45 ms·

I don’t share the scepticism shared by other commenters. No matter how you look at this it’s a step in the right direction. We have needed this legislation for

I don’t share the scepticism shared by other commenters. No matter how you look at this it’s a step in the right direction. We have needed this legislation for at least ten years now. Hopefully it will be iterated on and improved if manufacturers try to find ways around it. The EU has shown it’s willing to legislate in many areas for the better (and worse).

mytailorisrich 7y ago
To play devil's advocate a bit: Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. That's why manufacturers build the way they do (if you want quality over 20 years you're already free to buy a Miele) It is rare for an appliance to break down when just out of warranty, and in any case it is not possible to completely avoid. I am glad that the new rules do not go farther then they do because I don't think there is an issue that warrant drastic action and widespread price increases. There are plenty of ways to source spare parts and individuals are simply not able to repair themselves in most cases (and let's not forget health & Safety regulations). Edit: Thank you guys for killing off any discussion...
- holri 7y ago
  > Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. But there is not the consumer alone. The world, other people, the earth wants lasting appliances.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    It's not obvious to me that current appliances are not lasting (and/or not repairable) and it's not obvious to me either that longer lasting appliances are necessarily better. Where are the end to end stats that show that this is better than recycling an old appliance to replace it with a new one that is more energy and water efficient? Where are the actual stats that show that breaking down just out of warranty with no parts available is a real issue? Also, there are no "other people" we all are consumers of these appliances.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      In what possible way could using the same fridge for 10 years be worse than buying and dumping a fridge every 3 years?
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        Fridges don't break down after 3 years. Please let's have a serious discussion.
        martin_a 7y ago
        In what possible way could using the same washing machine for 25 years be worse than buying and dumping a washing machine every 8-10 years?
        mytailorisrich 7y ago
        Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... How about energy and water efficiency gains? How about materials used to manufacture? How about ease of recycling? A single use paper cup can be better for the environment than a sturdy glass... I simply do not buy that keeping an appliance for as long as possible is obviously better. This should be backed by numbers. In any case, the reality is that most people do not want to keep an appliance for that long. Manufacturers have adapted to that. Designing something to last 25 years when people will throw it away after 10 is a real waste, including for the environment.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... Oh, you aren't actually interested in arguments? Why didn't you tell us earlier!
        7y ago
- chopin 7y ago
  I have a 3 year old Miele oven which needed one repair within the warranty period and another one just outside it. I am afraid Miele goes down the way of all the other manufacturers as the reason where parts which where shielded insufficiently from heat and moisture. In Germany, legislation has been proposed that manufacturers must label the expected lifetime. I am opposed to this as it may lead to stuff breaking down shortly thereafter. On the other side I would be fond of two things: All parts must be serviceable and a minimum period of spare part availability.
  - ovi256 7y ago
    >manufacturers must label expected lifetime ... I am opposed Everything is already value engineered, designed for a specified lifetime, that's how we get those low prices and low material use. Labeling would just make it explicit. I work in an oil pipeline design group and even these things have expected lifetimes (30 years). So even megaprojects like bridges, skyscrappers, aircraft carriers, everything designed has an expected lifetime.
    - fock 7y ago
      and I always thought, capitalism needs market transparency. Why not write it down and see what the customer does then, huh?
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Companies do write it down, in the form of warranties.
        close04 7y ago
        Warranty and expected lifetime are different concepts. The first is just a service that offers free repair/replace within a period of time. The second is how long you can expect the product to be in use, with or without repairs, until it reaches the end of its life. This can be either due to catastrophic malfunction, no available servicing parts or skills, or obsolescence. Think of a car that may have 3 years warranty but a service life of maybe 10 or more years.
- Paperweight 7y ago
  The philosophy is to regulate unhandled economic externalities.
- kilotaras 7y ago
  > Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. The consumer cannot easily distinguish between $400(dies after 10 years) and $300 (dies after 4).
  - Joakal 7y ago
    Sometimes it's more like $300 (dies after 10) and $400 (dies after 4). Why? The marketing trick to price a product higher to look like a premium compared to competition.
    - adamlett 7y ago
      It's hard to disprove that it is sometimes like that, but I would be extremely sceptical towards any claim that it is generally like that. I think it is safe to assume that price and quality are correlated in most cases.
      - jdc 7y ago
        Based on what evidence, though?
      - chopin 7y ago
        Only anecdotal evidence but in my experience price and quality (as in lasting) are only very weakly correlated. In the past I tended to buy expensive (in expectation of lasting). The older I get the less I tend to do so even though I have now more money at my disposal. You're getting crap all the time independent of the brand.
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        I've noticed quality of ordinary things has been declining for a long time now. Some things are better due to new technologies. Lot of stuff has just regressed.
        denton-scratch 7y ago
- mozey 7y ago
  > individuals are simply not able to repair themselves in most cases This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The right to repair is not only about quality, price or durability. It is also a philosophical and strategic standpoint?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    The right to repair isn't really about every individual repairing their own stuff themselves. It's about those individuals being able to ask their friends for help, or to bring the broken device to a local repair shop. That is, a manufacturer-unaffiliated repair shop. In this way, it's a fight for a more competitive, more free, and more distributed market.
