17 ms·

EU is also working on mandatory two year expected lifetime on many products. As in, if a product is in a category expected to last more than two years (eg most

EU is also working on mandatory two year expected lifetime on many products. As in, if a product is in a category expected to last more than two years (eg most products except perishable items), if it breaks down through no fault of the consumer, the producer will have to fix or replace it. This extends beyond whatever guarantees/warranties provided by the producers. I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.

hvidgaard 9y ago
I think there is a middle ground here. I'm okay with items lasting at least 2 with 3 expected as long as it is repairable by third parties without OEM parts. So they'd have to release schematics ect. There is 0 reason I should not be able to replace seals and motors in my washing machine, and the electronics should last 20 years or more. Unless of course it is engineered it to fail and they should just release schematics so an independend shop can replace the crappy parts with something more durable.
jackvalentine 9y ago
An option is to include a 'reasonableness' test like is in the Australian Consumer Law[1]. 1) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
wyager 9y ago
I think this is bad. Sometimes I want a cheap Chinese piece of crap that breaks in 3 months because I only need to use it one or two times. I shouldn't be forced to shell out for a high-quality BIFL model if that doesn't correspond to my needs.
- purplethinking 9y ago
  This type of legislation is not about you, it's about the environment. Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.
  - wyager 9y ago
    If you think cheap Chinese gizmos are even worth our consideration over environmental concerns, you're looking in entirely ways the wrong place. Heavy industry, food production, and transport are vastly more significant targets.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I'd love to see some numbers. Given that cheap Chinese gizmos seem to form most of non-food purchases people make, and that they require intercontinental transport, I'd say their footprint is not insignificant.
      - shoo 9y ago
        From the late David JC MacKay's book "sustainable energy: without the hot air" [1] we have the following estimates for per-capita energy consumption in the UK: all units are kWh/d * "defence": 4 * transporting stuff: 12 * stuff: 48+ * food, farming, fertilizer: 15 * gadgets: 5 * light: 4 * heating, cooling: 37 * jet flights: 30 * car: 40 the "stuff" category is the energy required to manufacture stuff, including gadgets, houses, cars, roads, washing machines, newspapers, drink containers, computers, etc. note that the energy cost of house construction is estimated at 1 kWh/d per person, while the cost of a new car with a 15 year lifespan is 14 kWh/d, the ignoring energy to run it. The combined energy cost of stuff and stuff transports is the biggest impact on the list. although arguably the car is the worst offender if you account for the energy cost of the stuff lifecycle and the energy costs to oeprate it. The estimated energy cost of manufacturing a car with a 15 year lifespan accounts for 14kWh/day of the 48+ kWh/day "stuff" estimate, so if the use of a car was replaced with a magical transport device that required no energy to manufacture or run or dispose of, that would eliminate 14kWh/day from "stuff" and also eliminate the 40 kWh/day car operational energy cost too. [1] - https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/
      - wyager 9y ago
        Shoo posted some hard figures, but I'd like to add that intercontinental product transport by boat is incredibly efficient.
- pjc50 9y ago
  And what do you do with the broken thing once you're done with it? What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing? Longer-lived more durable products might also be amenable to app-based rental ""sharing economy"", for people who don't want to keep the thing.
  - wyager 9y ago
    > What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing? What quantity went into the more expensive version I'm forced to buy so some upper-class do-gooder can satisfy their sense of moral superiority? If you think that "questionable labour" is a problem, fix that directly instead of making vaguely related warranty regulations. I'd be perfectly happy with efforts to make the price of items more closely match their total cost including externalities, but piecemeal regulation of warranty policy is not the way to do that.
    - yesbabyyes 9y ago
      Likely about the same amount, don't you think? Obviously, over the product's lifetime one could imagine there's a big difference, which is likely the point. It may well be worse for the cheaper one, as they have to cut costs somewhere - e.g. Apple recently announced they would move to use recycled rare-earth minerals only, and stop buying from war zones. Which is obviously the way it should be, right? It's just that there are things we still haven't solved when it comes to conflicts, business, government and industry, leading to all of us here walking around with minerals mined by hand, by children, at gunpoint. Now, if we want to change this, regulation has proved to be a workable way. As you hint, there are surely others and I hope we can pursue them as soon as possible! With the current regime in the US, change likely won't come from that way in a while, so I'm glad to see the EU making progress. (Also, you're coming across as slightly entitled with the aggressive tone when saying you want the world to keep an unworkable production system just because it's convenient to you.)
      - wyager 9y ago
        Movement in the wrong direction just for the sake of movement isn't "progress". Mandatory warranty periods are simply bad economics, and it's not hard to see that this will go wrong for the reasons I mentioned (and more). Please expound on how disposable goods are "unworkable". If I'm coming across as entitled, it's because I'm very tired of people directly and noticeably harming my quality of life for the sake of trivial (and often counterproductive) environmental benefits. I shouldn't have to break the law (but I do have to) to have a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. If you aren't familiar with the ways "progressive" little environmental regulations in the US have fucked up all of those things to negligible environmental benefit, I'd be happy to explain any of them.
- danielostling 9y ago
  Mother Earth just cried a bit there.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Nope, Mother Earth doesn't care. She's not going anywhere. We are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
- skrause 9y ago
  Did you know that you can sell products you no longer need instead of throwing them into the trash? Or just rent it if you only need it one or two times?
  - wyager 9y ago
