I can suggest a place for John Deere to stick a combine.
5 Likes
“How many years could I expect it to work?” That’s ridiculous victim blaming. I have an Oster clipper that’s going on thirty years, and they still use the same blades in their newest models; and I paid more for the obsoleted shaver. How about “until it fails?” And who are you to tell me that I have to stop being satisfied with my current device until I pay for a new device with more features?
Instead of selling fraudulent replacement parts, how about manufacturers honestly telling consumers “this device is end of life and we will stop selling replacement parts 12 months from now”?
At least then I probably would have bought a half dozen blades, making even more bank for them.
Planned obsolescence is a very real practice. Stop trying to convince people it doesn’t exist.
14 Likes
Could you clarify two points about your argument?
-
Are you saying that consumers demand (or at least overwhelmingly choose) products that are cheaper, and that lower durability (and general quality) is a natural consequence of that? Because, quite frankly, if that is your argument, I would like to know how much greater durability/reparability would actually affect product first costs and, by extension, pricing, given that these products are so marked up to begin with and that a lot of the cost involved in making and selling them goes to marketing.
-
Are you saying that consumers actually make purchasing decisions based on the logic that you put forth? Consumers make purchasing decisions based on a lot of factors, and I find it quite dubious to suggest that they are thinking, “I really want a device that lasts longer and is repairable, but then it would be more expensive, so I’ll settle for this.” Are you saying that if consumers wanted more durable/reparable products, they would buy them while disregarding all other factors? You seem to be glossing over the fact that a consumer may genuinely want a more durable/reparable product, but still choose not to buy one for other reasons unrelated to price. I mean, that’s the whole idea of branding.
6 Likes
-
Are you seeing anything different in the marketplace? Think of the best product in a segment, the ultimate “buy it once” product? How is it priced against others in that category? More, certainly, but how much? A little or a lot? Why does it cost more? Is it better engineered? Made of better materials? For some people, a thing they only expect to use a few times — a cheap garden tool or appliance — is fine. For things they plan to use everyday or that they depend on for their livelihood, they might choose differently.
- Are there user-servicable devices in all the categories you are thinking of? Sure, there are a lot of factors, but if I am buying a pair of scissors, do I need the $10 buy it once pair or a $2 dollar pair I may not use more than a couple of times a year?
-
My question was a bit unclear. I am primarily talking about first costs, which we would not be able to see on the marketplace. Obviously, market prices are not a direct function of first costs, so what I would like to know concerns first costs. I really am asking this for clarification. Would a 50% improvement in durability result in a 50% increase in first costs?
-
That is not at all an answer to my question. You are saying that the lack of user-serviceable devices is evidence of a lack of demand for them in and of itself, and I am saying that it does not necessarily follow. Also, you are assuming that the $10 pair of scissors is of better quality than the $2 pair of scissors as though it is a matter of course, but my whole point was that that is not necessarily the case because there are other factors involved in why a person might want to spend $8 more for the one over the other, including the perception of quality, which is not the same thing as actual quality.
Also, can we acknowledge that there is some middle ground between the ultimate “buy it once” product and a dollar store product with misspelled words on the packaging? Most products strike a balance between various features, components, quality levels and price levels…durability and reparability are never going to be more than just one part of that equation, even if we were talking about something as simple and straightforward as scissors, which we are not (the right to repair scissors is not in question here).
5 Likes
Yeah, Apple’s been in the business of building a walled garden where to herd a captive user base, for a good while now.
3 Likes
Look at the Fairphone3, Shift6m, Pixel5 or the Moto E6.
There are repairable phones, there are phones designed to be upgraded (Fairphone), and other ones I didn’t list. They’re not for everyone, and I’m happy with my current not as easy to repair phone. What the issue here isn’t everything should be repairable, but that if it can be (as most things are) manufacturers shouldn’t be saying that you should’t be able to repair them yourself, and what’s worse, suing people who do so under DMCA provisions. If the parts are official, warranties shouldn’t be limited, diagnostic tools should be available, and misuse of DMCA provisions should be outlawed.
Monopoly practices are bad for everyone except the monopolists, and I don’t know why you’re stanning for them.
12 Likes
Bad press shouldn’t be a factor in after market service and repair if essential machines and devices were designed and created by folk who valued their craft and the importance of their product in an everyday world.
Give us an extendable tool that works and can be fixed has been a model of utility. Give us a locked off tool… then bleed us dry on repair???
6 Likes
Ever heard of barriers to entry? It seems not. So forgive me for not placing much trust in the rest of your economic theorising.
