6 ms·

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 sc

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?
      - mbrock 9y ago
        Depends on the systematicity and avoidability of the accidents, I would say. Negligence is different from manslaughter, but it seems like a spectrum.
etix 9y ago
> 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. Absolutely. Smartphones are the best example, the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  > the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly. Or, alternatively, the (practically) mandatory updates make the previously perfectly fine phone slow to the point of being unusable. I'm saying that the updates are practically mandatory because if you don't apply them, your apps gradually stop working (as they cannot talk to their respective server backends, which are being updated without maintaining backcompat) - and of course, the current version of the app requires the current(ish) version of iOS. This all amounts to an engineered obsolescence of millions of perfectly good phones.
  - logingone 9y ago
    Or, alternatively, last night my (untampered) phone got bricked by an ota update.
- oever 9y ago
  Agreed. Software and hardware should be sold separately.
  - briandear 9y ago
    How does that work? Computers would be sold without operating systems? Good luck pitching that idea.
    - xxs 9y ago
      Technically that works when you assemble one yourself and en-masse won't make any sense.
    - 9y ago
xxs 9y ago
>>I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. And the beauty of glue would be everywhere. Glue is such a great engineering tool, easy to apply and no need to worry about repairs ever. I like repairing my stuff...
briandear 9y ago
A law requiring a particular material? Unless it’s health or safety related, no way. The last place I want to see government is regulating how a product must be constructed (unless it’s health or safety critical obviously.) If you want a device without plastic screw holes, pay more money and find one or make one yourself, market it and sell it to other like-minded people. If I have a toaster that breaks, the time it would take me to go to a repair shop is more valuable to me than the cost of a new toaster – not to mention the cost of the repair itself. In China, you often do get smaller appliances repaired because the labor cost is so low. So it makes economic sense to get those kinds of items repaired. But in France, if I want to get a microwave fixed, the item is either still under warranty or the depreciated value is less than the repair cost. Perhaps if government lowered taxes and relaxed the labor code, then repair shops could charge less and it would incentivize people to get repairs on smaller ticket items rather than buying replacements. But I certainly am not going to spend €65 getting a €150 microwave repaired when the microwave is already several years old. I migh spend €20 for that repair if I really liked the microwave. I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be used. The increase cost wouldn’t even be in materials as much as the buereaucratic cost of implementing such requirements. Health and safety regulations – of course. Regulations because you’re unhappy with screw holes? Not a chance.
- reacweb 9y ago
  For health, it is not so obvious: see the scandal of epipen.
- xxs 9y ago
  The electronics could have a 'repairability' rating similar to energy-efficiency one. Otherwise there is no feasible way to know what's the build quality before opening it yourself.
  - shabble 9y ago
    Generalising and mandating some sort of 'star rating' + notes along the lines of the ifixit Repairability Score[1] system would be a good first step. AIUI, for products marketed in the US there are often internal photographs & other documentation (e.g, a totally random example product I found with one of the FCC ID search engines: https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900 https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900) Having some semi-standardised set of robustness and repairability criteria and requiring that businesses publish an evaluation of their products against the criteria would at least allow people to get some idea of the 'build quality' or other potential decisionmaking info before buying. Of course, it would be easy for unscrupulous product manufacturers to find ways to game the evaluations, or just outright lie, so you need some teeth to the rules if caught. And on the other hand, you're imposing further regulatory burdens on those producing new products, increasing costs and maybe time to market. So there are definitely downsides. Balancing everything and making it useful without being burdensome is the real problem. As an afterthought, even if you look inside one instance of a product, there isn't any degree of certainty that if you buy an (externally) identical, matching model number/SKU, it will be the same. Some regulatory system that actually required version-numbering, or different model-numbering on non-trivial changes would be useful, especially if combined with some obligation to record/announce those version releases, maybe even with some actual change notes. [1] https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability
F_r_k 9y ago
À better law would be something around: "devices should be made so that they can be taken apart and reassembled at least n times". That would discourage copious amounts or glue and still let the engineers use the methods they want.