    If that were worth my time, I would do it. The environmental cost of a Chinese gizmo is negligible compared to the loss of utility associated with having to rent a USB stick or some nail clippers. We don't have to live like we're in the Middle Ages.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      You can work around that disutility in various ways; meanwhile, environmental costs are additive and will come back to bite us hard. Personally, I'd be much more in favour of "disposable economy" (because of those utility costs you mention) if I could trust that all of the trash actually gets recycled into further products.
    - m_eiman 9y ago
      Instead of throwing the things away you could donate them to charity. Let someone else use or sell the stuff.
      - wyager 9y ago
        I do, if it's convenient. Traveling 60 miles to Goodwill also has a cost (direct and environmental).
        LeifCarrotson 9y ago
        Where could you possibly live that it's 60 miles to the nearest secondhand store (or rather, what's the fraction of people that live similarly far from them)? I have four Goodwills within 25 miles of me, plus a bunch of secondhand clothing botiques, flea markets, a couple Salvation Armies and a Habitat ReStore.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jrimbault 9y ago
  Makes me think of the late Terry Pratchett's "Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice". FYI and TLDR: you're spending more money than you should by using this method. (and wasting resources, but that doesn't seem to hold weight against you) (edit: yes i'm aware this from a fantasy book, but there's also actual evidence behind it as well, even if presented in a humoristic way)
  - wyager 9y ago
    You do realize that the disc world books aren't actually economics research papers, yes? Perhaps this is the level of economic background I should expect from internet commenters. The quoted theory might be relevant if I were using my e.g. USB drives to exhaustion (and sometimes I do, and I buy the nice SSD drives), but sometimes I only need to use them once or twice, and buying a high-quality drive would be a waste.
    - mason240 9y ago
      >You do realize that the disc world books aren't actually economics research papers, yes? Based on your downvotes, it seems that people on HN think that fiction can prove economic theory.
      - soundwave106 9y ago
        I personally consider Terry Pratchett's quote as a rather elegant way of explaining one aspect of a "poverty trap", a concept which is well known in economics.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    The whole point of that theory was that it was based around a product you use a lot, and have to replace sooner. If you use something 20 times, you don't care whether it breaks after 100 uses or 1000 uses.
skrause 9y ago
Is there any plan to improve the current EU laws on products guarantees? Because the current one has a big problem: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/faq/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar... "The legal guarantee is valid for a period of two years throughout the EU. But there are certain conditions. [...] Any fault that appears within six months will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The seller must then repair or replace your phone free of charge - or reimburse you if repairs or replacement are impossible. [...] After six months, you can still hold the seller responsible for any defects during the full two-year guarantee period. However, if the seller contests this, you must be able to prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery. This is often difficult, and you will probably have to involve a technical expert." Because of the burden-of-proof condition it's basically only a 6 months guarantee instead of 2 years. Countries may improve these conditions and I think some countries like the UK actually do. This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible.
- wjnc 9y ago
  Other institutions help consumers in this respect. Consumer organizations, collective claims and legal assistance insurance come to mind. The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum. I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    And how many people are going to involve some third parties instead of just tossing the item and buying a new one?
patrickaljord 9y ago
> I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum. Are you aware this will make everything way more expensive? Why don't they let people who care about extra warranty pay the premium and let the rest of us who don't care about it avoid the fee and pay cheaper. How about we let willing adults contract freely with each others instead of using the force of law and guns to force people into contracts governments think are better for us because we're too dumb to know better what's good for us and what to do with our own money? Crazy thoughts I know.
- akie 9y ago
  Because of the tragedy of the commons [1], which is hard to solve without a third-party (i.e. the government) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
  - patrickaljord 9y ago
    From your own link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Non-governmental_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Non-gov...
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Like that link says, such systems mostly work when the commons are restricted to a small and stable local community, which can use a strong social network to manage it. It doesn't work that well on a large scale like a country. Still, if you have some specific suggestions to avoid this legislation, I'd honestly very much like to hear them.
    - tangent128 9y ago
      > A final condition is that there be appropriate community-based rules and procedures in place with built-in incentives for responsible use and punishments for overuse. This is just a government by another name.
agumonkey 9y ago
Funny timing, yesterday we moved a fridge from some neighbor to an old lady house. As we take her old heavy fridge out to make some room; she giggled '60 years old fridge...'. I was shocked by that figure. That thing ran for 60 years. 60. Planned obsolescence made people sad they couldn't have 20 yo appliances .. but 60. When that thing left the store my mother was a few months old.
- richthegeek 9y ago
  That fridge is a survivor by definition. It may even be the last surviving fridge of that type. There may have been 10,000 similar fridges once upon a time, but how many of them broke within the first year? How many of them lasted 10 years?
  - sametmax 9y ago
    How many fridges of any model sold since the 90' survived 15 years or more ? My grandma fridge was 30 years old. So yeah 60 years is an exception, but one that could just not happen today.
    - Inconel 9y ago
