5 ms·
Hm, I think this reasoning is not always true. The manufacturer could make a cost/benefit-analysis, concluding that building a machine that lasts approx. these
by bipson 5y ago
Hm, I think this reasoning is not always true.
The manufacturer could make a cost/benefit-analysis, concluding that building a machine that lasts approx. these 1000 runs but no longer, and paying for recycling afterwards is cheaper than building something that lasts and is recyclable.
Also, replacing it every ~200 cycles with just another cheaply built throwaway-machine could also become a viable business model. Why should the manufacturer care, if it becomes cheaper?
You could also make the manufacturer pay for recycling anyway - which is the case in the EU for several device classes IIRC, no need for a rental model to establish that. For some devices this means that the manufacturer has to take it back when you are done with it. The problem of course is that this is directly paid for by the customer - and by itself does not change anything.
But my argument is that it wouldn't for the rental model either.
- Gravityloss 5y agoThe machine could send back diagnostic information, and then maintenance or replacement could be scheduled with the "owner". For example the lint filter could have a sensor and owner could be punished if they didn't clean that :) Machines wear unevenly and maintenance could prolong the lifespan considerably.
- soco 5y agoWhy going full orwell punishing, when it could simply beep some sense into the owner??? Really folks, sometimes the software industry wants to offer the most weird solutions... (and sometimes they even get implemented)
- Gravityloss 5y agoIf you own the machine and have rented it to someone, with a promise that it's working and being maintained, yet the renter doesn't clean the lint filter even when the machine beeps, you have to send a maintenance guy to clean that, costing money.