5 ms·

No, it would not work that way. If none of the companies produce repairable machines that also satisfy other constraints of consumers, this problem would not be

No, it would not work that way. If none of the companies produce repairable machines that also satisfy other constraints of consumers, this problem would not be satisfied by the market.

tengbretson 9y ago
> If none of the companies produce repairable machines that also satisfy other constraints of consumers Thats the point though. If people actually valued repairability, then they would elevate its importance above other constraints in their purchasing habits.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  How does one do that when there is no suitable option?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Companies do lots of focus groups and market research. If there was enough demand for repairable devices to justify it, some company would see there was an unserved niche they could serve.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      So because a small sample of people didn't show overwhelming support for it, it's not an option for anyone. Yet "vote with your money" is still touted out as a viable option? I'm not following this argument.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Just because you get a vote doesn’t mean that you get the outcome you want. If companies don’t think it’s worth the trouble to support the tiny minority of users who care about repairability, the shouldn’t have to. The government certainly shouldn’t foist that minority view on everyone through right to repair laws.
        jimktrains2 9y ago
        > Just because you get a vote doesn’t mean that you get the outcome you want. My point is I don't get a real vote because there is no option for me to vote on. > The government certainly shouldn’t foist that minority view on everyone through right to repair laws. Except it's not just what a small minority of poor people wants if the government can agree enough to pass it. Also, there are actually and real concerns about waste and resource usage that drives the want to repair rather than purchase new devices.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Sure you are. Why does every phone or car not cost $100,000? Surely if all the manufacturers acted in their obvious local-maxima best interests and jacked their prices, you'd have no choice but to take out a mortgage to get a phone. The answer is obvious: the first company to defect and charge $1000 for a phone instead would take over the entire market. What's the difference between price and features? If repairability is important to consumers, why is nobody "defecting" from the cartel of non-repairable vendors to take over the market? It's not a complicated argument.
        jimktrains2 9y ago
        > It's not a complicated argument. I love it when people end complicated arguments like this. "It's easy you dolt! Just eat your soylent and be happy!"
twblalock 9y ago
If there was a bunch of pent-up consumer demand for repairable machines, someone would eventually notice, start doing making those products, and make a lot of money.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  We can clearly see from existing markets that that is not true. There is a vast market for repairable phones that run free software and have unlockable bootloaders, but that market isn't significant enough to convince incumbent manufacturers to stop abusive wasteful practices like built-in batteries, proprietary screws, proprietary drivers and locked bootloaders. In fact, it's the abusive practice itself that constrains the free market.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    The market is "vast", yet "not significant enough" for manufacturers to take advantage of it? Doesn't sound vast to me. If the market was truly vast, someone would start targeting it by selling such products. Very few people care about free software and unlockable bootloaders on their phones. Very few people in the world even know what a bootloader is, and among those who do, very few really care about unlocking the bootloader on their phone.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Relatively few people care, yet these things still matter. These practices are still abusive. Should those of us who care about the problem - which is those of use who understand the problem - wait until a literal majority of customers complain to start solving the problem? Don't use the ideals of a free market to give corporations a free pass to abuse customers. This ideology that regulation is inherently evil and must be avoided at all costs does nothing to help the free market. It only blinds from common sense.

No, it would not work that way. If none of the companies produce repairable machines that also satisfy other constraints of consumers, this problem would not be satisfied by the market.

tengbretson 9y ago

> If none of the companies produce repairable machines that also satisfy other constraints of consumers Thats the point though. If people actually valued repairability, then they would elevate its importance above other constraints in their purchasing habits.

jimktrains2 9y ago
How does one do that when there is no suitable option?
- rayiner 9y ago
  Companies do lots of focus groups and market research. If there was enough demand for repairable devices to justify it, some company would see there was an unserved niche they could serve.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    So because a small sample of people didn't show overwhelming support for it, it's not an option for anyone. Yet "vote with your money" is still touted out as a viable option? I'm not following this argument.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Just because you get a vote doesn’t mean that you get the outcome you want. If companies don’t think it’s worth the trouble to support the tiny minority of users who care about repairability, the shouldn’t have to. The government certainly shouldn’t foist that minority view on everyone through right to repair laws.
      - jimktrains2 9y ago
        > Just because you get a vote doesn’t mean that you get the outcome you want. My point is I don't get a real vote because there is no option for me to vote on. > The government certainly shouldn’t foist that minority view on everyone through right to repair laws. Except it's not just what a small minority of poor people wants if the government can agree enough to pass it. Also, there are actually and real concerns about waste and resource usage that drives the want to repair rather than purchase new devices.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Sure you are. Why does every phone or car not cost $100,000? Surely if all the manufacturers acted in their obvious local-maxima best interests and jacked their prices, you'd have no choice but to take out a mortgage to get a phone. The answer is obvious: the first company to defect and charge $1000 for a phone instead would take over the entire market. What's the difference between price and features? If repairability is important to consumers, why is nobody "defecting" from the cartel of non-repairable vendors to take over the market? It's not a complicated argument.
      - jimktrains2 9y ago
        > It's not a complicated argument. I love it when people end complicated arguments like this. "It's easy you dolt! Just eat your soylent and be happy!"

twblalock 9y ago

If there was a bunch of pent-up consumer demand for repairable machines, someone would eventually notice, start doing making those products, and make a lot of money.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
We can clearly see from existing markets that that is not true. There is a vast market for repairable phones that run free software and have unlockable bootloaders, but that market isn't significant enough to convince incumbent manufacturers to stop abusive wasteful practices like built-in batteries, proprietary screws, proprietary drivers and locked bootloaders. In fact, it's the abusive practice itself that constrains the free market.
- twblalock 9y ago
  The market is "vast", yet "not significant enough" for manufacturers to take advantage of it? Doesn't sound vast to me. If the market was truly vast, someone would start targeting it by selling such products. Very few people care about free software and unlockable bootloaders on their phones. Very few people in the world even know what a bootloader is, and among those who do, very few really care about unlocking the bootloader on their phone.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Relatively few people care, yet these things still matter. These practices are still abusive. Should those of us who care about the problem - which is those of use who understand the problem - wait until a literal majority of customers complain to start solving the problem? Don't use the ideals of a free market to give corporations a free pass to abuse customers. This ideology that regulation is inherently evil and must be avoided at all costs does nothing to help the free market. It only blinds from common sense.