      Speaking of fridges, they along with other large appliances, seem like the perfect products for repair rather than replacement. I imagine that most fridges that stop working do so because of the cooling system. Yet fridges, especially the higher end ones I see in stores, have a ton of large, precision machined metal pieces. The same can be said for washers/dryers. It seems like such a shame to throw something like that out when the cooling or motor breaks down. Edit: I went to an antiques market in Long Beach a few months ago and there was a vendor displaying meticulously restored, and fully functional, fridges from the 50s-60s along with similar era stoves and ranges. They were fairly expensive, I assume the resto work is quite labor intensive, and since the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen, but it was great to see them continuing to function.
      - 9y ago
pizza234 9y ago
> I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum. It's not so easy. You (or a generic user) would expect "5 years minimum", but at the same time would also expect no increase in price. Using as reference insurances on home appliances, extension to 5 years is around the lines of 15%, which is a lot. I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but I think it's a complex subject. Right to repair is for example another take on the the problem (I'm not arguing it's better or worse), as the increase in price wouldn't trickle down to consumers who don't want it.
- shoo 9y ago
  if the price of the good includes the cost of proper disposal/recycling/environmental impact of the good, and this proper disposal/recycling actually happens (unlike e.g. many CRT monitors in the US), then I think that other regulation around product lifespans probably isn't needed and allowing consumers to decide based on price is fine. but if those costs aren't correctly accounted for in the price then being able to choose a "low priced thing" is just pushing the clean up costs onto society. that said, people who have historically gotten a benefit and pushed costs on to third parties will of course probably be unhappy about a change that forces them to pay for the costs. see also: capitalism generally, climate change.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  You don't have to give up on price: there are other areas in which sacrifices could be made. You could give up some model churn, lowering actual costs by using the same parts in many model years. It's hard enough to maintain parts inventory in an automotive repair context, and there's just not enough money in the devices to sustain a similar level of complexity in appliance repair. You could sacrifice some compactness, using interchangeable brackets and larger assemblies that connect together with fasteners instead of custom-molded brackets and glued-up assemblies that can only be assembled, never disassembled. These might be more expensive for a single model, but over several years economies of scale would catch up. Finally, you could make these replacement parts available at home improvement stores and at the same retailers that sell the devices, instead of through distribution chains only usable by licensed professionals. I was able to repair my furnace this winter when the exhaust blower failed (and my AC when the capacitor failed) because I could buy the part I needed on Amazon with next-day shipping. I had the day off, and was willing to drive around, but on calling 12 different places within an hour I found none that would sell the parts to me. And just a visit for a quote would have cost more and taken more time than shipping the failed component from Amazon. The manufacturers would prefer that you buy an entire new appliance from them, and have made decisions which harm the environment and harm consumers, but benefit them. Regulation is required.
andmarios 9y ago
Washing machine, television, fridge, sure, 5 years minimum should be mandatory I think. For smartphones I would stay at the current 2 years requirement though. A phone stays most of the time on a person, which is one of the most harsh conditions if you think about it.
- Drakim 9y ago
  If you ask me there should be a 5 year minimum on security software patches for smartphones. As it is now, it's as if a huge portion of the mobile world is still running "windows 98".
  - bluGill 9y ago
    I would say there should be a lifetime security warranty on all software. If you have a machine running Windows 98 Microsoft should still be providing security fixes. Note that this is just security, all other bugs are on you, as are device drivers. I'm fine with saying that Windows 3.1 wasn't designed to be connected to the internet (it wasn't) so they are doing nothing. I recently got a recall notice from GM for a 13 year old car - they found a safety problem and it needs to be fixed even though the rest of the warranty ran out about 10 years ago.
    - Sargos 9y ago
      That's not fair to the manufacturer. No company on Earth can fix security holes in every version of their software that's ever been released. It would take a small nation's GDP to do that. Even Linux doesn't fix security holes in old versions of the kernel. What this would cause is for there to be one "product" such as "Windows" that Microsoft keeps up to date forever. They release patches and you apply them. The version never changes and everyone's machine is running the same product, but some of them are out of date and could be updated easily via Windows Update.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        > That's not fair to the manufacturer. No company on Earth can fix security holes in every version of their software that's ever been released. It would take a small nation's GDP to do that. Even Linux doesn't fix security holes in old versions of the kernel. That’s their problem then. EDIT: It’s not acceptable for consumers, especially in an age of "smart things" where their toilet, car, or in the next few years, even their house/apartment might fail, stop working, be infected by ransomware, etc due to missing security updates. At least if you sell software for Smart Things, you should have to put the source code in an escrow, and it would be published as soon as you stop supporting it.
jpalomaki 9y ago
Have been wondering if these consumer protection things also extend to software side. For example is a mobile phone or Internet router considered broken, if the software contains critical security problem for which no patch exists? I believe the answer should be yes, but not sure how courts and consumer protection officials view this thing. If they would go with defining security bugs as defects, this would have implications for example to IoT security. This would create more incentives for manufacturers to focus on security and figure out how to patch the products that are out there.
- d8421l01vv4r 9y ago
