19 ms·

EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

291 points by smnc 9y ago

netcan 9y ago
In other news, the parliament took a vote affirming previous decisions that TV shows should be funnier. ..I guess that was trite. The EU parliament is in a constitutional limbo state. It doesn’t have real power or a predefined legislative jurisdiction, so voters don’t take it seriously. They elect quirky, fring-ey members they wouldn’t elect to their own national parties. I’m in favour of durable products, but I don’t see how this is en route to policies that affect this.
- etix 9y ago
  Extending the minimum warranty can help to make more durable products.
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    The EU already made mandatory 24 months warranty for all products sold in Europe. I think this has been beneficial not only to European citizens but also to the US where there isn't a minimum warranty by default. Businesses who sell products on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have mirrored the imposed warranty of the EU in the US. I am in favor of extending the minimum warranty. PS: isn't there also some regulation that a business should provide pieces for repair for a period of 10 years? I seem to recall something like that.
    - ovi256 9y ago
      Don't forget that the 24 month warranty is one of the stated reasons for justifying the sale price difference for the same product between the US and the EU. If it's increased, manufacturers will just increase their EU prices so that their costs will be covered.
      - jrimbault 9y ago
        The price difference seems mostly due to advertised prices. In the US they advertise the price excluding tax, in the EU we advertise the price including tax. When counting taxes, there isn't a big difference.
    - ferongr 9y ago
      The EU directive might say that but countries codify that into law differently. For example, here in Greece, there is actually no law stating warranties should be two years. It only says that the warranty should be "reasonable depending on the expected lifetime of the product".
  - runeks 9y ago
    I don't want to have to pay more for durable products. Please let me choose whether I want to buy extended warranty -- many manufacturers already offer it, but I'm not interested it in.
    - simion314 9y ago
      I know that most people change their phones often but there are products that are expensive like washing machine, gas heaters that should be designed from the start to last 5 years or more. If 2 companies build washing machines and they need to increase the warranty time, the one that can do that with less price increase would sell more, the one that planned them to break down faster would lose and have to make a new dessign.
      - runeks 9y ago
        Why don't you just pay for the 5 year warranty if you want it, instead of wanting to make it mandatory that everyone pay?
        ksk 9y ago
        The warranty doesn't make the product durable. Its just allows you to re-buy the same non-durable product using resources from a shared pool. This is about addressing the fundamental problem.
        simion314 9y ago
        Would you buy a car if the seller gives 1 month warranty? My opinion is that expensive products should have longer warranty by default. For cheaper products current 2 years is fine.
    - simion314 9y ago
      I know that most people change their phones often but there are products that are expensive like washing machine, gas heaters that should be designed from the start to last 5 years or more. If 2 companies build washing machines and they need to increase the warranty time, the one that can do that with less price increase would sell more, the one that planned them to break down faster would lose and have to make a new dessign.
- illys 9y ago
  You probably do not live in Europe (or maybe you just like trolling?). First I am a voter and I do take the EU parliament seriously. I also consider what the groups and candidates voted in the past before giving them my vote - especially on topics like world trade giant agreements (TTIP, TATFA, CETA... - yes they also vote on that and it is very meaningful for our future). You may also read some documentation on the powers and functions of the EU Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and_functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and... You may also just read the news: -> UK just voted to get out of EU to escape EU funding and regulations - so probably those regulations do exist at a significant extend. -> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation. So probably - yes - they can set rules on repairability and durability.
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    > A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation. Wasn't that the European Commission (and not Parliament) though? They seem to be significantly more powerful.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      EU law needs to be proposed by the Commission (though the Maastricht Treaty gives Parliament powers to request that the Commission should put forward proposals on their behalf), and then normally approved and/or amended by both Parliament and the Council, with drawn out conciliation procedures if one or the other changes the proposals too much. The complexity stems from the legal status where the EU is in some respects a confederation of sovereign states, where the governments of the member states need to represent their respective nations, and in some respects a union of people. The gradual shift of power towards the Parliament represents attempts to shift it towards the latter, while the Commission and Council represents the treat realities where delegating more power to Parliament would require constitutional changes in a number of member states to cede the sovereignty (currently this is worked around by having the treaties bind the respective governments to take make the required decision - it's exploiting the wide latitude most governments have in exercising treating rights and obligations.
- simion314 9y ago
  Maybe the fact that the people in the EU parliament are not in the focus of the electoral people is a good thing, they will not put a big effort into the political "game", back at home the guys don't usually vote on topics on what they personal believe is best but have to vote on how the party decide is best for themselves to get a good score at the next elections.
conradk 9y ago
The article says that consumers are discouraged by the cost of repair. A few weeks ago, I repaired an eltronical appliance and was surprised to see that all screws were screwed into plastic. As I unscrewed them to access the inside of the device, the plastic around the screw broke. I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. That just makes no sense appart from upfront cost. Once the plastic is broken, there is no way but to throw the broken device away. Unless you can somehow glue everything back together, but that seems unpractical. It's like devices are not even planned to be repaired. They are designed to be sold and then abandoned. That's the real issue. Not cost of repair.
- cube00 9y ago
  It's not "like", they are and they've got a term for it; planned obsolescence.
  - IshKebab 9y ago
    Rubbish. Planned obsolescence is extremely rare. The low quality of products is because of cost cutting. Manufacturers design for a minimum lifetime as cheaply as possible. "It must last 2 years. How can we save money?" Virtually nobody is going "It must break after 2 years." Except in a very small number of cases that is conspiracy theory nonsense.
    - mbrock 9y ago
      But that's effectively the same goal. If you engineer it to work for 2 years as cheaply as possible, you're probably engineering it to break after 2 years. Would we get better results from "it must cost max X, how can we make it last as long as possible and be repairable?" Probably, but the incentives don't reward it.
      - IshKebab 9y ago
        Yes but the intent is vastly different. It's like the difference between accidentally and deliberately killing someone. Same result but they're not the same are they?
illys 9y ago
It seems like a good idea to rule on this: I always used to fix my electronic products... Up to recently it was sometimes difficult to find the issue, but always fine with opening and closing. I had my very first anxiety thrill ungluing an iPad window to replace the broken microphone; and I look with anxiety at my S7, thinking of when the battery starts aging.
lumberjack 9y ago
Wages have gone up and consumer goods have gone down in price and build quality. It's not feasible to have a repair business any more. Growing up, there were still loads of repair businesses around. You could fix anything. If build quality and price go up, you can revert to an economy where you would fix your broken appliance once or twice before you replacing it. But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > But what's the incentive for the manufacturers? They get to continue to sell their products. Internalizing externalities and all that jazz.
- pizzetta 9y ago
  Advertising, including Google, will feel the effect of a slower purchasing cycle. Fewer designers (in all industries) to design a lower volume of products. Less money to promote fewer items being sold. On the flipside, larger per-item transaction values. To add, It doesn't seem like we could go on indefinitely with ephemeral product cycles consuming increasing amounts of natural resources considering the increasing purchasing power of emerging economies.
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    A repair job still involves a purchase, but from a parts dealer or repair man.
    - pizzetta 9y ago
      This is true, but should still result in lower TCO. Lower TCO means lower velocity of money.
      - Silhouette 9y ago
        OK, but why should we consider the economic concept of money changing hands more rapidly to be an inherently good thing? There are both environmental and quality of life issues with the way our culture has evolved recently, particularly around advancing consumer technologies, which aren't (directly) financial in nature but are definitely things we could change for the better. Meanwhile, the increases in money moving around on paper are mostly in the direction of manufacturers taking advantage of consumers one way or another, and I don't have a problem with damaging that effect in favour of the others.
Eridrus 9y ago
I kind of want these rules to go into effect in the EU just to see what happens. I don't expect good things to happen, but one way or another it would be instructive.
- kyriakos 9y ago
  Mandatory warranty of 2 years seems to be doing fine
  - baq 9y ago
    It should be at least 5 years for large home appliances like washing machines, refrigerators, TVs, etc. Cars too.
