3 ms·

I think you're looking at this totally wrong. Making things repairable has real costs. They have to be designed in a modular way so they can be taken apart. Gi

I think you're looking at this totally wrong. Making things repairable has real costs. They have to be designed in a modular way so they can be taken apart. Given the choice, most people want sleekness and better industrial design over the ability to repair. This is why products like the iPhone, which feature seam-less industrial design and no externally-visible screws, are so popular. In order to make something maintainable, the design must be stable, it must be designed to be serviceable, it must be built with serviceable parts, and it must have a long enough lifetime where maintenance is worth it economically, and a buyer who cares. None of these are typically true for huge segments of what consumers buy.

lambertsimnel 8y ago
I think the distinction between the right to repair and the ability to repair is important. I think you're addressing the latter and stretchwithme is addressing the former. As the article suggests, the lack of recognition for the right to repair is one of the phenomena inhibiting repair. Where the right isn't enforced, it's possible for manufacturers to make things repairable, while also imposing a monopoly on repair, thereby inflating repair costs and inhibiting (legal) repair. Please see this Vice article about tractor repair https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-americ...