- simion314 7y ago
  Honestly I don't think you gain more then a few dollars when you make the components a few mm thinner. I don't think the customers are a big force here, from my experience is the same part that breaks first but is there a strong enough incentive for the producer to investigate the issue and make that part stronger? If the customer will buy a new product or a new part that is extremely expensive then the producer is encouraged to engineer that part to break exactly when the warranty is over. I have a question, maybe someone here knows the answer, why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new, As an example I use same keyboard model and each time I buy a replacement it has changed a bit in design and internals, making them almost incompatible for salvaging components from one and fixing other)
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    > I don't think the customers are a big force here Of course they are. Customers are not stupid, they know what they are doing. They know that a cheap appliance will last long enough and that "in 10 years I'll want to buy a new one anyway". > why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new Because that's what sells. You need 'new' to convince people to buy it, certainly to buy it at the same price it was last year.
    - simion314 7y ago
      I disagree with you, let me give some examples that are not phones or computers where you can have maybe a different reason to buy a new model. I like the microsoft natural 2000 keyboard, it has a soft rest place that it scratches and in max 2 years it gets destroyed and the cable where it enters the case gets bent and used. So I now have 3 or 4 models that I bought over the years, there is no actual improvement, all the complaints in the reviews like noisy space bar were not addressed, just some small visual changes. So I am wondering why they did a new design,it probably costs a lot, did they found a way to gut 1$ worth of plastic? If we think at the environment and not at profits for the keyboard case there are 2 imediate things you could do: - sell the soft rest parts, there are easy to change if compatibility is not broken (i done it myself no special tools were needed but I transplanted them from a different one) - make the cable easy to replace (like you have with HDMI screens) so if I destroy the cable I can buy and just replace it rather then open the keyboard and find a different keyboard and grab the cable from that. IF the above would be costly to implement then maybe they can address the problem and make an improved design. Other example, I have a water pump, it has inside it a plastic/rubber balloon thing. This balloon will break every few months. I am wondering that they could make it 2 times more expensive and last 2 times more and it would be great because of the time and comfort lost when you have to replace it. But my waster time and confort plust he fact the old plastic thing goes into garbage is not factored in the producer calculations. So after this thing broke for the n-the time on me I would pay 10 times more and have it last 10 times more, I don't want cheap and bad but I do not have a choice. I admit there is a small chance that it is impossible to make this component stronger but this change is extremely small, probably the current one is the perfect balance for the producers and is at the threshold where the users won't give up and buy a new pump(you have no idea if a different model does not have same issue)
- edejong 7y ago
  > Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. Many consumers are smart enough to understand that 'cheap' is a property calculated over the lifetime of the product.
- mrtksn 7y ago
  The environmental aspect plays a big part in these things. These days it's popular to point out that the major polluters are not the individual consumers but the factories owned by the industrialists however these factories are not busy producing jewellery for the rich but stuff for the millions of consumers. Europe is very densely populated and well developed with much less developed neighbours which makes Europe very suspectable to environmental issues. If something bad happens in or nearby the continent, people in Paris or Rome can feel it through rent increase, a saturation of health services, an influx of people who somehow should be dealt with. If bombs go off in Syria things happen in Hungary. The place is very interconnected. EU has to deal with the protection of the environment just like any other issue that can cause large migrant movemenets. Throwing away things when you don't have to, inefficient appliances etc. are all stuff that must be addressed to preserve the peace in the continent. Europe's contemporary way of life is quite fragile.
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  There's not just "building cheap", there is "building specifically to make things expensive to repair". Three years ago the main bearing in my washing machine broke down. Found a detailed video on Youtube for repairing the exact same machine, started disassembly. 45 minutes in, I discovered that in my machine that was a couple years newer than the tutorial, Bosch had plastic welded shut the drum, so you had to replace the entire thing. Replacement part cost went from $20 to $180 IIRC. Adding insult to injury, the flange in question had the bolt holes and locating features for the gasket still present.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    It's not necessarily to make things more expensive to repair. Often, making things easy to fully take apart increases manufacturing costs. So there needs to be a trade off. Because of competition on prices, prices points, the fact the break downs are relatively rare. the priority is often to squeeze manufacturing costs.
    - baq 7y ago
      and that's where regulation is especially helpful: in a race to the bottom situation, it moves the bottom up a bit.
    - petra 7y ago
      Some of those changes are note very expensive. often times reliability is compromised for minor savings. The question is that of marketing. Can we make a marketing page that shows an easy to repair washing machine - and shows us that over 10 years, if we do the repairs ourselves - we'll save some money ? And the hassle of replacing to a new machine often ? At least some segment of the population, the DIY'ers may buy such machines.
  - Freak_NL 7y ago
