3 ms·

Our needs don't change, our expectations change, often due to marketing. Especially true for widgets that don't serve base needs. That's fine, we do want progre

by ehnto 3y ago

Our needs don't change, our expectations change, often due to marketing. Especially true for widgets that don't serve base needs. That's fine, we do want progress. But we should have the choice. Wouldn't you want to be in control of the decision? If your air conditioning cools you and you are okay with it's current efficiency, you should be able to repair it. It's not like corporations are building short lived products out of environmental concerns about efficiency. If you leave it in their hands, then the consumer loses control, and companies do the obvious. It also reduces competition and innovation in my view. Why try hard to R&D products people want to upgrade to, when you can just wait for their unit to break and sell them a mediocre upgrade.

sokoloff 3y ago
Don’t we already have that right to repair in practice for ACs and related? In the last 3 years, I’ve repaired 1 window AC (bad bearings on the motor shaft), 1 free-standing AC (bad bearings on the motor leading to motor failure), and 2 portable dehumidifiers (low refrigerant charge). None were particularly difficult and I could source a used motor ($18.50 shipped from eBay), source the bearings by measurement (under $16 shipped for 8 bearings though I needed only 2), and R410a is a commodity ($300 for a 20# tank, used about 1.5 pounds total). Would it be easier if Fuji and Samsung and LG and others ran a parts depot that I could buy from? Maybe, but I’m probably not going to buy new parts from them anyway.
- ehnto 3y ago
  Yes certain commodity parts are pretty easy to get and replace, in fact the wear items I usually find are quite available on big appliances in particular. But getting a replacement circuit board or perhaps a proprietary bracket is often not possible. I don't think manufacturers should have to offer support in perpetuity though so it becomes an interesting problem. Like samsung shouldn't need to stock the front face of a washing machine for 15 years. Perhaps a better approach is making items that aren't possible to stock long term be made out of repairable materials so at least it can be repaired by a repairman. Repairmen are expensive now because the skillset disappeared, when everything became so cheap that it was easier to buy new. But I think we can and should bring local repair services back.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Repairs are expensive because of extreme economies of scale. The marginal cost for Samsung to make another injection-moulded plastic front face for a washing machine is literally a few cents, including both material and labor; the cost for repairing it (no matter how repairable the materials are) or making a single new one in any other way than a mass-produced injection mold is easily at least 100 times more expensive, simply because it takes uncomparably more labor. This is a part where making and storing a huge excess of stock for the next 50 years is still cheaper than repairing even a tiny fraction of the parts. Perhaps requiring the manufacturers to provide either spare parts or if they are out of stock and no intent to sell them anymore, then requiring to provide STLs to 3D-print them could be a reasonable option. It still would be an order of magnitude (or two) more expensive compared to making the original parts (due to the immense economies of scale for plastic manufacturing), but it would still be cheaper than custom repairs locally.
crazygringo 3y ago
> Wouldn't you want to be in control of the decision? If your air conditioning cools you and you are okay with it's current efficiency, you should be able to repair it. The point is, I don't want the things I buy to be 1.5x or 2x the price to ensure greater repairability than they have now. That's the conversation we're having. > It also reduces competition and innovation in my view. Why try hard to R&D products people want to upgrade to All available evidence points to the contrary. That might be true if there were only one manufacturer of an item, but competition ensures a constant stream of R&D and improvements. Which is precisely why I don't want to use my AC from 30 years ago -- the improvements since then have been massive.
- ehnto 3y ago
  The 30 year number is a bit disingenuous, appliances are conking out in 3-5 years which is why this is a conversation at all. In that time frame, innovation in most appliances is frivolous extras. Nothing fundamental about toasters has changed in decades. Fridges are adding TVs on the front because fridges are all the same technology and it's impossible to differentiate. 30 years for sure, that is a totally reasonable amount of time for an appliance to last. If it genuinely lasted that long I bet you actually did a few repairs in there too. Living the dream, actually even 10 years would be amazing. We could cherry pick examples of long lived products but the point for me is that people don't pay for longevity like you said, but we need it for other reasons. Reduce waste, improve consumer choice and power over their own objects. In regards to efficiency, it's definitely more efficient not to produce a society worth of new appliances ever 5 years or so. Improved repairability aldo means improved recycling of the components too.

