4 ms·

>no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole I love right to repair policy as much as the next man, but I don't entirely a

>no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole I love right to repair policy as much as the next man, but I don't entirely agree with this statement. Certainly from my experience in the aerospace industry where some of the hardware is 20+ years old, the company might not have produced the product for the past decade and have none of the machines/molds/designs to make the part any longer, and it's a niche item so there are no spares. In that instance, we could well be looking at paying them upwards of £20k for something like a lighting bracket which we initially bought for £500, because we're effectively paying them to buy/build the machinery, redesigned the product, and replicate said part without any of the economies of scale they had initially - and it needs to be done because otherwise instead of a £20k bracket you're looking at a full multi-million pound redesign for something as minor as an obsolete part. You can't expect people to pay stupid money to pay for spares, but likewise you can't expect businesses to keep equipment to manufacture products from decades ago for when the spares run dry, or expect them to have the gift of foresight to predict how many spares they'll need years down the line.

woliveirajr 7y ago
Ok, but even in your example your thinking in spending $20k for a $500 piece for being able to use something that costs much more than $20k. Perhaps I should made it clear in the original reply: what I expect is to own the thing I buy. And owning it means that I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including fix it using third-party suppliers. Of course, if we think of extremes, I think that SpaceX will charge much more for providing me a replacement noozle than it actually costs, but in this case we will be talking about rocket science.
- Aromasin 7y ago
  Poor example then, but I have worked with aircraft where we've paid hundreds for a bolt, which is more than the price of the thing we're fixing, just so we don't have to go through the pain of replacing the whole unit - even though it would be cheaper. Again, I don't think when it comes to spares we should expect a company to continue to support a legacy product indefinitely. I don't expect Apple to continue producing parts for the Apple 2 just in case someone sends theirs back for repairs. I'm not disagreeing with you as to your second comment, but that's not how I read your first comment at all. Something as sweeping "no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole" has so many issues with it that putting it into practice would be beyond detrimental for manufacturers.
  - woliveirajr 7y ago
    I understand you, and when I wrote the first post I was thinking on regular things, things that are (more or less) used by everybody on a regular basis. I understand that many exceptions are possible, many niche markets, many specific situations. I'm just complaining that while we have many discussion on where to dump electronic garbage, how to protect landfills from heavy metals, how to avoid so many mili- micro- nano- plastic fragments from being ingested with tap water... we also consider that programmed obsolescense is just business pratice. Not being able to repair something is ok to protect business, prevent terrorists and protect children. And in the end it's even consumer fault, because we could buy things that aren't disposable. And when we spend $300 on a printer, instead of $50, everybody assumption is that at first you bought the cheaper option. And that even $300 is the cheaper, you should have spent $500. Then everybody complains that someone else should do something concious about environment, and everybody forgets that "everybody should do something" is exactly why governments exists, are elected and legislate. Because government shouldn't be more than "everybody".

woliveirajr 7y ago

Ok, but even in your example your thinking in spending $20k for a $500 piece for being able to use something that costs much more than $20k. Perhaps I should made it clear in the original reply: what I expect is to own the thing I buy. And owning it means that I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including fix it using third-party suppliers. Of course, if we think of extremes, I think that SpaceX will charge much more for providing me a replacement noozle than it actually costs, but in this case we will be talking about rocket science.

Aromasin 7y ago
Poor example then, but I have worked with aircraft where we've paid hundreds for a bolt, which is more than the price of the thing we're fixing, just so we don't have to go through the pain of replacing the whole unit - even though it would be cheaper. Again, I don't think when it comes to spares we should expect a company to continue to support a legacy product indefinitely. I don't expect Apple to continue producing parts for the Apple 2 just in case someone sends theirs back for repairs. I'm not disagreeing with you as to your second comment, but that's not how I read your first comment at all. Something as sweeping "no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole" has so many issues with it that putting it into practice would be beyond detrimental for manufacturers.
- woliveirajr 7y ago
  I understand you, and when I wrote the first post I was thinking on regular things, things that are (more or less) used by everybody on a regular basis. I understand that many exceptions are possible, many niche markets, many specific situations. I'm just complaining that while we have many discussion on where to dump electronic garbage, how to protect landfills from heavy metals, how to avoid so many mili- micro- nano- plastic fragments from being ingested with tap water... we also consider that programmed obsolescense is just business pratice. Not being able to repair something is ok to protect business, prevent terrorists and protect children. And in the end it's even consumer fault, because we could buy things that aren't disposable. And when we spend $300 on a printer, instead of $50, everybody assumption is that at first you bought the cheaper option. And that even $300 is the cheaper, you should have spent $500. Then everybody complains that someone else should do something concious about environment, and everybody forgets that "everybody should do something" is exactly why governments exists, are elected and legislate. Because government shouldn't be more than "everybody".