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?
    - mbrock 9y ago
      Depends on the systematicity and avoidability of the accidents, I would say. Negligence is different from manslaughter, but it seems like a spectrum.

etix 9y ago

> 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. Absolutely. Smartphones are the best example, the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly.

taway_1212 9y ago
> the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly. Or, alternatively, the (practically) mandatory updates make the previously perfectly fine phone slow to the point of being unusable. I'm saying that the updates are practically mandatory because if you don't apply them, your apps gradually stop working (as they cannot talk to their respective server backends, which are being updated without maintaining backcompat) - and of course, the current version of the app requires the current(ish) version of iOS. This all amounts to an engineered obsolescence of millions of perfectly good phones.
- logingone 9y ago
  Or, alternatively, last night my (untampered) phone got bricked by an ota update.
oever 9y ago
Agreed. Software and hardware should be sold separately.
- briandear 9y ago
  How does that work? Computers would be sold without operating systems? Good luck pitching that idea.
  - xxs 9y ago
    Technically that works when you assemble one yourself and en-masse won't make any sense.
  - 9y ago

xxs 9y ago

>>I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. And the beauty of glue would be everywhere. Glue is such a great engineering tool, easy to apply and no need to worry about repairs ever. I like repairing my stuff...

briandear 9y ago

A law requiring a particular material? Unless it’s health or safety related, no way. The last place I want to see government is regulating how a product must be constructed (unless it’s health or safety critical obviously.) If you want a device without plastic screw holes, pay more money and find one or make one yourself, market it and sell it to other like-minded people. If I have a toaster that breaks, the time it would take me to go to a repair shop is more valuable to me than the cost of a new toaster – not to mention the cost of the repair itself. In China, you often do get smaller appliances repaired because the labor cost is so low. So it makes economic sense to get those kinds of items repaired. But in France, if I want to get a microwave fixed, the item is either still under warranty or the depreciated value is less than the repair cost. Perhaps if government lowered taxes and relaxed the labor code, then repair shops could charge less and it would incentivize people to get repairs on smaller ticket items rather than buying replacements. But I certainly am not going to spend €65 getting a €150 microwave repaired when the microwave is already several years old. I migh spend €20 for that repair if I really liked the microwave. I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be used. The increase cost wouldn’t even be in materials as much as the buereaucratic cost of implementing such requirements. Health and safety regulations – of course. Regulations because you’re unhappy with screw holes? Not a chance.

reacweb 9y ago
For health, it is not so obvious: see the scandal of epipen.
xxs 9y ago
The electronics could have a 'repairability' rating similar to energy-efficiency one. Otherwise there is no feasible way to know what's the build quality before opening it yourself.
- shabble 9y ago
  Generalising and mandating some sort of 'star rating' + notes along the lines of the ifixit Repairability Score[1] system would be a good first step. AIUI, for products marketed in the US there are often internal photographs & other documentation (e.g, a totally random example product I found with one of the FCC ID search engines: https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900 https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900) Having some semi-standardised set of robustness and repairability criteria and requiring that businesses publish an evaluation of their products against the criteria would at least allow people to get some idea of the 'build quality' or other potential decisionmaking info before buying. Of course, it would be easy for unscrupulous product manufacturers to find ways to game the evaluations, or just outright lie, so you need some teeth to the rules if caught. And on the other hand, you're imposing further regulatory burdens on those producing new products, increasing costs and maybe time to market. So there are definitely downsides. Balancing everything and making it useful without being burdensome is the real problem. As an afterthought, even if you look inside one instance of a product, there isn't any degree of certainty that if you buy an (externally) identical, matching model number/SKU, it will be the same. Some regulatory system that actually required version-numbering, or different model-numbering on non-trivial changes would be useful, especially if combined with some obligation to record/announce those version releases, maybe even with some actual change notes. [1] https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability

F_r_k 9y ago

À better law would be something around: "devices should be made so that they can be taken apart and reassembled at least n times". That would discourage copious amounts or glue and still let the engineers use the methods they want.