    I've repaired my then seven year old LG washing machine as well two years ago. The rear drum support had apparently developed a fault, and was nearly torn in two by the time the funny noises came and hinted at the need for repairs. The Youtube videos were a great help, but even though the part I needed was available, all the steps along the way to getting the part and fixing the machine made it clear that this was not a process aimed at consumers with the ability to repair such a machine. The manufacturer chose representatives in each country it sold machines in were you had to buy the part (at €100 with shipping not cheap, but acceptable), but the serial numbers never really matched exactly, and the model I had always had one extra letter left unexplained, making buying the part a gamble. The part fitted and the repair did work perfectly, even though I had to order the stainless bolts I needed to replace the worn originals from somewhere else (a web shop with a sensible interface). This device was seemingly designed to be repaired (or at least not prevent it), but documentation and lack of sensible part numbers made it harder then it needed to be. Interesting experience though, it feels good to extend the life of the machine by a few years this way.
- Certhas 7y ago
  You argue as if protecting the environment was optional. And you start your argument with the hidden assumption that what consumers want should trump all other concerns. I don't necessarily agree with downvoting your post, but your argument _is_ poorly constructed. It seems to come from a place of reflexively opposing regulation, rather than thinking about whether this makes sense. In other words, I think people downvote because it doesn't seem to be in good faith, but ideologically driven.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    No, I argue that protecting the environment should be based on facts and actual data, instead of being ideologically driven and that people's actual behaviour should not be ignored. My argument isn't poorly constructed, I commented to promote discussion not to be lynched. You are trying to second guess what I wrote too much. It seems very common here for people to try to see implied meaning everywhere instead of reading what is actually written. The sad reality is that it is not possible to think critically and to dissent on many topics these days. It is already decided what the correct opinion is, facts are irrelevant. Look at my comments in this thread: There are no reasoned replies to any of them...
    - isostatic 7y ago
      > Look at my comments in this thread: There are no reasoned replies to any of them... You literally said "Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think"
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        This is a fact, isn't it? Try to think by yourself. The comment you're quoting from also contained 10 lines of arguments that you are ignoring, and instead you picked up that that line as if it was blasphemy. QED.
        baq 7y ago
        wait what? I (not OP mind you) have been concerned with the environment since before Greta was even born. You just got a convenient face that happened to be at the right time in the right place to blame now.
- ahje 7y ago
  Sorry, but that's just not true. If someone's spending 5000-10000€ on a kitchen renovation, then it's quite worth it to spend a couple of hundred more on appliances that will last as long as the rest of the kitchen. With modern built-in appliances then you need to take that into account, unless you want to install new cupboards every 5 years because your dishwasher died.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    They’re standard sizes and the mechanism to attach the built in doors to the appliances (where relevant) is also standardised. I’ve replaced built in fridges, washing machines, dishwashers, ovens and hobs in my own homes over the years without needing to redo anything else. What does annoy me though is that you have to pay a premium for appliances which are ‘built in’ over the equivalent model which is not built in, despite the built in version being less complicated (no door handles, for example).
- DanBC 7y ago
  > They want cheap. The UK had a catastrophic fire potentially caused by a cheap fridge freezer. White goods cause a few house fires. This page says 5 a day: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2017/07/five-fires-per-day-caused-by-white-goods-in-england/ https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media-centre/press-... This page says 60 per week: https://news.sky.com/story/eight-house-fires-a-week-caused-by-faulty-white-goods-11250607 https://news.sky.com/story/eight-house-fires-a-week-caused-b... We need white goods to be safer, and people don't chose safer, they choose cheaper, so we need regulations.
  - jonatron 7y ago
    The safety reduction was mostly due to changing from non-flammable but o-zone depleting CFCs to highly flammable but non o-zone depleting refrigerants.
- ws66 7y ago
  > you’re already free to buy a Miele I want to buy Miele, or any other quality brand, but if anything breaks (which we know will happen), the service technician has a two hours drive to get to my place, which I have to pay. IOW, the top quality brands mostly offer service in densely populated areas (and it makes businesses sense for them)...
asdaddasdad 7y ago
What about all the spare parts that have to be kept lying around? They are waste, too. Just one aspect. As usually, when politicians think they can do business better than the businesses themselves, this will probably be a net waste.
- maweki 7y ago
  Why would a company keep spare parts around when it can sell a new device or only allow "certified" maintanance? Where is the incentive in letting a customer spend less money on parts and labour? How exactly can the market be doing good work here? And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car?
  - asdaddasdad 7y ago
    Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. The problem here is that people don't really want these devices. Maybe they think they want them, but in reality the effort to have them repaired would be too much to them. As others have pointed out, wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
    - jimktrains2 7y ago
      > Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. Except when no one provides such products, or the only ones fitting that goal require very large sacrifices elsewhere. Look at mobile phones and tablets before the EU rules. Finding one that charged off a standard USB socket was near impossible. Again with mobile phones, since there is no right to actually own and control your device, finding a phone that allows you to root it constrains your choices in just about every other way, including ways that have nothing to do with being able to root the phone, such as being a second class citizen from your carriers point of view (e.g. Verizon refused to enable international calling for my phone because it wasn't an "approved", aka Verizon branded, phone.) So, right to repair regulations mean that I wouldn't have to decide between being environmentally conscious (if that open is even available) and having a product that works. > wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts. I can and do perform many repairs myself when the device allows a repair to be done (even sometimes when it doesn't).