    - photojosh 9y ago
      I think this is absolutely the only way we're ever going to get better repairability and manufacturers who make products to last that length of time. In Australia, we have the traditional warranty by law, but we also have a law that requires appliances to last as long as would be reasonably expected to by a consumer. [1] And they must meet any extra claims. Of course, this is an absolute pain to then try to get the manufacturer to uphold, and you may have to threaten legal action. We did this with an Apple Watch that broke when dropped onto concrete. My argument was that the watch was repeatedly marketed as a "sports watch", and such a device should be able to withstand a small fall without being destroyed. Took a few months, but we got a replacement. Have had friends with good experiences with large appliances, but you certainly have to be prepared to fight. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warranty-you-still-have-rights/2749924 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warr...
- pjc50 9y ago
  There are some elements of this already; WEEE makes it supposedly slightly more expensive to make disposable products, and a ban on smart cartridges that wear out early without being refillable: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/30/eu_tells_hp_et_al/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/30/eu_tells_hp_et_al/
jbmorgado 9y ago
Although I would welcome this, I can't understand how such broad demands can be enforced. If the EU is really interested in increasing the lifetime of products, it's simple, just increase the mandatory warranty from 2 to 5 (or some other appropriate number) years. That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products, but would also, put a strain on the manufacturers to make it easier to repair (after all, if you have to increase the number of repairs to your products, you are going to make it cheaper to repair it in order to save money).
- sigstoat 9y ago
  > That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products there's no guarantee of that. the manufacturers could just charge X times more, and expect on average to send 1.5 replacements out. (or less, most likely. folks who wouldn't bother to ask for warranty service, or lose the device first, or otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements of the warranty.)
  - simion314 9y ago
    They can charge more, but they need to compete with the others that will charge less if their own products are not breaking that often or if they have a cheaper way to repair instead of replacing the product.
- simion314 9y ago
  Also if they get a lot of products back in warranty they will notice that if part X breaks often and they make a small change in design, maybe add some vibration or dust protection that would increase the part X longevity.
simion314 9y ago
Is there also a term that describes this phenomena ? "Each year we get an update for product X with a few minor changes that makes the new version parts incompatible with the previous year version (maybe not all parts are incompatible). I noticed this with washing machines, I wanted to buy a similar model with something that I own and they made a different model, redesigned the outside, maybe small changes inside. I also know that cars get updates each year, some stuff gets changed on the front of the car to look "better" but now under the hood some parts do not fit and need to be moved around and redesigned, then the car needs to be tested again. I think it would be healthy to launch a product, then in first year(s) analyze the defects your products get, next product would be an evolution that addresses the issues. I agree if you have new ideas on how to improve your product go ahead and make the new version but don't make a new model of a microwave that is identical with previous one except you changed the shape, moved some buttons and added a gimmick feature.
- guimarin 9y ago
  Textbooks? Seriously though I think there is a movement among the rich in America/world to buy products that are simple to use, high quality, and durable. The problem in my view is not that these products don't exist but that it's very hard to find them and verify quality in production over time.
  - simion314 9y ago
    I am not impressed by the "expensive" products, as an example I own a Nexus 7 tablet, touch input stopped working reliably, I searched and found many similar issue, the solution is to open it and plug back a connector that got lose and maybe add some paper to have the thing pressed on it's place, so this is not a cheap, no name product, the problem could have been avoided maybe with a few more cents investment per product. I have similar experience with brand name keyboard and mioce that were not cheap and did not perform.
    - guimarin 9y ago
      for the most part, I don't consider commodity equipment to be 'expensive' even if the price point is expensive. I've observed that there are usually two classes of products in any market, the commodity bottom 80% and then the premium top 20%. My comment is about products that inhabit this 20%. To date, and from my point of view, there is no product running android which falls in this premium category. With the Nexus 7 tablet specifically, I see a commodity android tablet with slightly better build quality and some more expensive components. Not a premium product like the iPad Pro.
vertex-four 9y ago
Of course, the flipside of this is the flipside of Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness - if the cheap boots that fall apart quickly didn't exist, Sam Vimes would not be able to buy boots at all in the first place. The solution is, of course, to put more people in a position where they can afford to buy the more expensive boots and see the value in doing so.
- mattlondon 9y ago
  I am unconvinced that more expensive = better quality for a lot of things these days. There are some anecdotal examples of people with Miele washing machines that have lasted for decades etc (... as an aside I guess we wont know about today's Miele washing machines for several more years at least ...), but in my experience paying a premium for a product more often than not just gives you an as-cheaply-made product but with a brand name you've heard of. I am very happy to pay for decent stuff, but I am not prepared to pay extra for the same quality stuff just to get a brand name. What seems to be the biggest problem these days for me is not mechanical failures, but what can only be assumed to be software failures - things just going haywire or flashing an LED/error code and not doing what they should. Perhaps there is some cheap capacitor that has blown somewhere, but it is often a waffly explanation along the lines of "logic board has failed" (and they are always super-expensive to replace due to it being 10 years old and not made/stocked any more etc etc). It is usually more sensible to replace a 5-15 year old appliance with a new one, rather than buying a spare part that costs 50% of an entire new appliance, (plus then you usually get the benefits of improved energy efficiency)
  - ohyes 9y ago
    i've replaced bad caps in many home electronics, its kind of amazing how often you can look at a board and know the capacitor is hosed just by looking at it.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    If you buy a Miele appliance anf get the extended guarantee which is ~10% of the purchase price, you get 7 years guarantee. As in, something breaks, tomorrow a repairman will be at your house and fix it, no extra cost. Quality is available, people just don't want to pay for it. Those washing machines that lasted for 15 years? Back then, they cost one or two months' wages. Try to get anyone to pay $2500 for a washing machine today.
Areading314 9y ago
Manufacturers should be made responsible for disposal. This would provide an incentive to make products last and be repairable.
- IanCal 9y ago
  This is partly in place > The directive imposes the responsibility for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers or distributors of such equipment.[3] It requires that those companies establish an infrastructure for collecting WEEE, in such a way that "Users of electrical and electronic equipment from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni...
- sparkling 9y ago
  They are.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  We have that exact law here in Ontario, Canada, and the products are just as disposable as everywhere else. Even worse, just like every other regulation ever, it is negotiated in such a way that it favours some manufacturers over others, and it was most welcomed by said manufacturers. Pretty sure there are laws like this in lots of other places, and it in no way appears to encourage repair. In fact, you could make an argument that it discourages repair: since repairable machines are typically heavier, it is cheaper for the manufacturer to pay the deposit on a lighter machine which is not repairable. You can't really get the bureaucracy to determine how repairable your product is either. If you do, the rules will ultimately be just as arbitrary as weight, and not thorough enough to generate the intended effect. In addition to being useless, these regulations also increase the cost of goods, congratulations.
- oever 9y ago
  A better incentive would be to require manufacturers to sell unlimited (yearly) warranty for their products. When you buy a product, you'll get the option to pay a yearly renewable sum that guarantees that any failings from normal use will be repaired. Such a requirement will make the seller optimize the product for affordable longevity and make it cheap and easy to repair the product. A significant number of consumers will appreciate the predictable cost for the use of the product and take out such a warranty.
NicoJuicy 9y ago
This made me think about the lamp that shines for 100 years in a fire department somewhere. It even has a cam http://www.centennialbulb.org/ http://www.centennialbulb.org/ Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have more sales. I think this was the article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbu...
- Latty 9y ago
