3 ms·

> If none of the companies produce repairable machines that also satisfy other constraints of consumers Thats the point though. If people actually valued repai

> 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!"

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!"