6 ms·

If substantial numbers of consumers are demanding fixable/open electronics, a manufacturer could comply and fill a great need! My guess is that market is v sma

by robert1976 10y ago

If substantial numbers of consumers are demanding fixable/open electronics, a manufacturer could comply and fill a great need! My guess is that market is v small. Regulation is unneccessary here.

wfo 10y ago
If the market has failed to protect a right that is important, that's exactly when regulation is necessary. Handling the constant failures and disasters created by the market to the detriment of the populace is the purpose of regulations and the entire justification of the mixed economy model every modern society operates under.
- twblalock 10y ago
  What right has not been protected? You do not have a right to require manufacturers to create repairable items. If you think such a right exists, prove it. That's what this "right" to repair really is -- it is forcing manufacturers to make things that they don't currently make, and that most people don't want to buy. (If people wanted to buy them, someone would already be selling them and making money on that segment of the market.) In effect, this would be the government taking action to promote the personal preferences of a small number of consumers. (If the number of consumers who wanted repairable products was not small, manufacturers would already be making such products by choice, and government action would not be necessary.) When the government starts forcing manufacturers to make things that people don't want to buy, something has gone pretty wrong.
  - ekimekim 10y ago
    I don't mind manufacturers making design decisions that, as a side effect, impact repairability (phones with removable batteries being the main example here). But it's another thing altogether to add tamper indicators, DRM, etc for the express purpose of preventing people from doing things with items they own.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      Why shouldn't manufacturers have the right to include tamper-resistant features and DRM if they want to? If you don't like those features, don't buy the products. If enough people share your preferences in this matter, companies will start tailoring products to those preferences. If too few people share those preferences for the companies to change their products, how is that anything other than the free market at work? You are not entitled to exactly the products you want, no matter what the market for those products is like.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    Why do you think the government regulates food labels? Clearly, no one wants to buy food with standardized labels, the government is just forcing it on us poor citizens, right? If you are actually arguing that any government policy that requires companies to modify their products in a way that they weren't already doing is bad, you have created a very difficult position for yourself to defend.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      > If you are actually arguing that any government policy that requires companies to modify their products in a way that they weren't already doing is bad, you have created a very difficult position for yourself to defend. I don't know why you interpret my argument that way. It's not a blanket statement against government regulation of products, and none of what I wrote can logically necessitate or lead to that position. Government regulations can be good or bad, and it is entirely logical to oppose some and not others. My argument is that the government should not regulate products on the basis of made-up "rights" that are really proxies for personal preference, e.g. "I like to be able to repair products I buy, therefore the government should force companies to make their products easy for me to repair, because so few consumers share my preference that the companies won't do it on their own volition."
      - ryandrake 10y ago
        The "right" to repair one's own stuff is as made-up as the "right" to encumber products with repair-resistant features. This is not a question of what's etched into stone tablets somewhere, it's a question of what we value as society. When what people want to do conflicts with what companies want people to do, who gets to win? The simplistic answer is to just throw your hands up and "let the market decide." But the market is not always correct, which is why we have warning labels on cigarettes and why companies can't dump industrial waste into the closest river. Society decided that we have a made-up right to be informed about dangerous products and a made-up right to not have to drink arsenic. The argument put forward here is that our made-up right to be able to repair our own stuff is more valuable than some company's made-up right to stop us.
  - ksk 10y ago
    >What right has not been protected? The right to complete ownership of an item you paid full price on. More and more manufacturers want to erode this right and make it "illegal" for people to repair products they paid for. Did you not read the article?
    - twblalock 10y ago
      Ownership is not all-encompassing. For example, it would be illegal for me to make and sell copies of the books I own. It would also be illegal for me to drive over the speed limit in the car I own. If I owned a gun, I couldn't just shoot anyone I wanted. What makes you certain that the right to repair something is a built-in feature of ownership, when ownership clearly does not confer all possible rights? Ownership is clearly not what you think it is.
      - ksk 10y ago
        So first, you produce an example that literally has nothing to do with repair. Then your point about the gun is even more absurd. Depriving somebody else of their right to life has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Sorry, you will have to excuse me as I have better things to do and do not wish to engage you further.
        twblalock 10y ago
        You are very good at missing the point. Those examples demonstrate that ownership does not automatically give one the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Therefore, one cannot assume that any right, including one to repair the things you own, is in the category of rights automatically granted by ownership. After all, not even making copies is in that category. Why would repair be?
        wfo 10y ago
        Shooting someone is not "doing whatever you want with the things you own". Neither is copying a book. Both require that you commit an unrelated crime -- one by creating an entirely new object which violates the law, the other by committing assault with this object as you could with any other.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
The market isn't demand driven. People may be complaining, but as long as nobody fulfills the demand, people will keep buying the stuff they buy now. Which happen to be more profitable for manufacturers than fulfilling the demand would be.

