did under Dutch law) and because phone shops make it sound scary. Meanwhile making backups without sending it all to a foreign nation (Google) is impossible and installing another ROM (which made my Note 2's battery life go from 5 hours to 2 days after three years of use -- I'm currently at 5 years of use and it's finally starting to wear out for real) can't be done without doing effectively the same thing. What a bloody mess.
If I open my phone and break something it's obviously my fault. If I root my phone, that should never void warranty when e.g. internal storage wears out way before time without excessive writes (this happened to me). There are still millions of people averted to the idea of "rooting" because it supposedly voids warranty (it never did under Dutch law) and because phone shops make it sound scary. Meanwhile making backups without sending it all to a foreign nation (Google) is impossible and installing another ROM (which made my Note 2's battery life go from 5 hours to 2 days after three years of use -- I'm currently at 5 years of use and it's finally starting to wear out for real) can't be done without doing effectively the same thing. What a bloody mess.
If the price of progress is that we can no longer repair or recycle stuff then it isn't really progress but a mortgage on the future of our children.
Repairing and recycling are very different discussions. To my knowledge, recycling eletronics is no more a problem than it’s always been. Companies like Apple have pretty impressive recycling efforts.
And repairability? I don’t see the problem. If my iPhone breaks, I can go visit the Apple store, and they’ll take care of it. Having third-party repair services for some so tiny and complex is just a recipe for warranty problems and headaches.
And repairability? I don’t see the problem. If my iPhone breaks, I can go visit the Apple store, and they’ll take care of it. Having third-party repair services for some so tiny and complex is just a recipe for warranty problems and headaches.
> Repairing and recycling are very different discussions.
They're part of the higher level discussion, and recycling should be placed there where repair is no longer feasible (in the context of appliances/machinery).
They're part of the higher level discussion, and recycling should be placed there where repair is no longer feasible (in the context of appliances/machinery).
Exactly. I would be much more in favour of the (what I call) throwaway economy - because it really is convenient - if I could trust that the stuff I discard is being recycled into new products in an efficient way. As it is, we're still mining raw resources to manufacture new stuff, and the old stuff decomposes itself to uselessness (or poisons the Earth).
Another mortgage on the future of our children, and far from our worst.
Won't you please think of the children?!?
Please
Please
If that's the best you can do try again. Not every comment that mentions children warrants the 'Won't you please think of the children?!?' response, in fact very few of them do. And even when they do you might still pause for a second to think about whether or not there is a grain of truth to the matter.
To make it plain: this is trotted out whenever someone wants to push through some kind of draconian law upsetting the privacy rights of many in order to pretend to go after the few, typically in the context of hypothetical victims of child pornography and/or pedophiles, and in some extremely rare cases actual children.
Since we really are talking about our actual children (and in this case mine) and the context is manufacturing and the environment it is perfectly valid to think about our children.
If you don't have any children do me a favor and re-visit this comment when you have some and see how you feel about it then, it might change your perspective.
To make it plain: this is trotted out whenever someone wants to push through some kind of draconian law upsetting the privacy rights of many in order to pretend to go after the few, typically in the context of hypothetical victims of child pornography and/or pedophiles, and in some extremely rare cases actual children.
Since we really are talking about our actual children (and in this case mine) and the context is manufacturing and the environment it is perfectly valid to think about our children.
If you don't have any children do me a favor and re-visit this comment when you have some and see how you feel about it then, it might change your perspective.
'Right to Repair' isn't the same as 'Reparable'.
A device could have everything you claim it needs to be user-serviceable yet without the right to repair that device it would be illegal for a user to do so.
A device could have everything you claim it needs to be user-serviceable yet without the right to repair that device it would be illegal for a user to do so.
At least as far as I understand the article, EUs program is both about the legal right to (try) to repair things (which I have nothing against), but also to “force vendors to design products for longer life and easier maintenance.”.
ie. the Eurocrats want to dictate hardware design. Hard to imagine anything good coming out of that.
ie. the Eurocrats want to dictate hardware design. Hard to imagine anything good coming out of that.
> ie. the Eurocrats want to dictate hardware design. Hard to imagine anything good coming out of that.
This is a pretty bad summary. They don't want to dictate hardware design - only dictate additional constraint of "stop making shitty stuff". How to do hardware design while respecting this constraint is up to hardware designers.
This is a pretty bad summary. They don't want to dictate hardware design - only dictate additional constraint of "stop making shitty stuff". How to do hardware design while respecting this constraint is up to hardware designers.
Except that the phone you are describing already exists showing that it's not at all impossible. Google Fairphone. This message was written with one.
It's great that such a phone exists. People should be able buy a Fairphone, or buy an unrepairable iPhone, or whatever phone fits their needs.