DavidHm 7y ago
This might be a personal impression, but there seems to be a reflexive (negative) response from many posters here regarding any new regulation that the EU produces. I've been trying to wrap my head about whether that's different than the negative response about any regulation in general (including the US one), and I feel like it is more negative; as for why, I would only be speculating.
- close04 7y ago
  Recently there has been a backlash against "regulation" and I can only assume it's because people associate it with "over-regulation" or are simply not aware what its purpose is. It seems to be the kind of hot word that triggers mostly negative feelings so people don't care to hear the rest. But I have yet to see a person demanding less regulation for something who didn't change their mind when faced with a problem with that something which could have been solved by (some) regulation.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    There is regulation and there is regulation. I am full in for consumer protection type of regulation, especially the parts that helps the consumer against huge companies that one person cannot influence, but the government can. In the same time there are lots of weird regulations, for example in some US states you need to have a training and a professional license to be a florist. In my country I had to take a 1.5 year training for something that can be learned in 3 weeks; I also had to take 9 exams every 2 years just to extend my pilot license, something that does not happen in other EU countries. Or taking a training (classroom and flight time) to be allowed to fly with a passenger in a 2 seater plane, and only if you have at least 150 hours a Pilot In Command. There is nothing like this anywhere else, it's just typical stupid regulation. Another weird regulation is flying in Bulgarian airspace, where the class G (free airspace below flight level 105) is anything but free.
- libertine 7y ago
  I think it stems from the fear of this representing a missed opportunity for them to make it, closed by regulators. I believed that once, but companies show over and over again that the lack of regulation comes at a greater cost than their gains, and the gains for the society - and I, as a tax payer, am not willing to see the shit I help to pay for getting abused. For example, Peter Thiel idea for the monopoly argument makes sense, but he doesn't account for (or doesn't want to): government pressure and greed. The idea that the monopoly is the dream for tech development keeps showing it's no dream at all in the end, it's a nightmare with massive costs: mental health, international policy, environment, cultural, etc.
blue_devil 7y ago
The shortcoming is that governments are not nimble enough to revise regulations as often as needed. Laws may need years to formulate, but regulations/quantified guidelines should be updated more regularly. >Current regulations are seen to be outdated, with more than 55% of washing machines sold in the EU ranked A+++ on the label.
- adrianN 7y ago
  The energy rating problem could have been easily avoided by giving out labels according to consumption percentiles. The top 10% of the models on the market get an A, etc. But I assume that manufacturers wouldn't be happy about that.
  - blue_devil 7y ago
    Exactly. They are willing to regulate, but slowly, inefficiently, and timidly.
  - epanchin 7y ago
    That would encourage manufacturers to lower the efficiency of non flagship models. How about just regrading every few years? Potentially add a number to the start.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      That's a good point. You could avoid that problem by giving grades relative to the best product on the market, e.g. anything that doesn't use more than 10% more than the most efficient model on the market gets an A. Regrading every year seems to be about the same as what I propose. I guess the actual numbers used for the current rating are based on actual efficiencies of the models on the market when the regulation was introduced.
    - tomatocracy 7y ago
      Only if consumers pay any attention to energy efficiency labels. I strongly suspect that with washing machines and dryers, they simply ignore them and look instead at the other features (particularly load size and cycle timing) and the price.
Iv 7y ago
I have said that at every step in these regulations: even a law that can't easily be applied and that has loopholes is a progress as it gives judges, engineers, decisions makers and users a notion of what is wrong and what is right. Want to make a startup whose business model relies on the impossibility to repair? Have found a loophole that makes it possible? Well investors may evaluate the risk this loophole gets fixed and will not see the plan as particularly safe. It is not just about changing the rules, it is about changing the ethics around them.
- distances 7y ago
  IANAL as always, but in my understanding loopholes are less effective in civil law systems (that is, all continental Europe) as the intent of the law is what matters, not the exact wording that created a loophole.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Interesting point.
Zenst 7y ago
Agreed, whatever your political posture, it's nowt to do with this. This is a good thing, and however you wish to view things - this is what is right, fair and it's core is to bring fairness to consumers - even if they don't want to liveridge this avenue now open too them. At least they have the choice and it is their choice. So Bravo for this, it is something that needs to be done globally. The whole artificially obsoleting consumer products has and will be a serious concern as it drives waste, and waste is and never has been, good for the environment upon any level, whatever your perspective is upon that matter. Let us not forget, many initiatives get driven by standards from one area and they can and do transpose upon other area in the end for the better of everybody. Let's see this for what it is - something wonderful and long overdue. I will also add, a few decades back, self repair was far more accessible and less needed as appliances lasted, you could get spares, get them fixed. Yet the market and drive towards mass consumerism and product churn has created a monster, one in which we are going to be paying for as all that environmental credit debt we have built up, well, nature's debt collectors are a calling.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