  > Have been wondering if these consumer protection things also extend to software side. For example is a mobile phone or Internet router considered broken, if the software contains critical security problem for which no patch exists? Would you consider your front door broken if it is vulnerable to being opened with a screwdriver? What about a wine glass that breaks unless you aren't extremely careful when washing it? In my opinion it depends on how it was marketed.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  This might also increase the price for a lot of this stuff. I bought a router for my mother in law for £30, you don't get much after sales support for £30.
- maaaats 9y ago
  In Norway, people got to turni their Playstation when they removed the ability to run Linux, as it no longer worked as advertised.
flexie 9y ago
We have had a related rule in the EU for a decade and a half: If a consumer buys an item from a professional, and the consumer complaints about a defect within the first 6 months from the purchase, then the assumption is that the defect was already there when the item was purchased. So in other words, the burden of proof is on the seller to show that the defect was not already there when the item was bought. See article 5(3) in this directive from 1999: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999L0044 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:319... I think it has worked really well. This kind of rules are a great innovation in consumer law since they make it really easy for companies to know what they "are up against".
lefstathiou 9y ago
I'm a bit worried about the unintended consequences of this. Prices will definitely go up which isn't a bad thing if you can afford it and there will be consolidation of manufacturing on the margin. Laws like this sound nice but they almost always restrict choice and make it harder for new entrants to enter the market.
- temp1245 9y ago
  Well, it should also create higher quality, more skilled work force, less waste, etc etc.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  Are you sure? The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost. We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.
  - lefstathiou 9y ago
    No, I am not sure to be honest. Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc. There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I'm not sure about it either, but I think the cost increase would be at least partially eaten by savings of companies developing further the more durability/repair-friendly business models. > This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
The problem is that two years is worse than what we already have in Norway so if it is harmonised we will lose out. If they set a minimum instead that would be better. At the moment brown goods (TV, computer, etc.) and white goods (fridge, washing machine and the like) are expected to last at least five years here.
- chki 9y ago
  Consumer protection in the EU generally follows the minimum approach, meaning that every state may implement higher standards and the EU wide standard is only the necessary minimum of protection. This would probably be the case with this new idea as well (at least I don't see a reason why it shouldn't).
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Why is a TV brown and a fridge white? Never heard that kind of lingo before, it's weird ;)
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I'm not familiar with the "brown goods" term but I imagine it dates to when televisions with CRTs were typically housed in wood-paneled furniture while kitchen and washing appliances were typically white.
  - alephnil 9y ago
    I have never heard it in English either, and don't think it is a common term at all, but in Norwegian it is very common usage, where hvitevarer (white goods) is fridges, washing machines, dishwashers etc, and brunevarer (brown goods) are steroes, TVs etc. If you go some decades back, almost all steroes and TVs were brown (typically wood or brown plastic), while dishwashers and fridges were nearly always painted white.
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      Same here in Germany, wondered a lot in the 90s writing my first eCommerce shop and the business owners talked about brown and white ware.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JohnGB 9y ago
> ... the producer will have to fix or replace it. That's a common misconception. It's actually the seller that has to fix or replace it, not the producer. It would make a lot more sense though if it were the producer.
- chii 9y ago
  Why would/should the store be responsible? The manufacture should be the one!
  - staofbur 9y ago
    There is a benefit of abstraction here. If the manufacturer sells unreliable products that cost the retailer money then the retailer will not want to sell it. This will cause unreliable products and manufacturers to die rapidly which is a good thing for the customer and satisfaction across the board.
DoubleGlazing 9y ago
Instead of legislation that simply says that products must be repairable I would prefer to see some form of scaling "repairability tax" on purchases of consumer products. It would be based on the following... * The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched. * Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them. * Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues. * Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device. The more repairable a product is the less this tax would be, potentially dropping to zero. Crucially, the actual price of the products would play no part in the calculation. Cheap disposable Android tablets would attract the same rate that a high end smartphone would if they were equally as repairable. I'd also levy a reduced, or even zero, rate of VAT on repair services to encourage repair over replacement. I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  > * The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched. Reasonable on the surface, but what about trade secrets? * Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them. That’s reasonable. * Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues. What about when those special glues ARE needed? For example: water resistance (IP67). * Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device. The problem is that users are stupid. If you allow people to downgrade, you open them up to security holes. There’s a reason Apple doesn’t let you downgrade iOS, and it’s not money (what money do they make from preventing downgrades?), it’s security. People are gullible and could easily be tricked by some scam site to downgrade their device in order to “win”. > I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce. What about Apple? If you recycle your device through Apple, they attempt to recycle as much as they can.
  - onetokeoverthe 9y ago
    People are not stupid to downgrade. They just want to use their legacy software and familair UIs? Speaking of stupid, what hard with beefing up the code while "allowing" backward compatibility and familiar UIs?

