3 ms·

Hammers aren't a good example because there's already an established market for interoperable nails, but batteries for tools is a more appropriate comparison I

Hammers aren't a good example because there's already an established market for interoperable nails, but batteries for tools is a more appropriate comparison I think. They should absolutely get regulated, there is no good reason for Parkside batteries not to be compatible with Bosch tools, or Makita, or Ryobi or whatever else. They all have their slightly different battery interfaces, that don't have technical reasons to be different. They only provide vendor lock-in, so that people who already have a Ryobi drill will also buy a Ryobi grass mower and a Ryobi trimmer, regardless of their actual individual merits, unless they want to also buy batteries (and chargers!) for each of their pieces of equipment. This is bad for consumers, bad for competition and bad for the overall market. I hope this gets regulated in the future in the EU, but who knows.

shiroiushi 3y ago
Sure, it's bad, but suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools, which have proprietary batteries that cost a fortune, and have encryption chips to prevent making compatible third-party batteries or chargers. The Granny Smith tools cost more than the others, and are sold in boutique shops by so-called "master craftsmen" who have never actually worked professionally with power tools. Yet somehow, half of tool buyers happily buy their tools, despite knowing they have to get batteries from the Granny Smith Stores and can't use any other tools' batteries. This is even touted as a feature(!), since it "protects" owners from "unsafe" 3rd-party batteries and chargers. Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies, and that was tried before with disastrous results. So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions, as long as no actual fraud is being committed? And remember the safety aspect touted by Granny Smith: they claim that it's unsafe to use non-GS batteries in their tools, and that it's a burden on them to deal with warranty claims for GS tools harmed by bad non-GS batteries. (Remember, there are a LOT of users right here on HN who will cite this safety argument for iPhones.)
- seszett 3y ago
  > suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose. > Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't. > If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies That doesn't follow, plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in, and plenty of things that do have vendor lock-in also have available options without lock-in. Other products even have vendor lock-in, without interoperable options, but where lock-in isn't an actual problem (say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard). > So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions At an arbitrary point that is chosen by the regulatory bodies taking into account many of the variables that affect the markets of consumer goods.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    >The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose. Huh? That's literally what the smartphone market is like now, though it got there a different way. There's two OSes: iOS and Android. There's a bunch of phone makers who sell Android-based phones, and they all can run apps from the Google Play store (or other Android app stores, or side-loaded .apk files). If you want to argue that the power tool market can't get there from its current situation, that's fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about smartphones and not power tools. You're the one who brought up power tool batteries as an analogy here, and like all analogies, it's imperfect but can be useful. >Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't. They can buy an Android phone of some kind and use any app from the places I mentioned above. >say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard Apple makes the exact same argument for their App Store. >plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in There are many places where vendors have tried, but got shot down. Auto parts is one big example.

shiroiushi 3y ago

Sure, it's bad, but suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools, which have proprietary batteries that cost a fortune, and have encryption chips to prevent making compatible third-party batteries or chargers. The Granny Smith tools cost more than the others, and are sold in boutique shops by so-called "master craftsmen" who have never actually worked professionally with power tools. Yet somehow, half of tool buyers happily buy their tools, despite knowing they have to get batteries from the Granny Smith Stores and can't use any other tools' batteries. This is even touted as a feature(!), since it "protects" owners from "unsafe" 3rd-party batteries and chargers. Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies, and that was tried before with disastrous results. So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions, as long as no actual fraud is being committed? And remember the safety aspect touted by Granny Smith: they claim that it's unsafe to use non-GS batteries in their tools, and that it's a burden on them to deal with warranty claims for GS tools harmed by bad non-GS batteries. (Remember, there are a LOT of users right here on HN who will cite this safety argument for iPhones.)

seszett 3y ago
> suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose. > Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't. > If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies That doesn't follow, plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in, and plenty of things that do have vendor lock-in also have available options without lock-in. Other products even have vendor lock-in, without interoperable options, but where lock-in isn't an actual problem (say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard). > So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions At an arbitrary point that is chosen by the regulatory bodies taking into account many of the variables that affect the markets of consumer goods.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  >The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose. Huh? That's literally what the smartphone market is like now, though it got there a different way. There's two OSes: iOS and Android. There's a bunch of phone makers who sell Android-based phones, and they all can run apps from the Google Play store (or other Android app stores, or side-loaded .apk files). If you want to argue that the power tool market can't get there from its current situation, that's fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about smartphones and not power tools. You're the one who brought up power tool batteries as an analogy here, and like all analogies, it's imperfect but can be useful. >Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't. They can buy an Android phone of some kind and use any app from the places I mentioned above. >say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard Apple makes the exact same argument for their App Store. >plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in There are many places where vendors have tried, but got shot down. Auto parts is one big example.