6 Likes
By that argument, there’s already a demand for user-repairable devices. I could have ordered the part I needed on Amazon-- it’s readily available. And the repair shops exist-- I called eight of them in and around my neighborhood recently when I had another device (Coolpad Surf hotspot) that needed a new battery. So clearly, people want the option to fix their devices as an alternative to replacement… especially when new technology is so incredibly expensive.
The right-to-repair rulings are a reaction to the demand for repairable devices, because some of us have realized that the consumerist cycle of constantly buying disposable gadgets (including planned obsolescence) is killing the environment and is ultimately unsustainable.
If you’re happy with the way things are, then cool, keep on keepin’ on. But some of us want other options. IMHO, if the manufacturers have to deal with increased competition from repaired products, they’ll be obliged to improve their wares to make them more attractive… and that ultimately benefits everyone.
13 Likes
No doubt hidden by the neon inanity of “planned obsolescence doesn’t exist”, none of the 9 previous replies to your post have asked about this. What could it mean for what products will get made? The right-to-repair changes require that those of us who want to can legally repair items ourselves or at independent repair shops; it makes no restrictions on what can be produced at all.
8 Likes
But Samsung et al are in the market: they don’t need to enter. Sounds to me like people don’t know how markets work. Smartphones have been around for quite some time, other appliances and consumer good far longer, but the market — ie consumer choice — seems to favor simpler to own/operate devices.
This doesn’t make sense to me, since for years now, devices have been getting more powerful and more complex, adding additional features and capabilities with each new release. So while some people want simpler items, I’m not sure that best describes the majority of consumers. In any case, the right-to-repair is also a consumer choice, so there’s no reason not to give the customers what they want. 
6 Likes
This will either push more crypto to negate the new rules, or force carving out an exemption in the DMCA which kills off such naked attempts at preventing third party repair.
If it wipes out 80% of the printer industry I think humanity will be better for it.
This was a problem long before Apple introduced its first water resistant phone.
3 Likes
Recent resident of these parts has - very unsurprisingly - something to say about this.
https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/07/instrumentalism/#r2r
@paulbeard John Deere has a pre-eminent position in its market and has had for many years. Its longevity, expertise, ability to out-invest and out-spend any entrant, and current market share are barriers to entry. They do not preclude someone else taking them on, they just make it very difficult. That’s what a barrier to entry does.
And for nearly all of John Deere’s life its customers had the ability to repair their purchases. Then John Deere flipped that, dramatically impacting their customers, taking advantage of laws passed at the behest of corporate lobbyists.
Yes, their customers can walk. What are they going to do with the sunk capital costs of the equipment they bought only later to discover they were not allowed to repair it?
This is how ‘markets’ apparently ‘work’ when one or more players has market dominance and when the political water-carriers for these dominant corporations rig the markets by enabling regulation that actively enables more market dominance against the best interests of customers, consumers and citizens.
So, would you like to explain again ‘how markets work’? Your purism about how markets work in theory may be technically valid - on paper. In the real world (not the one economists theorise about) markets ‘work’ in very different ways.
14 Likes
Wow…where to begin?
Speaking as a software developer who’s had experience with device manufacturers: Planned obsolesence is definitely a thing…although it is only tangentially related to monopolies and is mostly orthogonal to right to repair. Right to repair is about preventing companies from using deliberate design, hardware and software locks (DRM, code signing, on-line validation) and restricting information to capture a lucrative repair market by making virtual prisoners of their customers and muscling out competition. Apple is a horrible offender here and describing them as merely “selling products and services people wanted at prices they are willing to pay” is whitewashing in the extreme. Apple uses security chips that prevent some third party alterations and repairs - even with technically identical components. They solder RAM in devices that typically have industry standard sockets. They glue in batteries in devices that aren’t remotely intended to be waterproof. Citing design of water resistant iPhones as reasoning for non-replaceable batteries is a laughable rationalization. Apple has a long history of being openly hostile to right to repair, and it isn’t to give you a better device - it’s to take more of everyone’s money.
13 Likes
If they could figure out a way to get it to brick itself upon being painted, they absolutely would do it.
3 Likes
More accurately reflects the business model, I feel.
4 Likes
That’s tech to a new level there. Reach for the stars and you can achieve anything. The year is 2041 and president Hunter Biden just made it illegal for shoes to lock out people’s feet when off-brand socks are detected. Somewhere off in the distance somebody laments that people just want socks that work, never mind they fall apart after three washes. The shoe companies design them to interface with specific shoes to enhance user experience. If there was enough demand for washable socks, some plucky company would start making shoes that can be worn with them.
6 Likes