hvidgaard 9y ago

I think there is a middle ground here. I'm okay with items lasting at least 2 with 3 expected as long as it is repairable by third parties without OEM parts. So they'd have to release schematics ect. There is 0 reason I should not be able to replace seals and motors in my washing machine, and the electronics should last 20 years or more. Unless of course it is engineered it to fail and they should just release schematics so an independend shop can replace the crappy parts with something more durable.

jackvalentine 9y ago

An option is to include a 'reasonableness' test like is in the Australian Consumer Law[1]. 1) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...

wyager 9y ago

I think this is bad. Sometimes I want a cheap Chinese piece of crap that breaks in 3 months because I only need to use it one or two times. I shouldn't be forced to shell out for a high-quality BIFL model if that doesn't correspond to my needs.

purplethinking 9y ago
This type of legislation is not about you, it's about the environment. Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.
- wyager 9y ago
  If you think cheap Chinese gizmos are even worth our consideration over environmental concerns, you're looking in entirely ways the wrong place. Heavy industry, food production, and transport are vastly more significant targets.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I'd love to see some numbers. Given that cheap Chinese gizmos seem to form most of non-food purchases people make, and that they require intercontinental transport, I'd say their footprint is not insignificant.
    - shoo 9y ago
      From the late David JC MacKay's book "sustainable energy: without the hot air" [1] we have the following estimates for per-capita energy consumption in the UK: all units are kWh/d * "defence": 4 * transporting stuff: 12 * stuff: 48+ * food, farming, fertilizer: 15 * gadgets: 5 * light: 4 * heating, cooling: 37 * jet flights: 30 * car: 40 the "stuff" category is the energy required to manufacture stuff, including gadgets, houses, cars, roads, washing machines, newspapers, drink containers, computers, etc. note that the energy cost of house construction is estimated at 1 kWh/d per person, while the cost of a new car with a 15 year lifespan is 14 kWh/d, the ignoring energy to run it. The combined energy cost of stuff and stuff transports is the biggest impact on the list. although arguably the car is the worst offender if you account for the energy cost of the stuff lifecycle and the energy costs to oeprate it. The estimated energy cost of manufacturing a car with a 15 year lifespan accounts for 14kWh/day of the 48+ kWh/day "stuff" estimate, so if the use of a car was replaced with a magical transport device that required no energy to manufacture or run or dispose of, that would eliminate 14kWh/day from "stuff" and also eliminate the 40 kWh/day car operational energy cost too. [1] - https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/
    - wyager 9y ago
      Shoo posted some hard figures, but I'd like to add that intercontinental product transport by boat is incredibly efficient.
pjc50 9y ago
And what do you do with the broken thing once you're done with it? What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing? Longer-lived more durable products might also be amenable to app-based rental ""sharing economy"", for people who don't want to keep the thing.
- wyager 9y ago
  > What quantity of conflict minerals and questionable labour went into the disposable thing? What quantity went into the more expensive version I'm forced to buy so some upper-class do-gooder can satisfy their sense of moral superiority? If you think that "questionable labour" is a problem, fix that directly instead of making vaguely related warranty regulations. I'd be perfectly happy with efforts to make the price of items more closely match their total cost including externalities, but piecemeal regulation of warranty policy is not the way to do that.
  - yesbabyyes 9y ago
    Likely about the same amount, don't you think? Obviously, over the product's lifetime one could imagine there's a big difference, which is likely the point. It may well be worse for the cheaper one, as they have to cut costs somewhere - e.g. Apple recently announced they would move to use recycled rare-earth minerals only, and stop buying from war zones. Which is obviously the way it should be, right? It's just that there are things we still haven't solved when it comes to conflicts, business, government and industry, leading to all of us here walking around with minerals mined by hand, by children, at gunpoint. Now, if we want to change this, regulation has proved to be a workable way. As you hint, there are surely others and I hope we can pursue them as soon as possible! With the current regime in the US, change likely won't come from that way in a while, so I'm glad to see the EU making progress. (Also, you're coming across as slightly entitled with the aggressive tone when saying you want the world to keep an unworkable production system just because it's convenient to you.)
    - wyager 9y ago
      Movement in the wrong direction just for the sake of movement isn't "progress". Mandatory warranty periods are simply bad economics, and it's not hard to see that this will go wrong for the reasons I mentioned (and more). Please expound on how disposable goods are "unworkable". If I'm coming across as entitled, it's because I'm very tired of people directly and noticeably harming my quality of life for the sake of trivial (and often counterproductive) environmental benefits. I shouldn't have to break the law (but I do have to) to have a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. If you aren't familiar with the ways "progressive" little environmental regulations in the US have fucked up all of those things to negligible environmental benefit, I'd be happy to explain any of them.
danielostling 9y ago
Mother Earth just cried a bit there.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Nope, Mother Earth doesn't care. She's not going anywhere. We are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
skrause 9y ago
Did you know that you can sell products you no longer need instead of throwing them into the trash? Or just rent it if you only need it one or two times?
- wyager 9y ago
  If that were worth my time, I would do it. The environmental cost of a Chinese gizmo is negligible compared to the loss of utility associated with having to rent a USB stick or some nail clippers. We don't have to live like we're in the Middle Ages.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    You can work around that disutility in various ways; meanwhile, environmental costs are additive and will come back to bite us hard. Personally, I'd be much more in favour of "disposable economy" (because of those utility costs you mention) if I could trust that all of the trash actually gets recycled into further products.
  - m_eiman 9y ago
    Instead of throwing the things away you could donate them to charity. Let someone else use or sell the stuff.
    - wyager 9y ago
      I do, if it's convenient. Traveling 60 miles to Goodwill also has a cost (direct and environmental).
      - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
        Where could you possibly live that it's 60 miles to the nearest secondhand store (or rather, what's the fraction of people that live similarly far from them)? I have four Goodwills within 25 miles of me, plus a bunch of secondhand clothing botiques, flea markets, a couple Salvation Armies and a Habitat ReStore.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jrimbault 9y ago
Makes me think of the late Terry Pratchett's "Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice". FYI and TLDR: you're spending more money than you should by using this method. (and wasting resources, but that doesn't seem to hold weight against you) (edit: yes i'm aware this from a fantasy book, but there's also actual evidence behind it as well, even if presented in a humoristic way)
- wyager 9y ago
  You do realize that the disc world books aren't actually economics research papers, yes? Perhaps this is the level of economic background I should expect from internet commenters. The quoted theory might be relevant if I were using my e.g. USB drives to exhaustion (and sometimes I do, and I buy the nice SSD drives), but sometimes I only need to use them once or twice, and buying a high-quality drive would be a waste.
  - mason240 9y ago
    >You do realize that the disc world books aren't actually economics research papers, yes? Based on your downvotes, it seems that people on HN think that fiction can prove economic theory.
    - soundwave106 9y ago
      I personally consider Terry Pratchett's quote as a rather elegant way of explaining one aspect of a "poverty trap", a concept which is well known in economics.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  The whole point of that theory was that it was based around a product you use a lot, and have to replace sooner. If you use something 20 times, you don't care whether it breaks after 100 uses or 1000 uses.