To play devil's advocate a bit: Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. That's why manufacturers build the way they do (if you want quality over 20 years you're already free to buy a Miele) It is rare for an appliance to break down when just out of warranty, and in any case it is not possible to completely avoid. I am glad that the new rules do not go farther then they do because I don't think there is an issue that warrant drastic action and widespread price increases. There are plenty of ways to source spare parts and individuals are simply not able to repair themselves in most cases (and let's not forget health & Safety regulations). Edit: Thank you guys for killing off any discussion...

holri 7y ago
> Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. But there is not the consumer alone. The world, other people, the earth wants lasting appliances.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  It's not obvious to me that current appliances are not lasting (and/or not repairable) and it's not obvious to me either that longer lasting appliances are necessarily better. Where are the end to end stats that show that this is better than recycling an old appliance to replace it with a new one that is more energy and water efficient? Where are the actual stats that show that breaking down just out of warranty with no parts available is a real issue? Also, there are no "other people" we all are consumers of these appliances.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    In what possible way could using the same fridge for 10 years be worse than buying and dumping a fridge every 3 years?
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      Fridges don't break down after 3 years. Please let's have a serious discussion.
      - martin_a 7y ago
        In what possible way could using the same washing machine for 25 years be worse than buying and dumping a washing machine every 8-10 years?
        mytailorisrich 7y ago
        Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... How about energy and water efficiency gains? How about materials used to manufacture? How about ease of recycling? A single use paper cup can be better for the environment than a sturdy glass... I simply do not buy that keeping an appliance for as long as possible is obviously better. This should be backed by numbers. In any case, the reality is that most people do not want to keep an appliance for that long. Manufacturers have adapted to that. Designing something to last 25 years when people will throw it away after 10 is a real waste, including for the environment.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think... Oh, you aren't actually interested in arguments? Why didn't you tell us earlier!
      - 7y ago
chopin 7y ago
I have a 3 year old Miele oven which needed one repair within the warranty period and another one just outside it. I am afraid Miele goes down the way of all the other manufacturers as the reason where parts which where shielded insufficiently from heat and moisture. In Germany, legislation has been proposed that manufacturers must label the expected lifetime. I am opposed to this as it may lead to stuff breaking down shortly thereafter. On the other side I would be fond of two things: All parts must be serviceable and a minimum period of spare part availability.
- ovi256 7y ago
  >manufacturers must label expected lifetime ... I am opposed Everything is already value engineered, designed for a specified lifetime, that's how we get those low prices and low material use. Labeling would just make it explicit. I work in an oil pipeline design group and even these things have expected lifetimes (30 years). So even megaprojects like bridges, skyscrappers, aircraft carriers, everything designed has an expected lifetime.
  - fock 7y ago
    and I always thought, capitalism needs market transparency. Why not write it down and see what the customer does then, huh?
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Companies do write it down, in the form of warranties.
      - close04 7y ago
        Warranty and expected lifetime are different concepts. The first is just a service that offers free repair/replace within a period of time. The second is how long you can expect the product to be in use, with or without repairs, until it reaches the end of its life. This can be either due to catastrophic malfunction, no available servicing parts or skills, or obsolescence. Think of a car that may have 3 years warranty but a service life of maybe 10 or more years.
Paperweight 7y ago
The philosophy is to regulate unhandled economic externalities.
kilotaras 7y ago
> Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. The consumer cannot easily distinguish between $400(dies after 10 years) and $300 (dies after 4).
- Joakal 7y ago
  Sometimes it's more like $300 (dies after 10) and $400 (dies after 4). Why? The marketing trick to price a product higher to look like a premium compared to competition.
  - adamlett 7y ago
    It's hard to disprove that it is sometimes like that, but I would be extremely sceptical towards any claim that it is generally like that. I think it is safe to assume that price and quality are correlated in most cases.
    - jdc 7y ago
      Based on what evidence, though?
    - chopin 7y ago
      Only anecdotal evidence but in my experience price and quality (as in lasting) are only very weakly correlated. In the past I tended to buy expensive (in expectation of lasting). The older I get the less I tend to do so even though I have now more money at my disposal. You're getting crap all the time independent of the brand.
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        I've noticed quality of ordinary things has been declining for a long time now. Some things are better due to new technologies. Lot of stuff has just regressed.
        denton-scratch 7y ago
mozey 7y ago
> individuals are simply not able to repair themselves in most cases This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The right to repair is not only about quality, price or durability. It is also a philosophical and strategic standpoint?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  The right to repair isn't really about every individual repairing their own stuff themselves. It's about those individuals being able to ask their friends for help, or to bring the broken device to a local repair shop. That is, a manufacturer-unaffiliated repair shop. In this way, it's a fight for a more competitive, more free, and more distributed market.
simion314 7y ago
Honestly I don't think you gain more then a few dollars when you make the components a few mm thinner. I don't think the customers are a big force here, from my experience is the same part that breaks first but is there a strong enough incentive for the producer to investigate the issue and make that part stronger? If the customer will buy a new product or a new part that is extremely expensive then the producer is encouraged to engineer that part to break exactly when the warranty is over. I have a question, maybe someone here knows the answer, why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new, As an example I use same keyboard model and each time I buy a replacement it has changed a bit in design and internals, making them almost incompatible for salvaging components from one and fixing other)
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > I don't think the customers are a big force here Of course they are. Customers are not stupid, they know what they are doing. They know that a cheap appliance will last long enough and that "in 10 years I'll want to buy a new one anyway". > why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new Because that's what sells. You need 'new' to convince people to buy it, certainly to buy it at the same price it was last year.
  - simion314 7y ago
    I disagree with you, let me give some examples that are not phones or computers where you can have maybe a different reason to buy a new model. I like the microsoft natural 2000 keyboard, it has a soft rest place that it scratches and in max 2 years it gets destroyed and the cable where it enters the case gets bent and used. So I now have 3 or 4 models that I bought over the years, there is no actual improvement, all the complaints in the reviews like noisy space bar were not addressed, just some small visual changes. So I am wondering why they did a new design,it probably costs a lot, did they found a way to gut 1$ worth of plastic? If we think at the environment and not at profits for the keyboard case there are 2 imediate things you could do: - sell the soft rest parts, there are easy to change if compatibility is not broken (i done it myself no special tools were needed but I transplanted them from a different one) - make the cable easy to replace (like you have with HDMI screens) so if I destroy the cable I can buy and just replace it rather then open the keyboard and find a different keyboard and grab the cable from that. IF the above would be costly to implement then maybe they can address the problem and make an improved design. Other example, I have a water pump, it has inside it a plastic/rubber balloon thing. This balloon will break every few months. I am wondering that they could make it 2 times more expensive and last 2 times more and it would be great because of the time and comfort lost when you have to replace it. But my waster time and confort plust he fact the old plastic thing goes into garbage is not factored in the producer calculations. So after this thing broke for the n-the time on me I would pay 10 times more and have it last 10 times more, I don't want cheap and bad but I do not have a choice. I admit there is a small chance that it is impossible to make this component stronger but this change is extremely small, probably the current one is the perfect balance for the producers and is at the threshold where the users won't give up and buy a new pump(you have no idea if a different model does not have same issue)