If substantial numbers of consumers are demanding fixable/open electronics, a manufacturer could comply and fill a great need! My guess is that market is v small. Regulation is unneccessary here.

wfo 10y ago

If the market has failed to protect a right that is important, that's exactly when regulation is necessary. Handling the constant failures and disasters created by the market to the detriment of the populace is the purpose of regulations and the entire justification of the mixed economy model every modern society operates under.

twblalock 10y ago
What right has not been protected? You do not have a right to require manufacturers to create repairable items. If you think such a right exists, prove it. That's what this "right" to repair really is -- it is forcing manufacturers to make things that they don't currently make, and that most people don't want to buy. (If people wanted to buy them, someone would already be selling them and making money on that segment of the market.) In effect, this would be the government taking action to promote the personal preferences of a small number of consumers. (If the number of consumers who wanted repairable products was not small, manufacturers would already be making such products by choice, and government action would not be necessary.) When the government starts forcing manufacturers to make things that people don't want to buy, something has gone pretty wrong.
- ekimekim 10y ago
  I don't mind manufacturers making design decisions that, as a side effect, impact repairability (phones with removable batteries being the main example here). But it's another thing altogether to add tamper indicators, DRM, etc for the express purpose of preventing people from doing things with items they own.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Why shouldn't manufacturers have the right to include tamper-resistant features and DRM if they want to? If you don't like those features, don't buy the products. If enough people share your preferences in this matter, companies will start tailoring products to those preferences. If too few people share those preferences for the companies to change their products, how is that anything other than the free market at work? You are not entitled to exactly the products you want, no matter what the market for those products is like.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  Why do you think the government regulates food labels? Clearly, no one wants to buy food with standardized labels, the government is just forcing it on us poor citizens, right? If you are actually arguing that any government policy that requires companies to modify their products in a way that they weren't already doing is bad, you have created a very difficult position for yourself to defend.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    > If you are actually arguing that any government policy that requires companies to modify their products in a way that they weren't already doing is bad, you have created a very difficult position for yourself to defend. I don't know why you interpret my argument that way. It's not a blanket statement against government regulation of products, and none of what I wrote can logically necessitate or lead to that position. Government regulations can be good or bad, and it is entirely logical to oppose some and not others. My argument is that the government should not regulate products on the basis of made-up "rights" that are really proxies for personal preference, e.g. "I like to be able to repair products I buy, therefore the government should force companies to make their products easy for me to repair, because so few consumers share my preference that the companies won't do it on their own volition."
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      The "right" to repair one's own stuff is as made-up as the "right" to encumber products with repair-resistant features. This is not a question of what's etched into stone tablets somewhere, it's a question of what we value as society. When what people want to do conflicts with what companies want people to do, who gets to win? The simplistic answer is to just throw your hands up and "let the market decide." But the market is not always correct, which is why we have warning labels on cigarettes and why companies can't dump industrial waste into the closest river. Society decided that we have a made-up right to be informed about dangerous products and a made-up right to not have to drink arsenic. The argument put forward here is that our made-up right to be able to repair our own stuff is more valuable than some company's made-up right to stop us.
- ksk 10y ago
  >What right has not been protected? The right to complete ownership of an item you paid full price on. More and more manufacturers want to erode this right and make it "illegal" for people to repair products they paid for. Did you not read the article?
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Ownership is not all-encompassing. For example, it would be illegal for me to make and sell copies of the books I own. It would also be illegal for me to drive over the speed limit in the car I own. If I owned a gun, I couldn't just shoot anyone I wanted. What makes you certain that the right to repair something is a built-in feature of ownership, when ownership clearly does not confer all possible rights? Ownership is clearly not what you think it is.
    - ksk 10y ago
      So first, you produce an example that literally has nothing to do with repair. Then your point about the gun is even more absurd. Depriving somebody else of their right to life has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Sorry, you will have to excuse me as I have better things to do and do not wish to engage you further.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        You are very good at missing the point. Those examples demonstrate that ownership does not automatically give one the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Therefore, one cannot assume that any right, including one to repair the things you own, is in the category of rights automatically granted by ownership. After all, not even making copies is in that category. Why would repair be?
        wfo 10y ago
        Shooting someone is not "doing whatever you want with the things you own". Neither is copying a book. Both require that you commit an unrelated crime -- one by creating an entirely new object which violates the law, the other by committing assault with this object as you could with any other.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

The market isn't demand driven. People may be complaining, but as long as nobody fulfills the demand, people will keep buying the stuff they buy now. Which happen to be more profitable for manufacturers than fulfilling the demand would be.