3 ms·

They can buy devices that are easier to repair. Shops can refuse to accept devices that they can't repair. Consumers aren't sheep, and I don't believe in legisl

by qppo 6y ago

They can buy devices that are easier to repair. Shops can refuse to accept devices that they can't repair. Consumers aren't sheep, and I don't believe in legislation predicated on the assumption that they act like bovine. I'm all for regulating tech companies, but not when it harms their ability to create products that fit market demands. When it comes to market demands today, repair-ability is at odds with other areas that companies innovate like device complexity, size, form factor, etc. There is little market pressure for repairable devices. I don't think it's the role of government to create it. The most compelling argument I've heard relates to recycling and reducing landfill usage of electronics. But I'm not sure what levers government can pull in that regard that make repair easier.

jfim 6y ago
The incentive for companies is to design products that are obsolete after a few years, such that they can sell a new one and make money on the new sale. While it's beneficial for customers to be able to repair their devices, their choices are limited by the availability of repairable devices. The government has plenty of levers to use to improve repairability and reducing the amount of discarded electronics. They could mandate a minimum service life for electronics, where the manufacturer has to repair or replace any device that fails during that service life, for free, as long as the repair isn't due to customer negligence. They could mandate having a serviceability score label on electronics, just like the energy star rating or nutritional information label. They could require that manuals and parts are available to third party repair shops, without discriminatory pricing and availability. The list goes on. It's not unlike fuel efficiency and clean air mandates. Once all the manufacturers had to abide by the same rules, unsurprisingly, fleet efficiency and air quality improved.

by qppo 6y ago

jfim 6y ago

The incentive for companies is to design products that are obsolete after a few years, such that they can sell a new one and make money on the new sale. While it's beneficial for customers to be able to repair their devices, their choices are limited by the availability of repairable devices. The government has plenty of levers to use to improve repairability and reducing the amount of discarded electronics. They could mandate a minimum service life for electronics, where the manufacturer has to repair or replace any device that fails during that service life, for free, as long as the repair isn't due to customer negligence. They could mandate having a serviceability score label on electronics, just like the energy star rating or nutritional information label. They could require that manuals and parts are available to third party repair shops, without discriminatory pricing and availability. The list goes on. It's not unlike fuel efficiency and clean air mandates. Once all the manufacturers had to abide by the same rules, unsurprisingly, fleet efficiency and air quality improved.