4 ms·

> I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the par

by AckSyn 10y ago

> I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the parts, requiring them to sell replacement parts to customers really should be a thing. Holding them back because of shitty IP laws and strangling their ability to get things running is bad form and anti consumer

BEEdwards 10y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but they may be doing JIT production and literally only have parts to build however many units they build for a day. Allowing third parties to make the parts is the way to go.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  What about mandating the release of specifications for every part?
- imglorp 10y ago
  They also need to keep the authorized service chain supplied as well. This is why you can walk into your car dealer and they should sell you anything in the fiche. This is what keeps your corner mechanic in business too.
kodis 10y ago
Also, car manufacturers are currently required to make replacement parts available for some period of time -- something like ten years after each model year. So no, not a stretch at all.
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
Aren't there some jurisdictions that already legally require car manufacturers to disclose their repair manuals, to facilitate 3rd party repair? I believe Tesla games this by charging ridiculous amounts for short-term online repair manual subscriptions, but most manufacturers just sell copies of the manuals. I think access to that information is a good idea, so Tesla should be swatted down.
wheelerwj 10y ago
when i commented j was thinking more along the lines of Apple and electronics that were manufactured to be more disposable and less fixable. It might be cost prohibitive to sell OEM parts for macbooks or might interfere with product design. When considering cars or large tractors, it's not as valid of a consideration, because they might sell an entire "computer unit" as a part vs the RAM to upgrade it. maybe?

by AckSyn 10y ago

BEEdwards 10y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but they may be doing JIT production and literally only have parts to build however many units they build for a day. Allowing third parties to make the parts is the way to go.

sqeaky 10y ago
What about mandating the release of specifications for every part?
imglorp 10y ago
They also need to keep the authorized service chain supplied as well. This is why you can walk into your car dealer and they should sell you anything in the fiche. This is what keeps your corner mechanic in business too.

kodis 10y ago

Also, car manufacturers are currently required to make replacement parts available for some period of time -- something like ten years after each model year. So no, not a stretch at all.

DashRattlesnake 10y ago

Aren't there some jurisdictions that already legally require car manufacturers to disclose their repair manuals, to facilitate 3rd party repair? I believe Tesla games this by charging ridiculous amounts for short-term online repair manual subscriptions, but most manufacturers just sell copies of the manuals. I think access to that information is a good idea, so Tesla should be swatted down.

wheelerwj 10y ago

when i commented j was thinking more along the lines of Apple and electronics that were manufactured to be more disposable and less fixable. It might be cost prohibitive to sell OEM parts for macbooks or might interfere with product design. When considering cars or large tractors, it's not as valid of a consideration, because they might sell an entire "computer unit" as a part vs the RAM to upgrade it. maybe?