4 ms·

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.
- zyx321 9y ago
  If you're willing to keep paying indefinitely to always have a working product, at a price that is economically viable for the manufacturer, are you sure you really want to buy anything? Wouldn't you much rather have a lease with option to purchase?
- TylerE 9y ago
  That isn't really reasonable. No product is expected to work _forever_. Things fail. ICs go out of production.
  - oever 9y ago
    At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or parts could be replaced. The cost of this will be reflected in the price of the warranty which also serves as a down payment for a replacement product. But still, the producer will have an incentive to do an honest assessment of the longevity of the product via the cost of the warranty. Too low will cost the company and too high will shy away the consumer.
    - undersuit 9y ago
      >At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or parts could be replaced. Some computer graphic card manufactures have a system like this. If the card fails in it's lifetime warranty they will replace the card with an equivalent or better model. One of my friends had their RMAed EVGA card upgraded even though it was 5 years old, and it wasn't to just the current performance equivalent, their $300 5 year old card was replaced with a $300 new card.
  - sly010 9y ago
    Buildings fail over time. Yet when you rent a flat you have a reasonable expectation that it won't collapse on you. Perhaps there is a good function between product age and monthly warranty cost that creates the right incentive.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

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.

zyx321 9y ago
If you're willing to keep paying indefinitely to always have a working product, at a price that is economically viable for the manufacturer, are you sure you really want to buy anything? Wouldn't you much rather have a lease with option to purchase?
TylerE 9y ago
That isn't really reasonable. No product is expected to work _forever_. Things fail. ICs go out of production.
- oever 9y ago
  At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or parts could be replaced. The cost of this will be reflected in the price of the warranty which also serves as a down payment for a replacement product. But still, the producer will have an incentive to do an honest assessment of the longevity of the product via the cost of the warranty. Too low will cost the company and too high will shy away the consumer.
  - undersuit 9y ago
    >At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or parts could be replaced. Some computer graphic card manufactures have a system like this. If the card fails in it's lifetime warranty they will replace the card with an equivalent or better model. One of my friends had their RMAed EVGA card upgraded even though it was 5 years old, and it wasn't to just the current performance equivalent, their $300 5 year old card was replaced with a $300 new card.
- sly010 9y ago
  Buildings fail over time. Yet when you rent a flat you have a reasonable expectation that it won't collapse on you. Perhaps there is a good function between product age and monthly warranty cost that creates the right incentive.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]