  I mean, LED bulbs have made traditional ones redundant and have incredibly long lifespans, so this isn't really true any more. The article makes some good points that lifespan was controlled, but not as drastically as you imply. They were talking about losing a third of the lifespan. While yes, they were clearly aiming to reduce the lifespan of bulbs, they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs. If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would have (it's not like that cartel is still going - 1940 was a long time ago) - I don't think what they did was that dissimilar to desktop software moving to subscription models to increase profit - as long as they introduce value from that change to justify it, then it's not wrong. The century-old bulb is an extreme outlier and there was never an expectation for anything to last that long. Trying to imply that modern bulbs are handicapped intentionally to such an extreme is just misleading.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    > they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs. Brighter and more efficient.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Yeah, that old lightbulb is so dim that it's basically completely useless. Even if it lasts 300 years, I don't want it in my house. I want lightbulbs that can actually illuminate a book well enough to read the words. It's hardly a conspiracy. You can keep an old car running forever, but I want a car with air conditioning, power locks, Bluetooth, ABS, power steering, variable valve timing, and good gas milage. All of those things are complicated systems that are expensive to repair and break easily. Doesn't mean the older car is better or newer cars are a rip off.
SeanDav 9y ago
I totally support this. I accidentally cracked the touch screen of my car radio console. The car is nothing special, a Ford Mondeo that is a few years old. Cost to replace touch screen module: more than the entire value of the car! That is insane. Effectively, if I want to claim from insurance - crack the touch screen (it is a replaceable module) and have to scrap the entire car. In this case, I managed to get a replacement (fitted) from a scrapped car for 1/10 of the price the Ford dealer was quoting me.
- runeks 9y ago
  How does regulation solve the issue that replacing e.g. the touch screen may take many man hours of labor, whereas making the car itself took proportionally less, thus making replacements more expensive? Your experience is a symptom of a high degree of automation in one area (car manufacturing) and the absence in another (repairs), and regulation does not change that.
  - wheels 9y ago
    Much of that can be mitigated in product design. The amount of labor needed to replace something is a function of the extent to which being serviceable is a design goal.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      It feels like an unachievable goal if I think about it even if the devices are designed to be very servicable. Let's use the same example of a hypothetical simple toaster -like device, and assume that you have a specific breakage where fixing it takes 20% of the effort required to make the device in the first place. I'd say it's feasible that massproduction and automation brings up the efficiency so that this already means that producing the item takes less human hours than fixing the item even if it's easily openable and servicable. Furthermore, even if you have a scenario where fixing an item takes 20% of the hours to build the item, it's feasible that the local repairperson in a first wold country costs more than 5 times per hour than the cheapest possible place in the world where the item was manufactured. It is quite realistic that the efficiencies of the global mass production toolchain mean that repairing many types of items doesn't make practical sense no matter how serviceable they are. A person manually soldering a single capacitor can reasonably cost more than the manufacturing of the entire circuit board and its components - and that's not caused by faulty design, but by the effect of scale and automation; it's not that repair is expensive but that replacements are dirt cheap.
farnulfo 9y ago
paradoxically we want longer lifetime for some products but not for IE 6, Windows XP, JDK 1 , name your product's support hell...
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Arguably, Windows XP had an incredibly long lifetime (12 years!) in terms of actual support/updates. The problem is getting people to leave after that lifetime is over. If something is going to get updates for twelve years, there's no problem with people continuing to use it.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    XP is still used in all sorts of (theoretically) non-networked applications.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Yes, we don't want long lifetimes on products that have externalities.
Animats 9y ago
The EU also has a 3-year minimum warranty requirement on consumer products. Much of what the EU does is to make buying from another EU country within the EU a seamless experience. They just prohibited phone roaming charges within the EU, for example. This is the "single European market" concept.
- ptaipale 9y ago
  Not 3 years, it's 2 years, and it's not exactly same as "warranty". Directive 1999/44/EC says all EU countries have to ensure a retailer could be held liable for all "non-conformities" which manifest within two years from delivery. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-electrical-goods-guaranteed https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-elect...
andrewla 9y ago
Not to play the free market card too aggressively, but isn't there already a solution to this, called "extended warranties"? Whether provided by the manufacturer or from the retail seller, they provide a way for customers to pay an extra fee in order to extend the product's lifetime. In theory, they even give a way to price out the effective longevity of comparable devices by looking at the prices of the warranties. In the end, my understanding is that customers do not assign a lot of value to that lifetime extension, and as a result the extended warranties are generally not purchased. If the EU enacts measures to enforce product longevity, they force customers to buy something that they have already chosen not to buy.
- gmac 9y ago
  My hunch: part of the problem here is that people got fleeced by retailers, who sold hugely overpriced extended warranties, banking on loss aversion and risk aversion and general lack of technological understanding. When people realised how much they had been fleeced (assisted by consumer programmes like Watchdog in the UK), many of them went off extended warranties as a mug's game — and never came back. (I once had a Xmas temp job at UK electronics retailer Dixons, commission was on profit, and one extended warranty was worth dozens of devices sold — beaten only by mobile phone contracts). So anyway, that's a reason why people's revealed preference for extended warranties might not correspond with their true preference for longevity in consumer products. It's also the case that if you can afford to insure yourself against something (like a consumer good breaking down), and average the costs across all such things, then generally you'll save money by doing so — especially if you reckon, as I do in this case, that you take better-than-average care of your consumer goods. In that case, the price of the extended warranty is a signal of expected longevity, and features in your purchase decision (lower = better), even if you don't buy it. So again, revealed preference for warranties may not equal true preference for longevity. Finally, we're collectively using and disposing of too much stuff, and one of the reasons for this is that externalities such as waste and resource depletion are not fully internalised. So even if people are not buying extended warranties, and that truly reflects an indifference to product lifespan, there may well be an argument that by "forcing them to buy an extended warranty" — which also forces the manufacturer to take responsibility for the product over a longer period, and thus pay more attention to how long it generally lasts — you get higher social welfare, despite some constraint on individual consumer freedom. Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking may help them in the long run. TL;DR: I think this measure has potential to be a really good thing all round.
jaclaz 9y ago
The issue (that only partially has been solved by the WEEE directives in Europe) is the same as most of the issues when money is involved. The best form of recycling is of course repairing, you only throw away (and need to dispose of) a tiny piece of (metal, plastic, etc.) instead of having to dispose kilograms or tons of the same stuff (the whole whatever). But the point is "who is gonna pay for disposal?" a part of the WEEE directives (related to solar panels) goes into the right direction but still, see the previous thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584 The manufacturer saves today but will (maybe) pay tomorrow. The only way (unfortunately not very practical) is to have manufacturers deposit today (in some sort of fund) the sum that will be needed tomorrow for disposals, with some sort of scale so that longer lasting products will need less money to be deposited or maybe allowing the withdrawal of a quote of the deposit after some lasting performance has been measured, that would make them think about the opportunity of making shorter or longer lasting (or non-repairable vs. repairable) devices.
Shivetya 9y ago
Some of their proposals are just the product of people who have no concept of how technology works. Hell some of it reads like an anti-Apple manifesto being that they integrate battery and LED and such. What would a tablet with a user replaceable battery look like? How many years must they last before they are long lasting? If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that sufficient? With regards to products like cars where the makeup can come from hundreds of manufactures who decides what needs to adhere to the rules and what doesn't? Someone posted about a cracked screen on a radio, how far down the component tree do we go before we stop? I do like one section, no software should enable the fixing of a user owned product. The exception would be software that locks out repairs that might allow for unauthorized access; what I mean is that this could be an end run to making touch id easily hacked by government by forcing it to be serviced by third parties.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  > What would a tablet with a user replaceable battery look like? https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability It looks about the same as any other tablet, but with non-fragile latches holding it shut and no glue anywhere. > If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that sufficient? No, the consumer should be able to replace the battery every few years and keep using it for over a decade, assuming a typical situation where nothing else breaks.
- macawfish 9y ago
  Apple's marketing material reads like an anti-sustainability manifesto.
- ksk 9y ago
