3 ms·
I dont want to start a war with any right-to-repair purists, but I do think in lieu of offering 7 years of parts a company that makes reasonable low-cost (or fr
by hermannj314 3y ago
I dont want to start a war with any right-to-repair purists, but I do think in lieu of offering 7 years of parts a company that makes reasonable low-cost (or free) replacement a simple request for 7 years would also be meeting the needs of most consumers. And a lot of video game consoles have very liberal policies already toward this regard.
Some products are significantly cheaper to replace than repair, even if they cost more than $99.
- bombcar 3y agoA defined "support period" with relatively bounded costs is all we really need, I agree. Knowing that if I buy a technology product that is more than $100, it will either work for 5 years (or whatever) or be repairable for some fraction of the original cost, would make me satisfied.
- ncallaway 3y agomy only concern with this exception is it creates a monopoly, which then needs to be carefully regulated at multiple levels. Yes, we can regulate the price, but if only the original vendor can perform repairs we might also need to regulate quality and timeliness (similar to how lemon laws for cars often specificy a maximum number of repair attempts, or hours away from the owner for repairs, before the vehicle must be refunded). I think it’s an okay approach, but I also think it requires a heavier hand from the government, and from ongoing oversight, than letting the market figure out reasonable rates for a repair.
- bombcar 3y agoALL of these various "consumer protection" laws can be gamed by the biggest players, so they have to carefully vetted before they go live. Basing them on the already-existing protections around the auto industry is probably a decent place to start.