3 ms·

I'm unsure how this meaningfully addresses the problem here. "Open" doesn't mean it's engineered well.

• raxxorraxor 2y ago
  No, open doesn't mean quality but there are numerous advantages to it. Since there are so many suppliers, you need standard interfaces for components to speak to each other. An open communication standard would help immensely. Additionally manufacturers tried to do the opposite and implemented DRM measures to verify the installation of "genuine" parts. This of course causes massive problems with compatibility. This would also affect reparability. People value maintenance very, very highly. It is usually at the top for economic considerations for vehicles that serve a mass market. People might accept shitty smartphones for a few hundred bucks, but in the price range of vehicles, people expect them to be repairable for longer than a decade. Modern cars don't deliver here. Asian manufacturers give a 7 year warranty to mitigate the problem of modern cars. That is why they are comparatively successful.
  • redserk 2y ago
    Have you worked on any vehicles? You do realize that cars have never had these open standards and that parts interoperability has varied wildly even within the same manufacturer? Even if you had the parts, a number of carmakers have made it, and continue to make it difficult to get the official service manual to replace parts. What you're proposing is historically unrealistic and unconventional. > Modern cars don't deliver here. Neither do older ones. After an automaker stops making parts then you're going to have to dig around on eBay or find a local scrapyard. Maybe you'll get lucky and there's a third party continuing to make parts but that's no guarantee. I support right-to-repair, but the auto industry has been historically hostile towards it.