edejong 7y ago
> Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. Many consumers are smart enough to understand that 'cheap' is a property calculated over the lifetime of the product.
mrtksn 7y ago
The environmental aspect plays a big part in these things. These days it's popular to point out that the major polluters are not the individual consumers but the factories owned by the industrialists however these factories are not busy producing jewellery for the rich but stuff for the millions of consumers. Europe is very densely populated and well developed with much less developed neighbours which makes Europe very suspectable to environmental issues. If something bad happens in or nearby the continent, people in Paris or Rome can feel it through rent increase, a saturation of health services, an influx of people who somehow should be dealt with. If bombs go off in Syria things happen in Hungary. The place is very interconnected. EU has to deal with the protection of the environment just like any other issue that can cause large migrant movemenets. Throwing away things when you don't have to, inefficient appliances etc. are all stuff that must be addressed to preserve the peace in the continent. Europe's contemporary way of life is quite fragile.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
There's not just "building cheap", there is "building specifically to make things expensive to repair". Three years ago the main bearing in my washing machine broke down. Found a detailed video on Youtube for repairing the exact same machine, started disassembly. 45 minutes in, I discovered that in my machine that was a couple years newer than the tutorial, Bosch had plastic welded shut the drum, so you had to replace the entire thing. Replacement part cost went from $20 to $180 IIRC. Adding insult to injury, the flange in question had the bolt holes and locating features for the gasket still present.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  It's not necessarily to make things more expensive to repair. Often, making things easy to fully take apart increases manufacturing costs. So there needs to be a trade off. Because of competition on prices, prices points, the fact the break downs are relatively rare. the priority is often to squeeze manufacturing costs.
  - baq 7y ago
    and that's where regulation is especially helpful: in a race to the bottom situation, it moves the bottom up a bit.
  - petra 7y ago
    Some of those changes are note very expensive. often times reliability is compromised for minor savings. The question is that of marketing. Can we make a marketing page that shows an easy to repair washing machine - and shows us that over 10 years, if we do the repairs ourselves - we'll save some money ? And the hassle of replacing to a new machine often ? At least some segment of the population, the DIY'ers may buy such machines.
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  I've repaired my then seven year old LG washing machine as well two years ago. The rear drum support had apparently developed a fault, and was nearly torn in two by the time the funny noises came and hinted at the need for repairs. The Youtube videos were a great help, but even though the part I needed was available, all the steps along the way to getting the part and fixing the machine made it clear that this was not a process aimed at consumers with the ability to repair such a machine. The manufacturer chose representatives in each country it sold machines in were you had to buy the part (at €100 with shipping not cheap, but acceptable), but the serial numbers never really matched exactly, and the model I had always had one extra letter left unexplained, making buying the part a gamble. The part fitted and the repair did work perfectly, even though I had to order the stainless bolts I needed to replace the worn originals from somewhere else (a web shop with a sensible interface). This device was seemingly designed to be repaired (or at least not prevent it), but documentation and lack of sensible part numbers made it harder then it needed to be. Interesting experience though, it feels good to extend the life of the machine by a few years this way.
Certhas 7y ago
You argue as if protecting the environment was optional. And you start your argument with the hidden assumption that what consumers want should trump all other concerns. I don't necessarily agree with downvoting your post, but your argument _is_ poorly constructed. It seems to come from a place of reflexively opposing regulation, rather than thinking about whether this makes sense. In other words, I think people downvote because it doesn't seem to be in good faith, but ideologically driven.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  No, I argue that protecting the environment should be based on facts and actual data, instead of being ideologically driven and that people's actual behaviour should not be ignored. My argument isn't poorly constructed, I commented to promote discussion not to be lynched. You are trying to second guess what I wrote too much. It seems very common here for people to try to see implied meaning everywhere instead of reading what is actually written. The sad reality is that it is not possible to think critically and to dissent on many topics these days. It is already decided what the correct opinion is, facts are irrelevant. Look at my comments in this thread: There are no reasoned replies to any of them...
  - isostatic 7y ago
    > Look at my comments in this thread: There are no reasoned replies to any of them... You literally said "Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think"
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      This is a fact, isn't it? Try to think by yourself. The comment you're quoting from also contained 10 lines of arguments that you are ignoring, and instead you picked up that that line as if it was blasphemy. QED.
      - baq 7y ago
        wait what? I (not OP mind you) have been concerned with the environment since before Greta was even born. You just got a convenient face that happened to be at the right time in the right place to blame now.
ahje 7y ago
Sorry, but that's just not true. If someone's spending 5000-10000€ on a kitchen renovation, then it's quite worth it to spend a couple of hundred more on appliances that will last as long as the rest of the kitchen. With modern built-in appliances then you need to take that into account, unless you want to install new cupboards every 5 years because your dishwasher died.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  They’re standard sizes and the mechanism to attach the built in doors to the appliances (where relevant) is also standardised. I’ve replaced built in fridges, washing machines, dishwashers, ovens and hobs in my own homes over the years without needing to redo anything else. What does annoy me though is that you have to pay a premium for appliances which are ‘built in’ over the equivalent model which is not built in, despite the built in version being less complicated (no door handles, for example).
DanBC 7y ago
> They want cheap. The UK had a catastrophic fire potentially caused by a cheap fridge freezer. White goods cause a few house fires. This page says 5 a day: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2017/07/five-fires-per-day-caused-by-white-goods-in-england/ https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media-centre/press-... This page says 60 per week: https://news.sky.com/story/eight-house-fires-a-week-caused-by-faulty-white-goods-11250607 https://news.sky.com/story/eight-house-fires-a-week-caused-b... We need white goods to be safer, and people don't chose safer, they choose cheaper, so we need regulations.
- jonatron 7y ago
  The safety reduction was mostly due to changing from non-flammable but o-zone depleting CFCs to highly flammable but non o-zone depleting refrigerants.
ws66 7y ago
> you’re already free to buy a Miele I want to buy Miele, or any other quality brand, but if anything breaks (which we know will happen), the service technician has a two hours drive to get to my place, which I have to pay. IOW, the top quality brands mostly offer service in densely populated areas (and it makes businesses sense for them)...

