4 ms·

California: we're rich and powerful and without us you companies and people couldn't make money, so let's use this power to force people to do what we want! Hey

California: we're rich and powerful and without us you companies and people couldn't make money, so let's use this power to force people to do what we want! Hey, where did everyone go?

Spivak 3y ago
This is an odd take for something that is decidedly pro consumer. Like what's the downside to having businesses have to plan for their product having to last less than a decade in the market?
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  Do you have domain expertise in hardware design and supply chains to judge this issue competently, carefully weighing the pros and cons, or did you consult your gut?
  - Spivak 3y ago
    No because that's not even a consideration. The bar to passing a law like this isn't some greater good market analysis, it's whether it's it literally possible to do because the mandate is for companies to, maybe drastically, change their behavior to stop making trash. Like what even is this, do you like the rampant corporatism where laws can only be passed if it doesn't affect your profits too much uwu? Won't you of those poor corporations flooding the market with garbage?
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      I can't imagine how this would be enforced on gadget sold on AliExpress and mailed from China. Currently, lots of gadget violating local safety law are imported this way. This would unequally harm local businesses
      - Spivak 3y ago
        That's always how imports work, you can buy basically anything that's illegal to be sold but not illegal to use in your area by importing it from somewhere else. It's where people are getting flavored tobacco. The logical conclusion that "for the protection of local business we have to allow everything" is a bit absurd. You can still buy it but you can't buy it here is a pretty normal compromise, would you rather it be enforced and you be charged with possession of a Huawei?
- dddrh 3y ago
  My reaction to understand this: if the cost of manufacturing something is 7x in California compared to the rest of the USA then it’s easier to just not sell it in California. But having not read anything besides HN comments yet this I don’t expect this to be the reality of the bill, only the reaction to the headlines.
  - rascul 3y ago
    Not sure if it's still the case but there was a time when I would browse aftermarket performance car parts and a number of them could not be sold in California. I suspect there will be some products that won't be available in California in the future. But there will be many companies that adapt and stay in the California market.
- kyrra 3y ago
  "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs." Why make the decision for the consumer. This is forcing a choice on them by the state, that is going to have trade-offs, most likely increasing the price of the initial product significantly. And as others have called out, no name brands that ship from overseas are not going to follow this and there is likely no enforcement mechanism to make them do that. So all this will hurt are large legitimate companies. It would likely drive many large companies out of various product lines.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    > Why make the decision for the consumer Because that's not really what's happening, consumers are product takers and this law also affects them. It's as much a law about not buying trash as it is not selling it. The number of product segments where none of the firms in the market offer long term support and parts, especially in consumer electronics is embarrassing. I have an easier time finding parts for products makes 40 years ago than 5 years ago. > It would likely drive many large companies out of various product lines. Fantastic! Literally overjoyed to hear it. The louder people complain the more I believe this law will actually change things and do some positive good.
  - InSteady 3y ago
    Consumers already had little to no choice in the matter where it counted. California is making the decision for the producer that they must offer the choice to consumers to repair a product that brakes in a semi-reasonable timeframe (should definitely be longer for some product categories, arguably less for others). American brands often already enjoy significant advantages in reputation (not to mention actual quality), in part due to regulations and business norms in the states. This only strengthens that. Moderately more expensive products that can be expected to be operable for substantially longer is a big win for the overwhelming majority of society, including future generations (in more ways than one). It remains to be seen if that is the actual result of legislation like this, but it is certainly a noble goal for society and worth attempting.
    - a-user-you-like 3y ago
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  Compliance costs get passed to the consumer, one way or another. Higher prices or products not being sold in CA anymore are the most obvious ones.
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    So do ewaste costs.
  - a-user-you-like 3y ago
    Yes, there are already a number of products that Californians just don’t have access to, for their “protection”. I imagine this bill will further reduce the quality of life for Californians.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      This isn't about protection any more than laws against littering are. It's basically a boycott that actually works because it goes through our established system for collective action.
      - a-user-you-like 3y ago
        Litter laws make sense and don’t limit purchase options. These laws hurt the poorest so the upper echelon can feel good.

