4 ms·
I don't know that most of your blanket assertions are true. Just taking one example, the cost of manufacturing electronics is not just the raw cost of the comp
by supernova87a 6y ago
I don't know that most of your blanket assertions are true.
Just taking one example, the cost of manufacturing electronics is not just the raw cost of the component. And you seem just fine to have increased costs passed along to manufacturers and not believe it would have an effect on them, but then state that such small $ differences would have a big effect on people buying the stuff.
But anyway, why should companies be required by law to build a product a certain way, for a feature that's not safety/public health/deceptive advertising related?
If your statements are true, go out there and offer such a great product, and let it take the market.
Otherwise, I don't agree with the logic of having laws intrude into the design choices of products that are voluntarily manufactured and purchased.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoRepairability is public health related, unless you can live in 40°C winters and breath under water. /s You know the resources of the planet aren't limitless.
- sokoloff 6y agoWhat isn’t public health related by that measure? Should everything be subject to government mandate?
- ben-schaaf 6y agoRight to repair isn't about forcing companies to build stuff a certain way, it's about forcing companies to give open access to everything you need to repair the device. They can do this at close to no extra cost: Just publish their existing internal repair manuals, publish their existing internal schematics, don't force your manufacturers to exclusively sell components to you, don't cryptographically make components non-replaceable by just you.