asdaddasdad 7y ago

What about all the spare parts that have to be kept lying around? They are waste, too. Just one aspect. As usually, when politicians think they can do business better than the businesses themselves, this will probably be a net waste.

maweki 7y ago
Why would a company keep spare parts around when it can sell a new device or only allow "certified" maintanance? Where is the incentive in letting a customer spend less money on parts and labour? How exactly can the market be doing good work here? And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car?
- asdaddasdad 7y ago
  Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. The problem here is that people don't really want these devices. Maybe they think they want them, but in reality the effort to have them repaired would be too much to them. As others have pointed out, wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    > Simple: if people would want devices they could repair, they would prefer the products of companies offering such devices over the products of companies not offering such devices. Except when no one provides such products, or the only ones fitting that goal require very large sacrifices elsewhere. Look at mobile phones and tablets before the EU rules. Finding one that charged off a standard USB socket was near impossible. Again with mobile phones, since there is no right to actually own and control your device, finding a phone that allows you to root it constrains your choices in just about every other way, including ways that have nothing to do with being able to root the phone, such as being a second class citizen from your carriers point of view (e.g. Verizon refused to enable international calling for my phone because it wasn't an "approved", aka Verizon branded, phone.) So, right to repair regulations mean that I wouldn't have to decide between being environmentally conscious (if that open is even available) and having a product that works. > wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts. I can and do perform many repairs myself when the device allows a repair to be done (even sometimes when it doesn't).