skrause 9y ago

Is there any plan to improve the current EU laws on products guarantees? Because the current one has a big problem: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/faq/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar... "The legal guarantee is valid for a period of two years throughout the EU. But there are certain conditions. [...] Any fault that appears within six months will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The seller must then repair or replace your phone free of charge - or reimburse you if repairs or replacement are impossible. [...] After six months, you can still hold the seller responsible for any defects during the full two-year guarantee period. However, if the seller contests this, you must be able to prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery. This is often difficult, and you will probably have to involve a technical expert." Because of the burden-of-proof condition it's basically only a 6 months guarantee instead of 2 years. Countries may improve these conditions and I think some countries like the UK actually do. This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible.

wjnc 9y ago
Other institutions help consumers in this respect. Consumer organizations, collective claims and legal assistance insurance come to mind. The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum. I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.
- adrianN 9y ago
  And how many people are going to involve some third parties instead of just tossing the item and buying a new one?

patrickaljord 9y ago

> I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum. Are you aware this will make everything way more expensive? Why don't they let people who care about extra warranty pay the premium and let the rest of us who don't care about it avoid the fee and pay cheaper. How about we let willing adults contract freely with each others instead of using the force of law and guns to force people into contracts governments think are better for us because we're too dumb to know better what's good for us and what to do with our own money? Crazy thoughts I know.

akie 9y ago
Because of the tragedy of the commons [1], which is hard to solve without a third-party (i.e. the government) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- patrickaljord 9y ago
  From your own link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Non-governmental_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Non-gov...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Like that link says, such systems mostly work when the commons are restricted to a small and stable local community, which can use a strong social network to manage it. It doesn't work that well on a large scale like a country. Still, if you have some specific suggestions to avoid this legislation, I'd honestly very much like to hear them.
  - tangent128 9y ago
    > A final condition is that there be appropriate community-based rules and procedures in place with built-in incentives for responsible use and punishments for overuse. This is just a government by another name.

agumonkey 9y ago

Funny timing, yesterday we moved a fridge from some neighbor to an old lady house. As we take her old heavy fridge out to make some room; she giggled '60 years old fridge...'. I was shocked by that figure. That thing ran for 60 years. 60. Planned obsolescence made people sad they couldn't have 20 yo appliances .. but 60. When that thing left the store my mother was a few months old.

