5 ms·

I believe that this right to repair stuff is really a reflection of a superceding market breakdown: oligopolistic power. Consumers want to do what they like wi

I believe that this right to repair stuff is really a reflection of a superceding market breakdown: oligopolistic power. Consumers want to do what they like with the things they own and some want the information needed to repair those things. Some companies don't have to offer this information or can get away with locking down their devices because they are immune from competition. This immunity is generally acquired by having the best product but then maintained by an abuse of market share. The solution is to encourage competition somehow. If someone made a tractor that could compete with John Deere, John Deere might be forced to entice consumers with the feature of repairability.

passivate 6y ago
>Some companies don't have to offer this information or can get away with locking down their devices because they are immune from competition. Oh it is much worse that this. These 'Some' companies actively block repair shops from purchasing spare parts so they can repair end-users' devices.
- djoldman 6y ago
  Agreed it can be much worse. From the econ standpoint it's a rational move. Once you capture the users you do whatever you like. I'm a little surprised a quality (magical like how Google used to be) search engine hasn't popped up.
dvdkon 6y ago
I agree, more competition would be the ideal solution, but I'm not sure we can achieve that goal without drastic changes. In my opinion, having competition on details like "does it have a headphone jack?" or "is it repairable?" requires competing manufacturers to be able to create near-identical products that only differ in those details, with the price delta reflecting only that one difference and not other complex market conditions. However, creating such "clones" is something our copyright and patent system is designed to prevent. There's some merit to it: preventing clones will force more global diversity. But in the common situation where the user has already decided on one area of the market ("I want iOS and a great camera"), these systems force the user into one choice, not letting them choose in important details. The way I see it, we either tear up all IP laws to allow for drastically lower costs of entry and hope that solves the problem (and other ones too), or we pass laws requiring some minimum standard of repairability. Or maybe a little bit of both (aggressive unbundling laws?).

passivate 6y ago

>Some companies don't have to offer this information or can get away with locking down their devices because they are immune from competition. Oh it is much worse that this. These 'Some' companies actively block repair shops from purchasing spare parts so they can repair end-users' devices.

djoldman 6y ago
Agreed it can be much worse. From the econ standpoint it's a rational move. Once you capture the users you do whatever you like. I'm a little surprised a quality (magical like how Google used to be) search engine hasn't popped up.

dvdkon 6y ago

I agree, more competition would be the ideal solution, but I'm not sure we can achieve that goal without drastic changes. In my opinion, having competition on details like "does it have a headphone jack?" or "is it repairable?" requires competing manufacturers to be able to create near-identical products that only differ in those details, with the price delta reflecting only that one difference and not other complex market conditions. However, creating such "clones" is something our copyright and patent system is designed to prevent. There's some merit to it: preventing clones will force more global diversity. But in the common situation where the user has already decided on one area of the market ("I want iOS and a great camera"), these systems force the user into one choice, not letting them choose in important details. The way I see it, we either tear up all IP laws to allow for drastically lower costs of entry and hope that solves the problem (and other ones too), or we pass laws requiring some minimum standard of repairability. Or maybe a little bit of both (aggressive unbundling laws?).