The "right to repair" doesn't give people the right to buy a Fairphone. They already have the right. It removes their right to buy other kinds of phone.
The "right to repair" doesn't give people the right to buy a Fairphone. They already have the right. It removes their right to buy other kinds of phone.
Kudos! I thought of buying one but five year old hardware at the price point of a modern high-end was not something I could afford. Maybe once I'm out of university with a job for more than a year, but not now. Kudos for anyone who spends the money on one of those!
So, is your phone waterproof? How’s the reliability? How well does it handle being dropped?
Building a small amount of concept phones is one thing, shipping (and supporting) 100 million devices a year, with extended warranties, quite another.
Building a small amount of concept phones is one thing, shipping (and supporting) 100 million devices a year, with extended warranties, quite another.
My phone is doing just fine. Dropped it multiple times. Didn't submerge it in liquid yet but I doubt that an iPhone would survive that. If you have evidence showing that the Fairphone is less robust than other phones, please share.
The laws of scale will make the Fairphone actually better and cheaper when more are produced (as they always do).
The laws of scale will make the Fairphone actually better and cheaper when more are produced (as they always do).
> Didn't submerge it in liquid yet but I doubt that an iPhone would survive that.
Actually, the iPhone 7 is specced to be able to survive up to 30 minutes of submersion in 1m water. iFixit had a demo where it survived 8 hours of submersion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIauEB3EMHY
> If you have evudence showing that the fairphone is less robust than other phone, please share it.
Given that it such a niche product, there isn’t a lot of info available on it. Most manufacturers don’t publish their loss/repair rates, but logic would dictate that more openings and loose connections would give more problems.
Also worth noting is that the Fairphone 2 is worse than the current flagship models on almost all metrics. It seems that this modularity does have its price, after all.
Actually, the iPhone 7 is specced to be able to survive up to 30 minutes of submersion in 1m water. iFixit had a demo where it survived 8 hours of submersion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIauEB3EMHY
> If you have evudence showing that the fairphone is less robust than other phone, please share it.
Given that it such a niche product, there isn’t a lot of info available on it. Most manufacturers don’t publish their loss/repair rates, but logic would dictate that more openings and loose connections would give more problems.
Also worth noting is that the Fairphone 2 is worse than the current flagship models on almost all metrics. It seems that this modularity does have its price, after all.
Modularity does have a price; that is fairly trivial. But your original statement was much stronger.
The Fairphone's specs are deliberately not top-of-the-line in order to give users better battery life. This is working spectacularly well as evidenced by the fact that my Fairphone 2 has twice the battery life than any of my iPhones ever had. That and repairability is worth much more to me personally than the possibility to submerge the phone in water. After all it's a phone not diving gear. To each their own, but no need to make overblown statements.
The Fairphone's specs are deliberately not top-of-the-line in order to give users better battery life. This is working spectacularly well as evidenced by the fact that my Fairphone 2 has twice the battery life than any of my iPhones ever had. That and repairability is worth much more to me personally than the possibility to submerge the phone in water. After all it's a phone not diving gear. To each their own, but no need to make overblown statements.
> But your original statement was much stronger ("impossible")
No, my original statement was that waterproofing would be all but impossible, which, unless you have an example of a waterproof modular phone, still stands.
> The Fairphone's specs are deliberately not top-of-the-line in order to give users better battery life.
A handy excuse. Still means you’re getting a slower phone, worse screen, camera, etc.
> That and repairability is worth much more to me than the possibility to submerge the phone in water.
Tell that to the thousands of people who were previously losing their phone to water damage every year.
And it’s not like an iPhone is not repairable, its just that you’ll need Apple to do it for you. A small price to pay for a better product.
No, my original statement was that waterproofing would be all but impossible, which, unless you have an example of a waterproof modular phone, still stands.
> The Fairphone's specs are deliberately not top-of-the-line in order to give users better battery life.
A handy excuse. Still means you’re getting a slower phone, worse screen, camera, etc.
> That and repairability is worth much more to me than the possibility to submerge the phone in water.
Tell that to the thousands of people who were previously losing their phone to water damage every year.
And it’s not like an iPhone is not repairable, its just that you’ll need Apple to do it for you. A small price to pay for a better product.
This would be a true gesture for the environment...
Devices are going to last all sorts of times - from a few months to years. Depending on what you pay for it.
To legislate that no cheaper versions of things should be available, even making them illegal, seems blind to the issues of those of limited means. It seems like a society pawn saying "I always buy Gucci; I mean why do they even make other brands? Har har!"
Demanding a warranty for instance would be a softer approach. But to make cheap, low-lifetime options actually illegal shows some fundamental misconception about how a free market works.
To legislate that no cheaper versions of things should be available, even making them illegal, seems blind to the issues of those of limited means. It seems like a society pawn saying "I always buy Gucci; I mean why do they even make other brands? Har har!"