richthegeek 9y ago
That fridge is a survivor by definition. It may even be the last surviving fridge of that type. There may have been 10,000 similar fridges once upon a time, but how many of them broke within the first year? How many of them lasted 10 years?
- sametmax 9y ago
  How many fridges of any model sold since the 90' survived 15 years or more ? My grandma fridge was 30 years old. So yeah 60 years is an exception, but one that could just not happen today.
  - Inconel 9y ago
    Speaking of fridges, they along with other large appliances, seem like the perfect products for repair rather than replacement. I imagine that most fridges that stop working do so because of the cooling system. Yet fridges, especially the higher end ones I see in stores, have a ton of large, precision machined metal pieces. The same can be said for washers/dryers. It seems like such a shame to throw something like that out when the cooling or motor breaks down. Edit: I went to an antiques market in Long Beach a few months ago and there was a vendor displaying meticulously restored, and fully functional, fridges from the 50s-60s along with similar era stoves and ranges. They were fairly expensive, I assume the resto work is quite labor intensive, and since the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen, but it was great to see them continuing to function.
    - 9y ago

pizza234 9y ago

> I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum. It's not so easy. You (or a generic user) would expect "5 years minimum", but at the same time would also expect no increase in price. Using as reference insurances on home appliances, extension to 5 years is around the lines of 15%, which is a lot. I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but I think it's a complex subject. Right to repair is for example another take on the the problem (I'm not arguing it's better or worse), as the increase in price wouldn't trickle down to consumers who don't want it.

shoo 9y ago
if the price of the good includes the cost of proper disposal/recycling/environmental impact of the good, and this proper disposal/recycling actually happens (unlike e.g. many CRT monitors in the US), then I think that other regulation around product lifespans probably isn't needed and allowing consumers to decide based on price is fine. but if those costs aren't correctly accounted for in the price then being able to choose a "low priced thing" is just pushing the clean up costs onto society. that said, people who have historically gotten a benefit and pushed costs on to third parties will of course probably be unhappy about a change that forces them to pay for the costs. see also: capitalism generally, climate change.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
You don't have to give up on price: there are other areas in which sacrifices could be made. You could give up some model churn, lowering actual costs by using the same parts in many model years. It's hard enough to maintain parts inventory in an automotive repair context, and there's just not enough money in the devices to sustain a similar level of complexity in appliance repair. You could sacrifice some compactness, using interchangeable brackets and larger assemblies that connect together with fasteners instead of custom-molded brackets and glued-up assemblies that can only be assembled, never disassembled. These might be more expensive for a single model, but over several years economies of scale would catch up. Finally, you could make these replacement parts available at home improvement stores and at the same retailers that sell the devices, instead of through distribution chains only usable by licensed professionals. I was able to repair my furnace this winter when the exhaust blower failed (and my AC when the capacitor failed) because I could buy the part I needed on Amazon with next-day shipping. I had the day off, and was willing to drive around, but on calling 12 different places within an hour I found none that would sell the parts to me. And just a visit for a quote would have cost more and taken more time than shipping the failed component from Amazon. The manufacturers would prefer that you buy an entire new appliance from them, and have made decisions which harm the environment and harm consumers, but benefit them. Regulation is required.

andmarios 9y ago

Washing machine, television, fridge, sure, 5 years minimum should be mandatory I think. For smartphones I would stay at the current 2 years requirement though. A phone stays most of the time on a person, which is one of the most harsh conditions if you think about it.

Drakim 9y ago
If you ask me there should be a 5 year minimum on security software patches for smartphones. As it is now, it's as if a huge portion of the mobile world is still running "windows 98".
- bluGill 9y ago
  I would say there should be a lifetime security warranty on all software. If you have a machine running Windows 98 Microsoft should still be providing security fixes. Note that this is just security, all other bugs are on you, as are device drivers. I'm fine with saying that Windows 3.1 wasn't designed to be connected to the internet (it wasn't) so they are doing nothing. I recently got a recall notice from GM for a 13 year old car - they found a safety problem and it needs to be fixed even though the rest of the warranty ran out about 10 years ago.
  - Sargos 9y ago
    That's not fair to the manufacturer. No company on Earth can fix security holes in every version of their software that's ever been released. It would take a small nation's GDP to do that. Even Linux doesn't fix security holes in old versions of the kernel. What this would cause is for there to be one "product" such as "Windows" that Microsoft keeps up to date forever. They release patches and you apply them. The version never changes and everyone's machine is running the same product, but some of them are out of date and could be updated easily via Windows Update.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      > That's not fair to the manufacturer. No company on Earth can fix security holes in every version of their software that's ever been released. It would take a small nation's GDP to do that. Even Linux doesn't fix security holes in old versions of the kernel. That’s their problem then. EDIT: It’s not acceptable for consumers, especially in an age of "smart things" where their toilet, car, or in the next few years, even their house/apartment might fail, stop working, be infected by ransomware, etc due to missing security updates. At least if you sell software for Smart Things, you should have to put the source code in an escrow, and it would be published as soon as you stop supporting it.

jpalomaki 9y ago

Have been wondering if these consumer protection things also extend to software side. For example is a mobile phone or Internet router considered broken, if the software contains critical security problem for which no patch exists? I believe the answer should be yes, but not sure how courts and consumer protection officials view this thing. If they would go with defining security bugs as defects, this would have implications for example to IoT security. This would create more incentives for manufacturers to focus on security and figure out how to patch the products that are out there.