  >Hell some of it reads like an anti-Apple manifesto being that they integrate battery and LED and such. Maybe because you are unfamiliar with other companies that do the same? Recently the little magnet on my 5-6 year old iPad that holds the case has become weak. The ipad itself, works great. Its already out of warranty and it doesn't take a genius to popup open a case and put a new magnet in (instructions to do so are already on ifixit). But the supply of parts is intentionally prohibited by Apple, making such simple repairs impossible. While this regulation is addressing a different issue, citizens should be doing much more to penalize such anti-consumer behavior.
odabaxok 9y ago
I agree with this too. I always try to repair things first and then replace them if necessary (even if it is a torn shirt or backpack, a broken zipper on a shoe or broken connector on a laptop). Also, I try to buy things which are durable, but a lot of times it is hard to tell what will be durable so I go with the pricier option hoping it will last longer. This is not always true, especially for shoes and clothing, but in electronics too. The problem is when someone looks for reviews, they only find reviews of new models, but there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years without breaking. Do you guys know about such a site? Or something similar? I am always thinking about starting such website, which would provide reviews for older things, so there would be chronological ratings and we would see which brands make quality products and which of them not. ...but that would need a lot of input data to be useful and I am not sure how could this be started. Or even if this would be useful for others or only I am concerned with this. What do you guys think about this?
- steadicat 9y ago
  Sounds like you’re looking for https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/
- pmontra 9y ago
  > there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years without breaking. The problem is the X years. For electronics that website would be almost useless. I could tell you about the failure modes of my past laptops and phones but would you buy a discontinued product? At best you could hope that newer products of the same brand fixed some of the problems of the past ones and didn't add new issues. The same applies to most goods because they are replaced by new models yearly or faster.
  - odabaxok 9y ago
    Yes, it is hard to tell if a new product will last and for them it is useless, but such website could tell which brands are more trusty in this manner.
  - mark-r 9y ago
roceasta 9y ago
Perhaps I'm being naive, but how about reducing sales tax ('VAT' in UK) for items which come with long guarantee periods? So sale of a washing machine with a 10 year guarantee would be taxed at 5% instead of 10%, or similar. Wouldn't this give manufacturers an incentive to make more durable products?
twii 9y ago
Finally.. Although I am not optimistic about seeing results soon. Companies will go to extremes to circumvent such rules. But it's shocking to see their lack of insight: > software should be easier to repair and update ROFL!
- moo360 9y ago
  Well this is the same people who gave you the cookie law.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Why ROFL? Fixing bugs is essentially repairing software, isn't it? And it seems perfectly reasonable to me that if I buy some software, I should be able to "repair" any defects in it.
forinti 9y ago
I recently changed the display on my Kobo Touch and was appalled at what I found inside it. The battery is glued to the case and the wires are soldered to the board. The display is also glued to the case (I had to break the original display into bits in order to take it out). The whole thing was designed to be disposable. This just seems wrong. It's unfair to the customer and bad for the environment.
handzhiev 9y ago
When I read about yet another EU regulation of this kind I always remember the cookie law :/
- miracle2k 9y ago
  I want to write some comment to agree with you, but I can't find the words the express my frustration with the cookie thing. It beggars belief.
  - corney91 9y ago
    I think the idea's reasonable but it was implemented wrongly by everyone, making it stupid. The aim was to stop unnecessary tracking, not all tracking. See the list of exempt cookies here: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm
thiagooffm 9y ago
I agree. I live in the EU and bought a washing machine for 450 eur. After 1 year and 2 months a big hole in the Drum appeared and this makes it flood my apartment. LG wants 530 eur to fix it, so obviously not worth it. My parents had 2 washing machines in their whole life, in contrast...
- driverdan 9y ago
  If this was a concern for you why didn't you buy a more expensive washing machine that has a longer warranty and a reputation for quality? These things exist but they cost more. Consumers need to be willing to put money where their mouth is.
  - izacus 9y ago
    450EUR is an expensive washing machine, they start at about 200. "Reputation" for quality won't ensure you anything and noone gives out warranty over mandatory minimum enforced by law.
    - lhnz 9y ago
      Miele [0] give a 10 year guarantee on their washing machines. [0] https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-warranty-included-on-selected-washing-machines-3138.htm https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-wa...
  - realusername 9y ago
    It's starting to be difficult to differentiate "good quality and expensive" from "bad quality and expensive".
- miracle2k 9y ago
  You should have a two year warranty in the EU: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
thinkfurther 9y ago
Why can't we have economies that can be stable without the sky falling, can grow when wanted, and shrink when needed without a cascade of catastrophies? Can't we? It's a honest question, I have no clue. Because I also think this is a great idea too, but everything else being the same, the general insanity being the same, something else will probably give. On the other hand, if we did have this hypothetical more flexible economic system, making things well instead of hustling and externalizing costs might come as a lasting side effect of that.
- freehunter 9y ago
  That would take central planning. The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high, and can't force businesses to close or merge when there are inefficiencies in the market. A capitalist economic system is inherently reactionary: someone notices a demand and creates supply for it. Someone tries their hardest to keep their business open even with low demand, right up until the point where they fail catastrophically. The drive to do better than everyone else is what keeps our economy afloat, but it also sometimes runs competitors out of business. We can have an economy that is stable and fair for everyone with no winners or losers. But people have been trained against socialism and communism for so many years, it'd be a very tough sell. The only way to have an economy flex responsively is if the government is a central planning agency for businesses.
  - mrkrab 9y ago
    >The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high It does all the time, no? At least here, town halls give stupid jobs to people when unemployment is too high. Obviously, the results are catastrofic.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      There are notable exceptions (like the New Deal) but it's not a really widespread program. The government can certainly give people jobs, but they're either filling existing demand (like Manpower-type headhunters) or they're creating demand through government work (like road construction). It's not like Soviet Russia where the government can open a new plant and put people to work there producing private-market goods and then shut it down when supply gets too big.
driverdan 9y ago
> 77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new ones This is most likely a misleading stat. You can repair most things if you're willing to spend the money or time to do it. Many consumer goods cost more to repair than it's worth. No one is going to do that.
- makapuf 9y ago
  It can be made way simpler and faster if optimized for this. Products are designed for being cheap to buy, not cheap to use.
perfectstorm 9y ago
I agree. We need something like this in the US. By law, electronic products sold in EU carries 2yrs warranty and I always wondered why U.S has only 1yr warranty. I can think of an incident where my laptop crapped out right after a year of purchase but the manufacturer was nice enough to repair it for free. With phones running $800+ nowadays, i would expect it to last longer (3yrs min.) like a laptop.
- boobsbr 9y ago
  My HTC One M7 is 4 years old now, and still works perfectly. Battery life is not awesome but still lasts a full day with light 4G usage. I don't get software updates anymore, but that isn't an issue for me. I know that when the battery dies for good, or if the display shatters, I probably won't have a way to repair it, and that is bad because I really don't need a new phone. Availability and cost of spare parts, and ease of repair should be major decision factors for people buying electronics. It already is the case for cars.
rebootthesystem 9y ago
As I read through some of the comments on this thread what jumped out at me is that products today are designed with DFM in mind rather than DFR. Design for Manufacturing vs. Design for Repairs. Industrial products are different. There's a class of product that must be designed for easy maintenance. Not so in consumer-land. For example, to replace some of the lights on a BMW you have to remove the front bumper. Crazy.
based2 9y ago
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
coldcode 9y ago
You can call for anything, however it will happen only if it makes economic sense to manufacturers, sellers and customers.
DannyB2 9y ago
From TFA: "if a repair takes longer than a month, the guarantee should be extended to match the repair time," Uh, no. That will insure that repairs always take 29 days, except in february where they will take 27 daze. Simply always extend the guarantee by the amount of any repair time.
Noos 9y ago
The EU will have fun then with much more expensive consumer goods, and businesses keeping flagship lines of products out of them for sale. More likely this is just another tax increase worded as "consumer protection." No business will really design products based on government say, but will just raises prices to cover whatever penalty fee they issue.
NTDF9 9y ago
The solution is metered trash/pollution for everyone. The more you throw away, the more you pay. The more waste you produce, the more you pay. The more you harm the environment, the more you pay. This will incentivize individuals to throw less away, hence buy less and seek more durable products.
legulere 9y ago
They can start by changing the warranty regulations [1] to be valid 10 years instead of a ridiculous two years. [1]: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...