Demanding a warranty for instance would be a softer approach. But to make cheap, low-lifetime options actually illegal shows some fundamental misconception about how a free market works.
> It seems like a society pawn saying "I always buy Gucci; I mean why do they even make other brands? Har har!"
Not at all, Gucci is almost entirely without objective value relative to its increased cost, a fridge that lasts 10 years rather than 5 years, all else being the same, is objectively better than the alternative.
Also, it's highly likely that any direct legislation would work through a minimum warranty, like the laws which already exist.
Not at all, Gucci is almost entirely without objective value relative to its increased cost, a fridge that lasts 10 years rather than 5 years, all else being the same, is objectively better than the alternative.
Also, it's highly likely that any direct legislation would work through a minimum warranty, like the laws which already exist.
I'm not so sure. You know the saying, "I'm too poor to buy cheap". Cheap crap often ends up being bought again and again, because it breaks so often.
I'm not convinced that raising the minimum quality floor would increase prices or make cheap products disappear. I give two reasons for that: one, manufacturing costs are usually only a fraction of the sticker price, and two, supply and demand - people of limited means are a market too, they have some money and want to buy stuff.
My biggest worry here is that companies could respond by changing their business model from selling stuff to "hardware as a service" - i.e. since crappy products are disallowed, we'll make only premium products, but we'll only rent them out.
I'm not convinced that raising the minimum quality floor would increase prices or make cheap products disappear. I give two reasons for that: one, manufacturing costs are usually only a fraction of the sticker price, and two, supply and demand - people of limited means are a market too, they have some money and want to buy stuff.
My biggest worry here is that companies could respond by changing their business model from selling stuff to "hardware as a service" - i.e. since crappy products are disallowed, we'll make only premium products, but we'll only rent them out.
All true. But what's wrong with renting? Who needs to own a toaster? Why?
I've long imagined a lifestyle-as-a-service business. Imagine pledging some (large?) fraction of your income for inclusion in an association that provides housing, transportation, appliances, food choices, vacation rentals etc as a service. A sort of concierge life. Just join and move in!
I've long imagined a lifestyle-as-a-service business. Imagine pledging some (large?) fraction of your income for inclusion in an association that provides housing, transportation, appliances, food choices, vacation rentals etc as a service. A sort of concierge life. Just join and move in!
I feel this would work only for people who live the exactly average lives. You know, "people made out of ticky tacky, who all look just the same"[0]. The moment you want to make something outside of the catalogue, or outside of the standard schedule, you'll be hitting the limits of service model.
That said, I find myself wishing for some of my life to be turned into a service. I'd gladly give away a large fraction of my income in order not to have to bother with most house appliances, food, shopping and clothing. But I suspect different people would prefer a different set of services. The risk is that, as everything becomes a service, there will be no products at all, and you either take a service or live (die?) without it.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA
That said, I find myself wishing for some of my life to be turned into a service. I'd gladly give away a large fraction of my income in order not to have to bother with most house appliances, food, shopping and clothing. But I suspect different people would prefer a different set of services. The risk is that, as everything becomes a service, there will be no products at all, and you either take a service or live (die?) without it.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA
All in the design. Don't like your service? Join another. Not a big deal to move - no belongings, just show up at another complex tomorrow night!
And options have to be a big part of it. Sign up for the pub-crawl package, or the comicon package, or join the swinger subgroup or whatever. Upgrade your appliance package, get a good kitchen or no kitchen at all. Need garage space - choose from the brochure from basic oil change to grease rack.
Cute vid by the way. But I always was suspicious of that song - calling a house 'ticky tacky' is bourgeois talk (oh look they can't even afford the best) which is at odds with the message.
And options have to be a big part of it. Sign up for the pub-crawl package, or the comicon package, or join the swinger subgroup or whatever. Upgrade your appliance package, get a good kitchen or no kitchen at all. Need garage space - choose from the brochure from basic oil change to grease rack.
Cute vid by the way. But I always was suspicious of that song - calling a house 'ticky tacky' is bourgeois talk (oh look they can't even afford the best) which is at odds with the message.
> Demanding a warranty for instance would be a softer approach.
That already exists, and it leads to many companies just throwing products away and replacing them several times over the warranty period. This increases prices, and is worse for the environment.
Yet, companies try to use DRM and copyright laws to prevent people from repairing products.
That already exists, and it leads to many companies just throwing products away and replacing them several times over the warranty period. This increases prices, and is worse for the environment.
Yet, companies try to use DRM and copyright laws to prevent people from repairing products.
"To legislate that no cheaper versions of things should be available, even making them illegal, seems blind to the issues of those of limited means."
That's why we can't have nice things (i.e. Paris agreement).
That's why we can't have nice things (i.e. Paris agreement).
I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.