4 ms·

I think there are reasonable arguments against it. It increases costs of selling products, reduces profitability. I think the benefits outweigh those costs, bu

I think there are reasonable arguments against it. It increases costs of selling products, reduces profitability. I think the benefits outweigh those costs, but the argument isn't unreasonable.

azemetre 2y ago
It needs to be explicitly shown how and why it increases costs because if anything it feels like the opposite to me, especially when companies use proprietary pieces and hiding schematics rather than open standards and common configurations.
- tcfhgj 2y ago
  fewer sold products, less economy of scale, more cost
  - Retric 2y ago
    Components not just products have economies of scale. Dell is currently better off buying the same RAM etc used by other computer manufacturers.
    - seanw444 2y ago
      This, and also, so what if the price of the end product goes up? You wouldn't feel the need to buy a new phone so often if it was more sensible to repair them, which would very likely more than make up for the price increase.
      - tcfhgj 2y ago
        unlikely: people cost much more (repairing vs automated manufacturing) second: even if it may make up for it, the manufacturers profits still will be reduced
    - tcfhgj 2y ago
      more products -> more components replacing some components means fewer components sold overall, because whole products 'replace' just all components
      - Retric 2y ago
        That’s something of a broken window fallacy here. Producing fewer parts while having more working devices is a net win for the economy. Economies of scale don’t mean things are free. The marginal cost of each transistor is still greater than zero even though where producing what 10^20 ish of them per year.
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        while you see a net win for the economy, I see a smaller GDP and a bad conclusion after the business year when people start repairing their devices instead of throwing them away and buying new. Idk where I implied zero cost of things anywhere?
  - azemetre 2y ago
    That's not an explicit reason. You're acting like they are making custom parts for everything and not buying the same widget as everyone else on the manufacturing line.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
butlike 2y ago
Botched repair then 3 iterations of resale to obfuscate it was originally repaired badly could dilute brand strength, but that's kind of a stretch
burnte 2y ago
Neither of those are reasonable arguments. They're arguments, but not reasonable. No one is guaranteed a fixed level of cost-of-sales or profit, so reduced profit is just part of business. Figure it out, it's 100% not the consumer's problem. And they're arguably NOT arguments at all, as doing something to make your product less repairable is generally MORE expensive that NOT doing that thing. Most of the time in product manufacture, costs come from performing actions, so by not performing actions, those costs go away. That's what these laws are usually about, skipping repair-unfriendly design choices, making repair documents available (that's free, they already exist, companies need not keep them secret/internal), and not creating software locks that are only for keeping out "unauthorized" repairs. Apple could save money by using all hex/phillips screws and doing away with pentalobe screws as they'd have few different items to buy and use. Apple could save a really good deal of money using NVMe drives, or an open standard for flash-chip boards like in the M4 Mini, because currently they waste a lot of engineering resources on their proprietary solutions. Devices with ultrasonically welded plastic cases could skip the ultrasonic welding step and just use clips on the plastic frame. Etc.
nobodyandproud 2y ago
It’s also difficult to quantify the true savings of repair (true cost of garbage, shipping protection, etc), incentives punish local work, and the cost of losing local knowledge and know-how. I wouldn’t call what you mentioned as reasonable, but nobody with the financial muscle or brain power wants to do that deep dive analysis.

I think there are reasonable arguments against it. It increases costs of selling products, reduces profitability. I think the benefits outweigh those costs, but the argument isn't unreasonable.

azemetre 2y ago

It needs to be explicitly shown how and why it increases costs because if anything it feels like the opposite to me, especially when companies use proprietary pieces and hiding schematics rather than open standards and common configurations.

tcfhgj 2y ago
fewer sold products, less economy of scale, more cost
- Retric 2y ago
  Components not just products have economies of scale. Dell is currently better off buying the same RAM etc used by other computer manufacturers.
  - seanw444 2y ago
    This, and also, so what if the price of the end product goes up? You wouldn't feel the need to buy a new phone so often if it was more sensible to repair them, which would very likely more than make up for the price increase.
    - tcfhgj 2y ago
      unlikely: people cost much more (repairing vs automated manufacturing) second: even if it may make up for it, the manufacturers profits still will be reduced
  - tcfhgj 2y ago
    more products -> more components replacing some components means fewer components sold overall, because whole products 'replace' just all components
    - Retric 2y ago
      That’s something of a broken window fallacy here. Producing fewer parts while having more working devices is a net win for the economy. Economies of scale don’t mean things are free. The marginal cost of each transistor is still greater than zero even though where producing what 10^20 ish of them per year.
      - tcfhgj 2y ago
        while you see a net win for the economy, I see a smaller GDP and a bad conclusion after the business year when people start repairing their devices instead of throwing them away and buying new. Idk where I implied zero cost of things anywhere?
- azemetre 2y ago
  That's not an explicit reason. You're acting like they are making custom parts for everything and not buying the same widget as everyone else on the manufacturing line.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

butlike 2y ago

Botched repair then 3 iterations of resale to obfuscate it was originally repaired badly could dilute brand strength, but that's kind of a stretch

burnte 2y ago

Neither of those are reasonable arguments. They're arguments, but not reasonable. No one is guaranteed a fixed level of cost-of-sales or profit, so reduced profit is just part of business. Figure it out, it's 100% not the consumer's problem. And they're arguably NOT arguments at all, as doing something to make your product less repairable is generally MORE expensive that NOT doing that thing. Most of the time in product manufacture, costs come from performing actions, so by not performing actions, those costs go away. That's what these laws are usually about, skipping repair-unfriendly design choices, making repair documents available (that's free, they already exist, companies need not keep them secret/internal), and not creating software locks that are only for keeping out "unauthorized" repairs. Apple could save money by using all hex/phillips screws and doing away with pentalobe screws as they'd have few different items to buy and use. Apple could save a really good deal of money using NVMe drives, or an open standard for flash-chip boards like in the M4 Mini, because currently they waste a lot of engineering resources on their proprietary solutions. Devices with ultrasonically welded plastic cases could skip the ultrasonic welding step and just use clips on the plastic frame. Etc.

nobodyandproud 2y ago

It’s also difficult to quantify the true savings of repair (true cost of garbage, shipping protection, etc), incentives punish local work, and the cost of losing local knowledge and know-how. I wouldn’t call what you mentioned as reasonable, but nobody with the financial muscle or brain power wants to do that deep dive analysis.