291 points by smnc 9y ago

In other news, the parliament took a vote affirming previous decisions that TV shows should be funnier. ..I guess that was trite. The EU parliament is in a constitutional limbo state. It doesn’t have real power or a predefined legislative jurisdiction, so voters don’t take it seriously. They elect quirky, fring-ey members they wouldn’t elect to their own national parties. I’m in favour of durable products, but I don’t see how this is en route to policies that affect this.

etix 9y ago
Extending the minimum warranty can help to make more durable products.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  The EU already made mandatory 24 months warranty for all products sold in Europe. I think this has been beneficial not only to European citizens but also to the US where there isn't a minimum warranty by default. Businesses who sell products on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have mirrored the imposed warranty of the EU in the US. I am in favor of extending the minimum warranty. PS: isn't there also some regulation that a business should provide pieces for repair for a period of 10 years? I seem to recall something like that.
  - ovi256 9y ago
    Don't forget that the 24 month warranty is one of the stated reasons for justifying the sale price difference for the same product between the US and the EU. If it's increased, manufacturers will just increase their EU prices so that their costs will be covered.
    - jrimbault 9y ago
      The price difference seems mostly due to advertised prices. In the US they advertise the price excluding tax, in the EU we advertise the price including tax. When counting taxes, there isn't a big difference.
  - ferongr 9y ago
    The EU directive might say that but countries codify that into law differently. For example, here in Greece, there is actually no law stating warranties should be two years. It only says that the warranty should be "reasonable depending on the expected lifetime of the product".
- runeks 9y ago
  I don't want to have to pay more for durable products. Please let me choose whether I want to buy extended warranty -- many manufacturers already offer it, but I'm not interested it in.
  - simion314 9y ago
    I know that most people change their phones often but there are products that are expensive like washing machine, gas heaters that should be designed from the start to last 5 years or more. If 2 companies build washing machines and they need to increase the warranty time, the one that can do that with less price increase would sell more, the one that planned them to break down faster would lose and have to make a new dessign.
    - runeks 9y ago
      Why don't you just pay for the 5 year warranty if you want it, instead of wanting to make it mandatory that everyone pay?
      - ksk 9y ago
        The warranty doesn't make the product durable. Its just allows you to re-buy the same non-durable product using resources from a shared pool. This is about addressing the fundamental problem.
      - simion314 9y ago
        Would you buy a car if the seller gives 1 month warranty? My opinion is that expensive products should have longer warranty by default. For cheaper products current 2 years is fine.
  - simion314 9y ago
    I know that most people change their phones often but there are products that are expensive like washing machine, gas heaters that should be designed from the start to last 5 years or more. If 2 companies build washing machines and they need to increase the warranty time, the one that can do that with less price increase would sell more, the one that planned them to break down faster would lose and have to make a new dessign.
illys 9y ago
You probably do not live in Europe (or maybe you just like trolling?). First I am a voter and I do take the EU parliament seriously. I also consider what the groups and candidates voted in the past before giving them my vote - especially on topics like world trade giant agreements (TTIP, TATFA, CETA... - yes they also vote on that and it is very meaningful for our future). You may also read some documentation on the powers and functions of the EU Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and_functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and... You may also just read the news: -> UK just voted to get out of EU to escape EU funding and regulations - so probably those regulations do exist at a significant extend. -> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation. So probably - yes - they can set rules on repairability and durability.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  > A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation. Wasn't that the European Commission (and not Parliament) though? They seem to be significantly more powerful.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    EU law needs to be proposed by the Commission (though the Maastricht Treaty gives Parliament powers to request that the Commission should put forward proposals on their behalf), and then normally approved and/or amended by both Parliament and the Council, with drawn out conciliation procedures if one or the other changes the proposals too much. The complexity stems from the legal status where the EU is in some respects a confederation of sovereign states, where the governments of the member states need to represent their respective nations, and in some respects a union of people. The gradual shift of power towards the Parliament represents attempts to shift it towards the latter, while the Commission and Council represents the treat realities where delegating more power to Parliament would require constitutional changes in a number of member states to cede the sovereignty (currently this is worked around by having the treaties bind the respective governments to take make the required decision - it's exploiting the wide latitude most governments have in exercising treating rights and obligations.
simion314 9y ago
Maybe the fact that the people in the EU parliament are not in the focus of the electoral people is a good thing, they will not put a big effort into the political "game", back at home the guys don't usually vote on topics on what they personal believe is best but have to vote on how the party decide is best for themselves to get a good score at the next elections.

conradk 9y ago

The article says that consumers are discouraged by the cost of repair. A few weeks ago, I repaired an eltronical appliance and was surprised to see that all screws were screwed into plastic. As I unscrewed them to access the inside of the device, the plastic around the screw broke. I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. That just makes no sense appart from upfront cost. Once the plastic is broken, there is no way but to throw the broken device away. Unless you can somehow glue everything back together, but that seems unpractical. It's like devices are not even planned to be repaired. They are designed to be sold and then abandoned. That's the real issue. Not cost of repair.

cube00 9y ago
It's not "like", they are and they've got a term for it; planned obsolescence.
- IshKebab 9y ago
  Rubbish. Planned obsolescence is extremely rare. The low quality of products is because of cost cutting. Manufacturers design for a minimum lifetime as cheaply as possible. "It must last 2 years. How can we save money?" Virtually nobody is going "It must break after 2 years." Except in a very small number of cases that is conspiracy theory nonsense.
  - mbrock 9y ago
    But that's effectively the same goal. If you engineer it to work for 2 years as cheaply as possible, you're probably engineering it to break after 2 years. Would we get better results from "it must cost max X, how can we make it last as long as possible and be repairable?" Probably, but the incentives don't reward it.
    - IshKebab 9y ago
      Yes but the intent is vastly different. It's like the difference between accidentally and deliberately killing someone. Same result but they're not the same are they?

illys 9y ago

It seems like a good idea to rule on this: I always used to fix my electronic products... Up to recently it was sometimes difficult to find the issue, but always fine with opening and closing. I had my very first anxiety thrill ungluing an iPad window to replace the broken microphone; and I look with anxiety at my S7, thinking of when the battery starts aging.

lumberjack 9y ago

Wages have gone up and consumer goods have gone down in price and build quality. It's not feasible to have a repair business any more. Growing up, there were still loads of repair businesses around. You could fix anything. If build quality and price go up, you can revert to an economy where you would fix your broken appliance once or twice before you replacing it. But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> But what's the incentive for the manufacturers? They get to continue to sell their products. Internalizing externalities and all that jazz.
pizzetta 9y ago
Advertising, including Google, will feel the effect of a slower purchasing cycle. Fewer designers (in all industries) to design a lower volume of products. Less money to promote fewer items being sold. On the flipside, larger per-item transaction values. To add, It doesn't seem like we could go on indefinitely with ephemeral product cycles consuming increasing amounts of natural resources considering the increasing purchasing power of emerging economies.
- whatshisface 9y ago
  A repair job still involves a purchase, but from a parts dealer or repair man.
  - pizzetta 9y ago
    This is true, but should still result in lower TCO. Lower TCO means lower velocity of money.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      OK, but why should we consider the economic concept of money changing hands more rapidly to be an inherently good thing? There are both environmental and quality of life issues with the way our culture has evolved recently, particularly around advancing consumer technologies, which aren't (directly) financial in nature but are definitely things we could change for the better. Meanwhile, the increases in money moving around on paper are mostly in the direction of manufacturers taking advantage of consumers one way or another, and I don't have a problem with damaging that effect in favour of the others.

