3 ms·

"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 ha

by 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
  > Moderately more expensive This bill hurts the poorest people by making certain products even more inaccessible to them. Before, they could at least have a choice between something they could afford and something repairable. Not anymore, that choice has been taken away from them.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit about the poor when it comes to the literal basic necessities like food and housing. And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking when the whole point of right to repair is to reduce the total cost of ownership and longevity of electronics by making them not disposable. This reasoning also applies to literally every regulation in every field and product segment. We can apparently never set the bar higher than the ground.
    - a-user-you-like 3y ago
      > I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit about the poor when it comes to the literal basic necessities like food and housing. You’re right, we should greatly reduce the regulations around housing in CA to allow for faster development so the poor can have newer, cheaper homes. > And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking No. The issue is the use of force. If you want a repairable option, pay more and get one. You’re forcing the poor to pay more for what you willingly chose to, and that’s bad. Don’t tread on the poor, keep their options open.
- donatj 3y ago
  Consumers had all the choice. They literally kept buying unrepairable devices, so the market naturally shifted away. 99% of users, even after this bill, will never repair anything ever. It's forcing niche desires onto everyone. It's a law that forces producers hand to do something the vast majority of consumers don't actually want. Almost everyone will continue to buy a new phone when theirs breaks. No one wants to use a year old phone. It's already outdated. That's what makes it anti-consumer - being directly out of line with what consumers actually want.
p_j_w 3y ago
>Why make the decision for the consumer. How do I go about making the choice to buy a repairable cell phone?

by kyrra 3y ago

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
> Moderately more expensive This bill hurts the poorest people by making certain products even more inaccessible to them. Before, they could at least have a choice between something they could afford and something repairable. Not anymore, that choice has been taken away from them.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit about the poor when it comes to the literal basic necessities like food and housing. And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking when the whole point of right to repair is to reduce the total cost of ownership and longevity of electronics by making them not disposable. This reasoning also applies to literally every regulation in every field and product segment. We can apparently never set the bar higher than the ground.
  - a-user-you-like 3y ago
    > I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit about the poor when it comes to the literal basic necessities like food and housing. You’re right, we should greatly reduce the regulations around housing in CA to allow for faster development so the poor can have newer, cheaper homes. > And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking No. The issue is the use of force. If you want a repairable option, pay more and get one. You’re forcing the poor to pay more for what you willingly chose to, and that’s bad. Don’t tread on the poor, keep their options open.
donatj 3y ago
Consumers had all the choice. They literally kept buying unrepairable devices, so the market naturally shifted away. 99% of users, even after this bill, will never repair anything ever. It's forcing niche desires onto everyone. It's a law that forces producers hand to do something the vast majority of consumers don't actually want. Almost everyone will continue to buy a new phone when theirs breaks. No one wants to use a year old phone. It's already outdated. That's what makes it anti-consumer - being directly out of line with what consumers actually want.

p_j_w 3y ago

>Why make the decision for the consumer. How do I go about making the choice to buy a repairable cell phone?