California: we're rich and powerful and without us you companies and people couldn't make money, so let's use this power to force people to do what we want! Hey, where did everyone go?

Spivak 3y ago

This is an odd take for something that is decidedly pro consumer. Like what's the downside to having businesses have to plan for their product having to last less than a decade in the market?

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
Do you have domain expertise in hardware design and supply chains to judge this issue competently, carefully weighing the pros and cons, or did you consult your gut?
- Spivak 3y ago
  No because that's not even a consideration. The bar to passing a law like this isn't some greater good market analysis, it's whether it's it literally possible to do because the mandate is for companies to, maybe drastically, change their behavior to stop making trash. Like what even is this, do you like the rampant corporatism where laws can only be passed if it doesn't affect your profits too much uwu? Won't you of those poor corporations flooding the market with garbage?
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    I can't imagine how this would be enforced on gadget sold on AliExpress and mailed from China. Currently, lots of gadget violating local safety law are imported this way. This would unequally harm local businesses
    - Spivak 3y ago
      That's always how imports work, you can buy basically anything that's illegal to be sold but not illegal to use in your area by importing it from somewhere else. It's where people are getting flavored tobacco. The logical conclusion that "for the protection of local business we have to allow everything" is a bit absurd. You can still buy it but you can't buy it here is a pretty normal compromise, would you rather it be enforced and you be charged with possession of a Huawei?
dddrh 3y ago
My reaction to understand this: if the cost of manufacturing something is 7x in California compared to the rest of the USA then it’s easier to just not sell it in California. But having not read anything besides HN comments yet this I don’t expect this to be the reality of the bill, only the reaction to the headlines.
- rascul 3y ago
  Not sure if it's still the case but there was a time when I would browse aftermarket performance car parts and a number of them could not be sold in California. I suspect there will be some products that won't be available in California in the future. But there will be many companies that adapt and stay in the California market.
kyrra 3y ago
"There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs." Why make the decision for the consumer. This is forcing a choice on them by the state, that is going to have trade-offs, most likely increasing the price of the initial product significantly. And as others have called out, no name brands that ship from overseas are not going to follow this and there is likely no enforcement mechanism to make them do that. So all this will hurt are large legitimate companies. It would likely drive many large companies out of various product lines.
- Spivak 3y ago
  > Why make the decision for the consumer Because that's not really what's happening, consumers are product takers and this law also affects them. It's as much a law about not buying trash as it is not selling it. The number of product segments where none of the firms in the market offer long term support and parts, especially in consumer electronics is embarrassing. I have an easier time finding parts for products makes 40 years ago than 5 years ago. > It would likely drive many large companies out of various product lines. Fantastic! Literally overjoyed to hear it. The louder people complain the more I believe this law will actually change things and do some positive good.
- InSteady 3y ago
  Consumers already had little to no choice in the matter where it counted. California is making the decision for the producer that they must offer the choice to consumers to repair a product that brakes in a semi-reasonable timeframe (should definitely be longer for some product categories, arguably less for others). American brands often already enjoy significant advantages in reputation (not to mention actual quality), in part due to regulations and business norms in the states. This only strengthens that. Moderately more expensive products that can be expected to be operable for substantially longer is a big win for the overwhelming majority of society, including future generations (in more ways than one). It remains to be seen if that is the actual result of legislation like this, but it is certainly a noble goal for society and worth attempting.
  - a-user-you-like 3y ago
BurningFrog 3y ago
Compliance costs get passed to the consumer, one way or another. Higher prices or products not being sold in CA anymore are the most obvious ones.
- NegativeK 3y ago
  So do ewaste costs.
- a-user-you-like 3y ago
  Yes, there are already a number of products that Californians just don’t have access to, for their “protection”. I imagine this bill will further reduce the quality of life for Californians.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    This isn't about protection any more than laws against littering are. It's basically a boycott that actually works because it goes through our established system for collective action.
    - a-user-you-like 3y ago
      Litter laws make sense and don’t limit purchase options. These laws hurt the poorest so the upper echelon can feel good.