Eridrus 9y ago

I kind of want these rules to go into effect in the EU just to see what happens. I don't expect good things to happen, but one way or another it would be instructive.

kyriakos 9y ago
Mandatory warranty of 2 years seems to be doing fine
- baq 9y ago
  It should be at least 5 years for large home appliances like washing machines, refrigerators, TVs, etc. Cars too.
  - photojosh 9y ago
    I think this is absolutely the only way we're ever going to get better repairability and manufacturers who make products to last that length of time. In Australia, we have the traditional warranty by law, but we also have a law that requires appliances to last as long as would be reasonably expected to by a consumer. [1] And they must meet any extra claims. Of course, this is an absolute pain to then try to get the manufacturer to uphold, and you may have to threaten legal action. We did this with an Apple Watch that broke when dropped onto concrete. My argument was that the watch was repeatedly marketed as a "sports watch", and such a device should be able to withstand a small fall without being destroyed. Took a few months, but we got a replacement. Have had friends with good experiences with large appliances, but you certainly have to be prepared to fight. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warranty-you-still-have-rights/2749924 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warr...
pjc50 9y ago
There are some elements of this already; WEEE makes it supposedly slightly more expensive to make disposable products, and a ban on smart cartridges that wear out early without being refillable: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/30/eu_tells_hp_et_al/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/30/eu_tells_hp_et_al/

jbmorgado 9y ago

Although I would welcome this, I can't understand how such broad demands can be enforced. If the EU is really interested in increasing the lifetime of products, it's simple, just increase the mandatory warranty from 2 to 5 (or some other appropriate number) years. That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products, but would also, put a strain on the manufacturers to make it easier to repair (after all, if you have to increase the number of repairs to your products, you are going to make it cheaper to repair it in order to save money).

sigstoat 9y ago
> That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products there's no guarantee of that. the manufacturers could just charge X times more, and expect on average to send 1.5 replacements out. (or less, most likely. folks who wouldn't bother to ask for warranty service, or lose the device first, or otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements of the warranty.)
- simion314 9y ago
  They can charge more, but they need to compete with the others that will charge less if their own products are not breaking that often or if they have a cheaper way to repair instead of replacing the product.
simion314 9y ago
Also if they get a lot of products back in warranty they will notice that if part X breaks often and they make a small change in design, maybe add some vibration or dust protection that would increase the part X longevity.

simion314 9y ago

Is there also a term that describes this phenomena ? "Each year we get an update for product X with a few minor changes that makes the new version parts incompatible with the previous year version (maybe not all parts are incompatible). I noticed this with washing machines, I wanted to buy a similar model with something that I own and they made a different model, redesigned the outside, maybe small changes inside. I also know that cars get updates each year, some stuff gets changed on the front of the car to look "better" but now under the hood some parts do not fit and need to be moved around and redesigned, then the car needs to be tested again. I think it would be healthy to launch a product, then in first year(s) analyze the defects your products get, next product would be an evolution that addresses the issues. I agree if you have new ideas on how to improve your product go ahead and make the new version but don't make a new model of a microwave that is identical with previous one except you changed the shape, moved some buttons and added a gimmick feature.

guimarin 9y ago
Textbooks? Seriously though I think there is a movement among the rich in America/world to buy products that are simple to use, high quality, and durable. The problem in my view is not that these products don't exist but that it's very hard to find them and verify quality in production over time.
- simion314 9y ago
  I am not impressed by the "expensive" products, as an example I own a Nexus 7 tablet, touch input stopped working reliably, I searched and found many similar issue, the solution is to open it and plug back a connector that got lose and maybe add some paper to have the thing pressed on it's place, so this is not a cheap, no name product, the problem could have been avoided maybe with a few more cents investment per product. I have similar experience with brand name keyboard and mioce that were not cheap and did not perform.
  - guimarin 9y ago
    for the most part, I don't consider commodity equipment to be 'expensive' even if the price point is expensive. I've observed that there are usually two classes of products in any market, the commodity bottom 80% and then the premium top 20%. My comment is about products that inhabit this 20%. To date, and from my point of view, there is no product running android which falls in this premium category. With the Nexus 7 tablet specifically, I see a commodity android tablet with slightly better build quality and some more expensive components. Not a premium product like the iPad Pro.

vertex-four 9y ago

Of course, the flipside of this is the flipside of Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness - if the cheap boots that fall apart quickly didn't exist, Sam Vimes would not be able to buy boots at all in the first place. The solution is, of course, to put more people in a position where they can afford to buy the more expensive boots and see the value in doing so.

mattlondon 9y ago
I am unconvinced that more expensive = better quality for a lot of things these days. There are some anecdotal examples of people with Miele washing machines that have lasted for decades etc (... as an aside I guess we wont know about today's Miele washing machines for several more years at least ...), but in my experience paying a premium for a product more often than not just gives you an as-cheaply-made product but with a brand name you've heard of. I am very happy to pay for decent stuff, but I am not prepared to pay extra for the same quality stuff just to get a brand name. What seems to be the biggest problem these days for me is not mechanical failures, but what can only be assumed to be software failures - things just going haywire or flashing an LED/error code and not doing what they should. Perhaps there is some cheap capacitor that has blown somewhere, but it is often a waffly explanation along the lines of "logic board has failed" (and they are always super-expensive to replace due to it being 10 years old and not made/stocked any more etc etc). It is usually more sensible to replace a 5-15 year old appliance with a new one, rather than buying a spare part that costs 50% of an entire new appliance, (plus then you usually get the benefits of improved energy efficiency)
- ohyes 9y ago
  i've replaced bad caps in many home electronics, its kind of amazing how often you can look at a board and know the capacitor is hosed just by looking at it.
- roel_v 9y ago
  If you buy a Miele appliance anf get the extended guarantee which is ~10% of the purchase price, you get 7 years guarantee. As in, something breaks, tomorrow a repairman will be at your house and fix it, no extra cost. Quality is available, people just don't want to pay for it. Those washing machines that lasted for 15 years? Back then, they cost one or two months' wages. Try to get anyone to pay $2500 for a washing machine today.

Areading314 9y ago

Manufacturers should be made responsible for disposal. This would provide an incentive to make products last and be repairable.

IanCal 9y ago
This is partly in place > The directive imposes the responsibility for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers or distributors of such equipment.[3] It requires that those companies establish an infrastructure for collecting WEEE, in such a way that "Users of electrical and electronic equipment from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni...
sparkling 9y ago
They are.
microcolonel 9y ago
We have that exact law here in Ontario, Canada, and the products are just as disposable as everywhere else. Even worse, just like every other regulation ever, it is negotiated in such a way that it favours some manufacturers over others, and it was most welcomed by said manufacturers. Pretty sure there are laws like this in lots of other places, and it in no way appears to encourage repair. In fact, you could make an argument that it discourages repair: since repairable machines are typically heavier, it is cheaper for the manufacturer to pay the deposit on a lighter machine which is not repairable. You can't really get the bureaucracy to determine how repairable your product is either. If you do, the rules will ultimately be just as arbitrary as weight, and not thorough enough to generate the intended effect. In addition to being useless, these regulations also increase the cost of goods, congratulations.
oever 9y ago
A better incentive would be to require manufacturers to sell unlimited (yearly) warranty for their products. When you buy a product, you'll get the option to pay a yearly renewable sum that guarantees that any failings from normal use will be repaired. Such a requirement will make the seller optimize the product for affordable longevity and make it cheap and easy to repair the product. A significant number of consumers will appreciate the predictable cost for the use of the product and take out such a warranty.

NicoJuicy 9y ago

This made me think about the lamp that shines for 100 years in a fire department somewhere. It even has a cam http://www.centennialbulb.org/ http://www.centennialbulb.org/ Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have more sales. I think this was the article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbu...

