5 ms·

I'm not sure I understand the metrics we could use to force companies to make things repairable. I certainly don't think it will be beneficial to make companies

by toolz 2y ago

I'm not sure I understand the metrics we could use to force companies to make things repairable. I certainly don't think it will be beneficial to make companies offer to repair _everything_ and if it's not everything, what criteria would be used to determine what is legally something the have to repair? I've not thought about this problem very long, but at a glance it seems like something very difficult to get right and I don't trust my government to get even the easy things right most of the time.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
> I don't trust my government to get even the easy things right most of the time. The American government was capable of putting a man on the moon in 1969; private corporations in the 2020's are failing to put much smaller landers on the moon. The government can be competent, but people have been brainwashed by corporations into believing that it can't be. Regardless of competence, the government can certainly be trusted far more than corporations when it is profitable for them to be untrustworthy.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  I wonder how much money was in politics in 1969. I have the cynical view that the government gives contracts not to the lowest bidder (that would be generous), but rather, whoever is going to give the greatest kickback to the re-election campaigns of the people deciding who to give a contract to. Government isn't incompetent, it's corrupt.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Government was far more illegally corrupt in 1969 than it is now. Mayor Daly makes Mayor Adams look small time. The corruption in American government is almost completely legal now. Citizens United, et cetera. The legality makes it larger, but also visible.
- toolz 2y ago
  the US government spends twice as much as the 2nd place government on healthcare and we rank pretty abysmally on developed nations for quality of healthcare. Can the US government be competent? Sure. Do I trust it to be competent today when it's dropping the ball on arguably it's most important task? No, not at all. I can stop giving corporations my money, I don't need to trust them.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    US healthcare is uniquely bad because corporations are in charge of it rather than government.
    - toolz 2y ago
      Explain to me how the US government spends twice as much as any other country on healthcare and you claim the corporations are _more_ in charge? There are entire industries in healthcare that would disappear if the government stopped giving them money. Control via funding is far more impactful than control via laws. Companies can bend laws, they cannot survive without cash flow.
      - swores 2y ago
        > Explain to me how the US government spends twice as much as any other country on healthcare and you claim the corporations are _more_ in charge? Total spending by government is an irrelevant metric for judging who is more "in charge". Imagine two people, one of them spends X hours and $10 doing their own gardening to grow 100 tomatoes, someone else spends X hours driving to a shop and spends $50 to buy 100 tomatoes. You surely wouldn't argue that the second person has more control vs. companies over their tomatoes because they spent 5x as much, would you?
        toolz 2y ago
        Of course I would, the second example represents some portion of a companies revenue. If that companies revenue is only $50 then that is their only customer and to continue existing they would need to keep that customer or they would have zero revenue. In that scenario many company's would change their entire operations to accommodate their single customer. That is control. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the first example. Are you suggesting the government would be 5x more cost efficient at producing tomatoes?! That's almost as outlandish to me as suggesting someone would spend the same amount of time driving to get tomatoes as someone else could spend growing them.
TrueGeek 2y ago
> what criteria would be used to determine what is legally something the have to repair? In the EU it’s just set at 2 years. Anything you buy has to last at least 2 years or the manufacturer has to repair, replace, or refund. The Netherlands takes this further and says it must be supported for as long as one would reasonably expect it to last. In the article he says he was specifically told they don’t support any product after 5 years, which I do not think anyone would assume to be the max lifetime for a $100k device.
yummypaint 2y ago
Why not tie it to IP law? When a compamy stops repairing/supporting a product, then applicable patents are moved to public domain and the software + firmware become open source. This would ensure that there is always a strong repair market one way or another.
jdboyd 2y ago
I agree with the basic difficulty you express, but I think there are a few clear areas to consider drawing a line in cases like this. First, mandate certain types of medical device makers publish certain types of repair information. Second, mandate that certain types of medical device must be supported for a certain amount of time, probably at least 10 years.

by toolz 2y ago

bryanlarsen 2y ago

> I don't trust my government to get even the easy things right most of the time. The American government was capable of putting a man on the moon in 1969; private corporations in the 2020's are failing to put much smaller landers on the moon. The government can be competent, but people have been brainwashed by corporations into believing that it can't be. Regardless of competence, the government can certainly be trusted far more than corporations when it is profitable for them to be untrustworthy.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
I wonder how much money was in politics in 1969. I have the cynical view that the government gives contracts not to the lowest bidder (that would be generous), but rather, whoever is going to give the greatest kickback to the re-election campaigns of the people deciding who to give a contract to. Government isn't incompetent, it's corrupt.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Government was far more illegally corrupt in 1969 than it is now. Mayor Daly makes Mayor Adams look small time. The corruption in American government is almost completely legal now. Citizens United, et cetera. The legality makes it larger, but also visible.
toolz 2y ago
the US government spends twice as much as the 2nd place government on healthcare and we rank pretty abysmally on developed nations for quality of healthcare. Can the US government be competent? Sure. Do I trust it to be competent today when it's dropping the ball on arguably it's most important task? No, not at all. I can stop giving corporations my money, I don't need to trust them.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  US healthcare is uniquely bad because corporations are in charge of it rather than government.
  - toolz 2y ago
    Explain to me how the US government spends twice as much as any other country on healthcare and you claim the corporations are _more_ in charge? There are entire industries in healthcare that would disappear if the government stopped giving them money. Control via funding is far more impactful than control via laws. Companies can bend laws, they cannot survive without cash flow.
    - swores 2y ago
      > Explain to me how the US government spends twice as much as any other country on healthcare and you claim the corporations are _more_ in charge? Total spending by government is an irrelevant metric for judging who is more "in charge". Imagine two people, one of them spends X hours and $10 doing their own gardening to grow 100 tomatoes, someone else spends X hours driving to a shop and spends $50 to buy 100 tomatoes. You surely wouldn't argue that the second person has more control vs. companies over their tomatoes because they spent 5x as much, would you?
      - toolz 2y ago
        Of course I would, the second example represents some portion of a companies revenue. If that companies revenue is only $50 then that is their only customer and to continue existing they would need to keep that customer or they would have zero revenue. In that scenario many company's would change their entire operations to accommodate their single customer. That is control. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the first example. Are you suggesting the government would be 5x more cost efficient at producing tomatoes?! That's almost as outlandish to me as suggesting someone would spend the same amount of time driving to get tomatoes as someone else could spend growing them.

TrueGeek 2y ago

> what criteria would be used to determine what is legally something the have to repair? In the EU it’s just set at 2 years. Anything you buy has to last at least 2 years or the manufacturer has to repair, replace, or refund. The Netherlands takes this further and says it must be supported for as long as one would reasonably expect it to last. In the article he says he was specifically told they don’t support any product after 5 years, which I do not think anyone would assume to be the max lifetime for a $100k device.

yummypaint 2y ago

Why not tie it to IP law? When a compamy stops repairing/supporting a product, then applicable patents are moved to public domain and the software + firmware become open source. This would ensure that there is always a strong repair market one way or another.

jdboyd 2y ago

I agree with the basic difficulty you express, but I think there are a few clear areas to consider drawing a line in cases like this. First, mandate certain types of medical device makers publish certain types of repair information. Second, mandate that certain types of medical device must be supported for a certain amount of time, probably at least 10 years.