DavidHm 7y ago

This might be a personal impression, but there seems to be a reflexive (negative) response from many posters here regarding any new regulation that the EU produces. I've been trying to wrap my head about whether that's different than the negative response about any regulation in general (including the US one), and I feel like it is more negative; as for why, I would only be speculating.

close04 7y ago
Recently there has been a backlash against "regulation" and I can only assume it's because people associate it with "over-regulation" or are simply not aware what its purpose is. It seems to be the kind of hot word that triggers mostly negative feelings so people don't care to hear the rest. But I have yet to see a person demanding less regulation for something who didn't change their mind when faced with a problem with that something which could have been solved by (some) regulation.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  There is regulation and there is regulation. I am full in for consumer protection type of regulation, especially the parts that helps the consumer against huge companies that one person cannot influence, but the government can. In the same time there are lots of weird regulations, for example in some US states you need to have a training and a professional license to be a florist. In my country I had to take a 1.5 year training for something that can be learned in 3 weeks; I also had to take 9 exams every 2 years just to extend my pilot license, something that does not happen in other EU countries. Or taking a training (classroom and flight time) to be allowed to fly with a passenger in a 2 seater plane, and only if you have at least 150 hours a Pilot In Command. There is nothing like this anywhere else, it's just typical stupid regulation. Another weird regulation is flying in Bulgarian airspace, where the class G (free airspace below flight level 105) is anything but free.
libertine 7y ago
I think it stems from the fear of this representing a missed opportunity for them to make it, closed by regulators. I believed that once, but companies show over and over again that the lack of regulation comes at a greater cost than their gains, and the gains for the society - and I, as a tax payer, am not willing to see the shit I help to pay for getting abused. For example, Peter Thiel idea for the monopoly argument makes sense, but he doesn't account for (or doesn't want to): government pressure and greed. The idea that the monopoly is the dream for tech development keeps showing it's no dream at all in the end, it's a nightmare with massive costs: mental health, international policy, environment, cultural, etc.

blue_devil 7y ago

The shortcoming is that governments are not nimble enough to revise regulations as often as needed. Laws may need years to formulate, but regulations/quantified guidelines should be updated more regularly. >Current regulations are seen to be outdated, with more than 55% of washing machines sold in the EU ranked A+++ on the label.

adrianN 7y ago
The energy rating problem could have been easily avoided by giving out labels according to consumption percentiles. The top 10% of the models on the market get an A, etc. But I assume that manufacturers wouldn't be happy about that.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  Exactly. They are willing to regulate, but slowly, inefficiently, and timidly.
- epanchin 7y ago
  That would encourage manufacturers to lower the efficiency of non flagship models. How about just regrading every few years? Potentially add a number to the start.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    That's a good point. You could avoid that problem by giving grades relative to the best product on the market, e.g. anything that doesn't use more than 10% more than the most efficient model on the market gets an A. Regrading every year seems to be about the same as what I propose. I guess the actual numbers used for the current rating are based on actual efficiencies of the models on the market when the regulation was introduced.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Only if consumers pay any attention to energy efficiency labels. I strongly suspect that with washing machines and dryers, they simply ignore them and look instead at the other features (particularly load size and cycle timing) and the price.

Iv 7y ago

I have said that at every step in these regulations: even a law that can't easily be applied and that has loopholes is a progress as it gives judges, engineers, decisions makers and users a notion of what is wrong and what is right. Want to make a startup whose business model relies on the impossibility to repair? Have found a loophole that makes it possible? Well investors may evaluate the risk this loophole gets fixed and will not see the plan as particularly safe. It is not just about changing the rules, it is about changing the ethics around them.

distances 7y ago
IANAL as always, but in my understanding loopholes are less effective in civil law systems (that is, all continental Europe) as the intent of the law is what matters, not the exact wording that created a loophole.
- Iv 7y ago
  Interesting point.

Zenst 7y ago

Agreed, whatever your political posture, it's nowt to do with this. This is a good thing, and however you wish to view things - this is what is right, fair and it's core is to bring fairness to consumers - even if they don't want to liveridge this avenue now open too them. At least they have the choice and it is their choice. So Bravo for this, it is something that needs to be done globally. The whole artificially obsoleting consumer products has and will be a serious concern as it drives waste, and waste is and never has been, good for the environment upon any level, whatever your perspective is upon that matter. Let us not forget, many initiatives get driven by standards from one area and they can and do transpose upon other area in the end for the better of everybody. Let's see this for what it is - something wonderful and long overdue. I will also add, a few decades back, self repair was far more accessible and less needed as appliances lasted, you could get spares, get them fixed. Yet the market and drive towards mass consumerism and product churn has created a monster, one in which we are going to be paying for as all that environmental credit debt we have built up, well, nature's debt collectors are a calling.