Latty 9y ago
I mean, LED bulbs have made traditional ones redundant and have incredibly long lifespans, so this isn't really true any more. The article makes some good points that lifespan was controlled, but not as drastically as you imply. They were talking about losing a third of the lifespan. While yes, they were clearly aiming to reduce the lifespan of bulbs, they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs. If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would have (it's not like that cartel is still going - 1940 was a long time ago) - I don't think what they did was that dissimilar to desktop software moving to subscription models to increase profit - as long as they introduce value from that change to justify it, then it's not wrong. The century-old bulb is an extreme outlier and there was never an expectation for anything to last that long. Trying to imply that modern bulbs are handicapped intentionally to such an extreme is just misleading.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs. Brighter and more efficient.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Yeah, that old lightbulb is so dim that it's basically completely useless. Even if it lasts 300 years, I don't want it in my house. I want lightbulbs that can actually illuminate a book well enough to read the words. It's hardly a conspiracy. You can keep an old car running forever, but I want a car with air conditioning, power locks, Bluetooth, ABS, power steering, variable valve timing, and good gas milage. All of those things are complicated systems that are expensive to repair and break easily. Doesn't mean the older car is better or newer cars are a rip off.

SeanDav 9y ago

I totally support this. I accidentally cracked the touch screen of my car radio console. The car is nothing special, a Ford Mondeo that is a few years old. Cost to replace touch screen module: more than the entire value of the car! That is insane. Effectively, if I want to claim from insurance - crack the touch screen (it is a replaceable module) and have to scrap the entire car. In this case, I managed to get a replacement (fitted) from a scrapped car for 1/10 of the price the Ford dealer was quoting me.

runeks 9y ago
How does regulation solve the issue that replacing e.g. the touch screen may take many man hours of labor, whereas making the car itself took proportionally less, thus making replacements more expensive? Your experience is a symptom of a high degree of automation in one area (car manufacturing) and the absence in another (repairs), and regulation does not change that.
- wheels 9y ago
  Much of that can be mitigated in product design. The amount of labor needed to replace something is a function of the extent to which being serviceable is a design goal.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    It feels like an unachievable goal if I think about it even if the devices are designed to be very servicable. Let's use the same example of a hypothetical simple toaster -like device, and assume that you have a specific breakage where fixing it takes 20% of the effort required to make the device in the first place. I'd say it's feasible that massproduction and automation brings up the efficiency so that this already means that producing the item takes less human hours than fixing the item even if it's easily openable and servicable. Furthermore, even if you have a scenario where fixing an item takes 20% of the hours to build the item, it's feasible that the local repairperson in a first wold country costs more than 5 times per hour than the cheapest possible place in the world where the item was manufactured. It is quite realistic that the efficiencies of the global mass production toolchain mean that repairing many types of items doesn't make practical sense no matter how serviceable they are. A person manually soldering a single capacitor can reasonably cost more than the manufacturing of the entire circuit board and its components - and that's not caused by faulty design, but by the effect of scale and automation; it's not that repair is expensive but that replacements are dirt cheap.

farnulfo 9y ago

paradoxically we want longer lifetime for some products but not for IE 6, Windows XP, JDK 1 , name your product's support hell...

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Arguably, Windows XP had an incredibly long lifetime (12 years!) in terms of actual support/updates. The problem is getting people to leave after that lifetime is over. If something is going to get updates for twelve years, there's no problem with people continuing to use it.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  XP is still used in all sorts of (theoretically) non-networked applications.
marcosdumay 9y ago
Yes, we don't want long lifetimes on products that have externalities.

Animats 9y ago

The EU also has a 3-year minimum warranty requirement on consumer products. Much of what the EU does is to make buying from another EU country within the EU a seamless experience. They just prohibited phone roaming charges within the EU, for example. This is the "single European market" concept.

ptaipale 9y ago
Not 3 years, it's 2 years, and it's not exactly same as "warranty". Directive 1999/44/EC says all EU countries have to ensure a retailer could be held liable for all "non-conformities" which manifest within two years from delivery. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-electrical-goods-guaranteed https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-elect...

andrewla 9y ago

Not to play the free market card too aggressively, but isn't there already a solution to this, called "extended warranties"? Whether provided by the manufacturer or from the retail seller, they provide a way for customers to pay an extra fee in order to extend the product's lifetime. In theory, they even give a way to price out the effective longevity of comparable devices by looking at the prices of the warranties. In the end, my understanding is that customers do not assign a lot of value to that lifetime extension, and as a result the extended warranties are generally not purchased. If the EU enacts measures to enforce product longevity, they force customers to buy something that they have already chosen not to buy.

gmac 9y ago
My hunch: part of the problem here is that people got fleeced by retailers, who sold hugely overpriced extended warranties, banking on loss aversion and risk aversion and general lack of technological understanding. When people realised how much they had been fleeced (assisted by consumer programmes like Watchdog in the UK), many of them went off extended warranties as a mug's game — and never came back. (I once had a Xmas temp job at UK electronics retailer Dixons, commission was on profit, and one extended warranty was worth dozens of devices sold — beaten only by mobile phone contracts). So anyway, that's a reason why people's revealed preference for extended warranties might not correspond with their true preference for longevity in consumer products. It's also the case that if you can afford to insure yourself against something (like a consumer good breaking down), and average the costs across all such things, then generally you'll save money by doing so — especially if you reckon, as I do in this case, that you take better-than-average care of your consumer goods. In that case, the price of the extended warranty is a signal of expected longevity, and features in your purchase decision (lower = better), even if you don't buy it. So again, revealed preference for warranties may not equal true preference for longevity. Finally, we're collectively using and disposing of too much stuff, and one of the reasons for this is that externalities such as waste and resource depletion are not fully internalised. So even if people are not buying extended warranties, and that truly reflects an indifference to product lifespan, there may well be an argument that by "forcing them to buy an extended warranty" — which also forces the manufacturer to take responsibility for the product over a longer period, and thus pay more attention to how long it generally lasts — you get higher social welfare, despite some constraint on individual consumer freedom. Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking may help them in the long run. TL;DR: I think this measure has potential to be a really good thing all round.

jaclaz 9y ago

The issue (that only partially has been solved by the WEEE directives in Europe) is the same as most of the issues when money is involved. The best form of recycling is of course repairing, you only throw away (and need to dispose of) a tiny piece of (metal, plastic, etc.) instead of having to dispose kilograms or tons of the same stuff (the whole whatever). But the point is "who is gonna pay for disposal?" a part of the WEEE directives (related to solar panels) goes into the right direction but still, see the previous thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584 The manufacturer saves today but will (maybe) pay tomorrow. The only way (unfortunately not very practical) is to have manufacturers deposit today (in some sort of fund) the sum that will be needed tomorrow for disposals, with some sort of scale so that longer lasting products will need less money to be deposited or maybe allowing the withdrawal of a quote of the deposit after some lasting performance has been measured, that would make them think about the opportunity of making shorter or longer lasting (or non-repairable vs. repairable) devices.

Shivetya 9y ago

Some of their proposals are just the product of people who have no concept of how technology works. Hell some of it reads like an anti-Apple manifesto being that they integrate battery and LED and such. What would a tablet with a user replaceable battery look like? How many years must they last before they are long lasting? If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that sufficient? With regards to products like cars where the makeup can come from hundreds of manufactures who decides what needs to adhere to the rules and what doesn't? Someone posted about a cracked screen on a radio, how far down the component tree do we go before we stop? I do like one section, no software should enable the fixing of a user owned product. The exception would be software that locks out repairs that might allow for unauthorized access; what I mean is that this could be an end run to making touch id easily hacked by government by forcing it to be serviced by third parties.