by ehnto 3y ago

sokoloff 3y ago

Don’t we already have that right to repair in practice for ACs and related? In the last 3 years, I’ve repaired 1 window AC (bad bearings on the motor shaft), 1 free-standing AC (bad bearings on the motor leading to motor failure), and 2 portable dehumidifiers (low refrigerant charge). None were particularly difficult and I could source a used motor ($18.50 shipped from eBay), source the bearings by measurement (under $16 shipped for 8 bearings though I needed only 2), and R410a is a commodity ($300 for a 20# tank, used about 1.5 pounds total). Would it be easier if Fuji and Samsung and LG and others ran a parts depot that I could buy from? Maybe, but I’m probably not going to buy new parts from them anyway.

ehnto 3y ago
Yes certain commodity parts are pretty easy to get and replace, in fact the wear items I usually find are quite available on big appliances in particular. But getting a replacement circuit board or perhaps a proprietary bracket is often not possible. I don't think manufacturers should have to offer support in perpetuity though so it becomes an interesting problem. Like samsung shouldn't need to stock the front face of a washing machine for 15 years. Perhaps a better approach is making items that aren't possible to stock long term be made out of repairable materials so at least it can be repaired by a repairman. Repairmen are expensive now because the skillset disappeared, when everything became so cheap that it was easier to buy new. But I think we can and should bring local repair services back.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Repairs are expensive because of extreme economies of scale. The marginal cost for Samsung to make another injection-moulded plastic front face for a washing machine is literally a few cents, including both material and labor; the cost for repairing it (no matter how repairable the materials are) or making a single new one in any other way than a mass-produced injection mold is easily at least 100 times more expensive, simply because it takes uncomparably more labor. This is a part where making and storing a huge excess of stock for the next 50 years is still cheaper than repairing even a tiny fraction of the parts. Perhaps requiring the manufacturers to provide either spare parts or if they are out of stock and no intent to sell them anymore, then requiring to provide STLs to 3D-print them could be a reasonable option. It still would be an order of magnitude (or two) more expensive compared to making the original parts (due to the immense economies of scale for plastic manufacturing), but it would still be cheaper than custom repairs locally.

crazygringo 3y ago

> Wouldn't you want to be in control of the decision? If your air conditioning cools you and you are okay with it's current efficiency, you should be able to repair it. The point is, I don't want the things I buy to be 1.5x or 2x the price to ensure greater repairability than they have now. That's the conversation we're having. > It also reduces competition and innovation in my view. Why try hard to R&D products people want to upgrade to All available evidence points to the contrary. That might be true if there were only one manufacturer of an item, but competition ensures a constant stream of R&D and improvements. Which is precisely why I don't want to use my AC from 30 years ago -- the improvements since then have been massive.

ehnto 3y ago
The 30 year number is a bit disingenuous, appliances are conking out in 3-5 years which is why this is a conversation at all. In that time frame, innovation in most appliances is frivolous extras. Nothing fundamental about toasters has changed in decades. Fridges are adding TVs on the front because fridges are all the same technology and it's impossible to differentiate. 30 years for sure, that is a totally reasonable amount of time for an appliance to last. If it genuinely lasted that long I bet you actually did a few repairs in there too. Living the dream, actually even 10 years would be amazing. We could cherry pick examples of long lived products but the point for me is that people don't pay for longevity like you said, but we need it for other reasons. Reduce waste, improve consumer choice and power over their own objects. In regards to efficiency, it's definitely more efficient not to produce a society worth of new appliances ever 5 years or so. Improved repairability aldo means improved recycling of the components too.