d8421l01vv4r 9y ago
> Have been wondering if these consumer protection things also extend to software side. For example is a mobile phone or Internet router considered broken, if the software contains critical security problem for which no patch exists? Would you consider your front door broken if it is vulnerable to being opened with a screwdriver? What about a wine glass that breaks unless you aren't extremely careful when washing it? In my opinion it depends on how it was marketed.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
This might also increase the price for a lot of this stuff. I bought a router for my mother in law for £30, you don't get much after sales support for £30.
maaaats 9y ago
In Norway, people got to turni their Playstation when they removed the ability to run Linux, as it no longer worked as advertised.

flexie 9y ago

We have had a related rule in the EU for a decade and a half: If a consumer buys an item from a professional, and the consumer complaints about a defect within the first 6 months from the purchase, then the assumption is that the defect was already there when the item was purchased. So in other words, the burden of proof is on the seller to show that the defect was not already there when the item was bought. See article 5(3) in this directive from 1999: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999L0044 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:319... I think it has worked really well. This kind of rules are a great innovation in consumer law since they make it really easy for companies to know what they "are up against".

lefstathiou 9y ago

I'm a bit worried about the unintended consequences of this. Prices will definitely go up which isn't a bad thing if you can afford it and there will be consolidation of manufacturing on the margin. Laws like this sound nice but they almost always restrict choice and make it harder for new entrants to enter the market.

temp1245 9y ago
Well, it should also create higher quality, more skilled work force, less waste, etc etc.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
Are you sure? The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost. We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.
- lefstathiou 9y ago
  No, I am not sure to be honest. Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc. There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I'm not sure about it either, but I think the cost increase would be at least partially eaten by savings of companies developing further the more durability/repair-friendly business models. > This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.

kwhitefoot 9y ago

The problem is that two years is worse than what we already have in Norway so if it is harmonised we will lose out. If they set a minimum instead that would be better. At the moment brown goods (TV, computer, etc.) and white goods (fridge, washing machine and the like) are expected to last at least five years here.

chki 9y ago
Consumer protection in the EU generally follows the minimum approach, meaning that every state may implement higher standards and the EU wide standard is only the necessary minimum of protection. This would probably be the case with this new idea as well (at least I don't see a reason why it shouldn't).
brianwawok 9y ago
Why is a TV brown and a fridge white? Never heard that kind of lingo before, it's weird ;)
- ghaff 9y ago
  I'm not familiar with the "brown goods" term but I imagine it dates to when televisions with CRTs were typically housed in wood-paneled furniture while kitchen and washing appliances were typically white.
- alephnil 9y ago
  I have never heard it in English either, and don't think it is a common term at all, but in Norwegian it is very common usage, where hvitevarer (white goods) is fridges, washing machines, dishwashers etc, and brunevarer (brown goods) are steroes, TVs etc. If you go some decades back, almost all steroes and TVs were brown (typically wood or brown plastic), while dishwashers and fridges were nearly always painted white.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    Same here in Germany, wondered a lot in the 90s writing my first eCommerce shop and the business owners talked about brown and white ware.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JohnGB 9y ago

> ... the producer will have to fix or replace it. That's a common misconception. It's actually the seller that has to fix or replace it, not the producer. It would make a lot more sense though if it were the producer.

chii 9y ago
Why would/should the store be responsible? The manufacture should be the one!
- staofbur 9y ago
  There is a benefit of abstraction here. If the manufacturer sells unreliable products that cost the retailer money then the retailer will not want to sell it. This will cause unreliable products and manufacturers to die rapidly which is a good thing for the customer and satisfaction across the board.

DoubleGlazing 9y ago

Instead of legislation that simply says that products must be repairable I would prefer to see some form of scaling "repairability tax" on purchases of consumer products. It would be based on the following... * The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched. * Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them. * Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues. * Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device. The more repairable a product is the less this tax would be, potentially dropping to zero. Crucially, the actual price of the products would play no part in the calculation. Cheap disposable Android tablets would attract the same rate that a high end smartphone would if they were equally as repairable. I'd also levy a reduced, or even zero, rate of VAT on repair services to encourage repair over replacement. I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.

colejohnson66 9y ago
> * The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched. Reasonable on the surface, but what about trade secrets? * Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them. That’s reasonable. * Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues. What about when those special glues ARE needed? For example: water resistance (IP67). * Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device. The problem is that users are stupid. If you allow people to downgrade, you open them up to security holes. There’s a reason Apple doesn’t let you downgrade iOS, and it’s not money (what money do they make from preventing downgrades?), it’s security. People are gullible and could easily be tricked by some scam site to downgrade their device in order to “win”. > I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce. What about Apple? If you recycle your device through Apple, they attempt to recycle as much as they can.
- onetokeoverthe 9y ago
  People are not stupid to downgrade. They just want to use their legacy software and familair UIs? Speaking of stupid, what hard with beefing up the code while "allowing" backward compatibility and familiar UIs?