Dylan16807 9y ago
> What would a tablet with a user replaceable battery look like? https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability It looks about the same as any other tablet, but with non-fragile latches holding it shut and no glue anywhere. > If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that sufficient? No, the consumer should be able to replace the battery every few years and keep using it for over a decade, assuming a typical situation where nothing else breaks.
macawfish 9y ago
Apple's marketing material reads like an anti-sustainability manifesto.
ksk 9y ago
>Hell some of it reads like an anti-Apple manifesto being that they integrate battery and LED and such. Maybe because you are unfamiliar with other companies that do the same? Recently the little magnet on my 5-6 year old iPad that holds the case has become weak. The ipad itself, works great. Its already out of warranty and it doesn't take a genius to popup open a case and put a new magnet in (instructions to do so are already on ifixit). But the supply of parts is intentionally prohibited by Apple, making such simple repairs impossible. While this regulation is addressing a different issue, citizens should be doing much more to penalize such anti-consumer behavior.

odabaxok 9y ago

I agree with this too. I always try to repair things first and then replace them if necessary (even if it is a torn shirt or backpack, a broken zipper on a shoe or broken connector on a laptop). Also, I try to buy things which are durable, but a lot of times it is hard to tell what will be durable so I go with the pricier option hoping it will last longer. This is not always true, especially for shoes and clothing, but in electronics too. The problem is when someone looks for reviews, they only find reviews of new models, but there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years without breaking. Do you guys know about such a site? Or something similar? I am always thinking about starting such website, which would provide reviews for older things, so there would be chronological ratings and we would see which brands make quality products and which of them not. ...but that would need a lot of input data to be useful and I am not sure how could this be started. Or even if this would be useful for others or only I am concerned with this. What do you guys think about this?

steadicat 9y ago
Sounds like you’re looking for https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/
pmontra 9y ago
> there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years without breaking. The problem is the X years. For electronics that website would be almost useless. I could tell you about the failure modes of my past laptops and phones but would you buy a discontinued product? At best you could hope that newer products of the same brand fixed some of the problems of the past ones and didn't add new issues. The same applies to most goods because they are replaced by new models yearly or faster.
- odabaxok 9y ago
  Yes, it is hard to tell if a new product will last and for them it is useless, but such website could tell which brands are more trusty in this manner.
- mark-r 9y ago

roceasta 9y ago

Perhaps I'm being naive, but how about reducing sales tax ('VAT' in UK) for items which come with long guarantee periods? So sale of a washing machine with a 10 year guarantee would be taxed at 5% instead of 10%, or similar. Wouldn't this give manufacturers an incentive to make more durable products?

twii 9y ago

Finally.. Although I am not optimistic about seeing results soon. Companies will go to extremes to circumvent such rules. But it's shocking to see their lack of insight: > software should be easier to repair and update ROFL!

moo360 9y ago
Well this is the same people who gave you the cookie law.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Why ROFL? Fixing bugs is essentially repairing software, isn't it? And it seems perfectly reasonable to me that if I buy some software, I should be able to "repair" any defects in it.

forinti 9y ago

I recently changed the display on my Kobo Touch and was appalled at what I found inside it. The battery is glued to the case and the wires are soldered to the board. The display is also glued to the case (I had to break the original display into bits in order to take it out). The whole thing was designed to be disposable. This just seems wrong. It's unfair to the customer and bad for the environment.

handzhiev 9y ago

When I read about yet another EU regulation of this kind I always remember the cookie law :/

miracle2k 9y ago
I want to write some comment to agree with you, but I can't find the words the express my frustration with the cookie thing. It beggars belief.
- corney91 9y ago
  I think the idea's reasonable but it was implemented wrongly by everyone, making it stupid. The aim was to stop unnecessary tracking, not all tracking. See the list of exempt cookies here: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm

thiagooffm 9y ago

I agree. I live in the EU and bought a washing machine for 450 eur. After 1 year and 2 months a big hole in the Drum appeared and this makes it flood my apartment. LG wants 530 eur to fix it, so obviously not worth it. My parents had 2 washing machines in their whole life, in contrast...

driverdan 9y ago
If this was a concern for you why didn't you buy a more expensive washing machine that has a longer warranty and a reputation for quality? These things exist but they cost more. Consumers need to be willing to put money where their mouth is.
- izacus 9y ago
  450EUR is an expensive washing machine, they start at about 200. "Reputation" for quality won't ensure you anything and noone gives out warranty over mandatory minimum enforced by law.
  - lhnz 9y ago
    Miele [0] give a 10 year guarantee on their washing machines. [0] https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-warranty-included-on-selected-washing-machines-3138.htm https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-wa...
- realusername 9y ago
  It's starting to be difficult to differentiate "good quality and expensive" from "bad quality and expensive".
miracle2k 9y ago
You should have a two year warranty in the EU: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...

thinkfurther 9y ago

Why can't we have economies that can be stable without the sky falling, can grow when wanted, and shrink when needed without a cascade of catastrophies? Can't we? It's a honest question, I have no clue. Because I also think this is a great idea too, but everything else being the same, the general insanity being the same, something else will probably give. On the other hand, if we did have this hypothetical more flexible economic system, making things well instead of hustling and externalizing costs might come as a lasting side effect of that.

freehunter 9y ago
That would take central planning. The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high, and can't force businesses to close or merge when there are inefficiencies in the market. A capitalist economic system is inherently reactionary: someone notices a demand and creates supply for it. Someone tries their hardest to keep their business open even with low demand, right up until the point where they fail catastrophically. The drive to do better than everyone else is what keeps our economy afloat, but it also sometimes runs competitors out of business. We can have an economy that is stable and fair for everyone with no winners or losers. But people have been trained against socialism and communism for so many years, it'd be a very tough sell. The only way to have an economy flex responsively is if the government is a central planning agency for businesses.
- mrkrab 9y ago
  >The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high It does all the time, no? At least here, town halls give stupid jobs to people when unemployment is too high. Obviously, the results are catastrofic.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    There are notable exceptions (like the New Deal) but it's not a really widespread program. The government can certainly give people jobs, but they're either filling existing demand (like Manpower-type headhunters) or they're creating demand through government work (like road construction). It's not like Soviet Russia where the government can open a new plant and put people to work there producing private-market goods and then shut it down when supply gets too big.

driverdan 9y ago

> 77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new ones This is most likely a misleading stat. You can repair most things if you're willing to spend the money or time to do it. Many consumer goods cost more to repair than it's worth. No one is going to do that.

makapuf 9y ago
It can be made way simpler and faster if optimized for this. Products are designed for being cheap to buy, not cheap to use.

perfectstorm 9y ago

I agree. We need something like this in the US. By law, electronic products sold in EU carries 2yrs warranty and I always wondered why U.S has only 1yr warranty. I can think of an incident where my laptop crapped out right after a year of purchase but the manufacturer was nice enough to repair it for free. With phones running $800+ nowadays, i would expect it to last longer (3yrs min.) like a laptop.

boobsbr 9y ago
My HTC One M7 is 4 years old now, and still works perfectly. Battery life is not awesome but still lasts a full day with light 4G usage. I don't get software updates anymore, but that isn't an issue for me. I know that when the battery dies for good, or if the display shatters, I probably won't have a way to repair it, and that is bad because I really don't need a new phone. Availability and cost of spare parts, and ease of repair should be major decision factors for people buying electronics. It already is the case for cars.

rebootthesystem 9y ago

As I read through some of the comments on this thread what jumped out at me is that products today are designed with DFM in mind rather than DFR. Design for Manufacturing vs. Design for Repairs. Industrial products are different. There's a class of product that must be designed for easy maintenance. Not so in consumer-land. For example, to replace some of the lights on a BMW you have to remove the front bumper. Crazy.

based2 9y ago

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...

coldcode 9y ago

You can call for anything, however it will happen only if it makes economic sense to manufacturers, sellers and customers.

DannyB2 9y ago

From TFA: "if a repair takes longer than a month, the guarantee should be extended to match the repair time," Uh, no. That will insure that repairs always take 29 days, except in february where they will take 27 daze. Simply always extend the guarantee by the amount of any repair time.

Noos 9y ago

The EU will have fun then with much more expensive consumer goods, and businesses keeping flagship lines of products out of them for sale. More likely this is just another tax increase worded as "consumer protection." No business will really design products based on government say, but will just raises prices to cover whatever penalty fee they issue.

NTDF9 9y ago

The solution is metered trash/pollution for everyone. The more you throw away, the more you pay. The more waste you produce, the more you pay. The more you harm the environment, the more you pay. This will incentivize individuals to throw less away, hence buy less and seek more durable products.

legulere 9y ago

They can start by changing the warranty regulations [1] to be valid 10 years instead of a ridiculous two years. [1]: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...