6 ms·

Without Energy Star or regulations, what incentive do manufacturers have to display this information, and display it accurately? Consumers cannot hold manufactu

Without Energy Star or regulations, what incentive do manufacturers have to display this information, and display it accurately? Consumers cannot hold manufacturers accountable. Even boycotts are under legal scrutiny. Our only option are class action lawsuits, which take years or longer and can be considered a cost of doing business, and have been stymied by binding arbitration contracts.

smitty1e 1y ago
Your point is still largely true, but it is worth noting that, in the age of social media, the customer tail can wag the corporate dog. See: Bud Light.
- pixl97 1y ago
  I mean not really. You'll end up with boycotts around potential political reasons but almost no effective ones around technical reasons.
  - fngjdflmdflg 1y ago
    Agreed that technical specs cannot easily be crowdsourced. And even comprehensive reviews quickly get outdated when new products release. I remember there used to be a Google engineer who would review USB-C cables on Amazon for compliance.[0] After looking at this again Amazon apparently ended up banning the sale of out of spec cables altogether. That kind of thing is the only real way to protect consumers. We can't rely on Google engineers to leave reviews for our products on Amazon. I do think products with clearly defined technical specs should in general be reported to the consumer. Same thing with nutrition labels. The lower the skill needed to evaluate something and the more well defined the problem space is, the easier it is to crowd source. For example Open Street Map works because the barrier to entry is relatively low and new cities aren't coming out every day. Similarly IMDB has a section that allows users to give their own parental rating to movies with their own explanation. That can compete with MPA film ratings because again the barrier to entry is low and movies don't change after they are released (in general). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Leung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Leung
    - pixl97 1y ago
      > I do think products with clearly defined technical specs should in general be reported to the consumer. A historic example is things was Linksys WRT54G wireless routers. The exact same product number had completely different amounts of memory and core chipsets. Another one that's common is the first batch of particular SSDs in a model contain more/faster/any cache which gets good benchmarks and great reviews, but later neutered releases of the same 'model' perform like crap.
timewizard 1y ago
> and display it accurately? What is accurately? The efficiency of the product will depend on how full it is. The less mass you have inside it the more often it turns on and the more energy it consumes. So do consumers even understand this particular point of their device? Or how their use case may impact the displayed numbers?
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  The point of standards and standardised evaluations is to come up with a measurement methodology which is consistent across units tested and testing sessions. The Energy Star Test Procedures for refrigerators and freezers is defined in this document: <https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs/ENERGY%20STAR%20Laboratory%20Grade%20RF%20Draft%202%20Test%20Method%202013-09-20.pdf https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs/ENERGY%...> [PDF] Refrigerators and freezers are tested unloaded. Which suggests that the Energy Star programme should report a less efficient energy usage as compared with normal loading of a refrigerator/freezer, which will reduce air exchange and the need to re-cool air.
mike_hearn 1y ago
They have none, which is why you don't ask the manufacturers to do that. You rely on other parties who make money by helping you choose between what products to buy (i.e. reviewers), as you do for any other dimension other than Energy Star ratings. Even with regulations like Energy Star, you can't just assume they're being followed accurately. It's much easier for companies to game one government-run system than a whole ecosystem of reviewers who are competing on the accuracy of their reviews.
- relaxing 1y ago
  If everyone has to buy a subscription to consumer reports that is effectively a tax. …only it’s better than a tax because it preserves the freedom to get ripped off if you choose. Yay freedom.
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    You don't have to buy a subscription to anything. You're welcome to make a purchasing decision in any way you want, including ways that are free like word of mouth.
    - azemetre 1y ago
      What a weird world where only certain people are allowed the privilege of information via money rather than enforcement thru the government to level the access.
    - relaxing 1y ago
      Notoriously reliable word of mouth. Very cheap, much freedom.
      - mike_hearn 1y ago
        People trust word of mouth much more than other sources of information. That's probably because the person giving you a recommendation has social skin in the game (if they're talking smack you won't trust them again in future), and no conflicts of interest. Versus asking the manufacturer ("very efficient sir") or the government ("efficient and we ignored every other aspect of the product so it might not actually work", see the dishwasher discussion).

smitty1e 1y ago

Your point is still largely true, but it is worth noting that, in the age of social media, the customer tail can wag the corporate dog. See: Bud Light.

pixl97 1y ago
I mean not really. You'll end up with boycotts around potential political reasons but almost no effective ones around technical reasons.
- fngjdflmdflg 1y ago
  Agreed that technical specs cannot easily be crowdsourced. And even comprehensive reviews quickly get outdated when new products release. I remember there used to be a Google engineer who would review USB-C cables on Amazon for compliance.[0] After looking at this again Amazon apparently ended up banning the sale of out of spec cables altogether. That kind of thing is the only real way to protect consumers. We can't rely on Google engineers to leave reviews for our products on Amazon. I do think products with clearly defined technical specs should in general be reported to the consumer. Same thing with nutrition labels. The lower the skill needed to evaluate something and the more well defined the problem space is, the easier it is to crowd source. For example Open Street Map works because the barrier to entry is relatively low and new cities aren't coming out every day. Similarly IMDB has a section that allows users to give their own parental rating to movies with their own explanation. That can compete with MPA film ratings because again the barrier to entry is low and movies don't change after they are released (in general). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Leung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Leung
  - pixl97 1y ago
    > I do think products with clearly defined technical specs should in general be reported to the consumer. A historic example is things was Linksys WRT54G wireless routers. The exact same product number had completely different amounts of memory and core chipsets. Another one that's common is the first batch of particular SSDs in a model contain more/faster/any cache which gets good benchmarks and great reviews, but later neutered releases of the same 'model' perform like crap.

timewizard 1y ago

> and display it accurately? What is accurately? The efficiency of the product will depend on how full it is. The less mass you have inside it the more often it turns on and the more energy it consumes. So do consumers even understand this particular point of their device? Or how their use case may impact the displayed numbers?

dredmorbius 1y ago
The point of standards and standardised evaluations is to come up with a measurement methodology which is consistent across units tested and testing sessions. The Energy Star Test Procedures for refrigerators and freezers is defined in this document: <https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs/ENERGY%20STAR%20Laboratory%20Grade%20RF%20Draft%202%20Test%20Method%202013-09-20.pdf https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs/ENERGY%...> [PDF] Refrigerators and freezers are tested unloaded. Which suggests that the Energy Star programme should report a less efficient energy usage as compared with normal loading of a refrigerator/freezer, which will reduce air exchange and the need to re-cool air.

mike_hearn 1y ago

They have none, which is why you don't ask the manufacturers to do that. You rely on other parties who make money by helping you choose between what products to buy (i.e. reviewers), as you do for any other dimension other than Energy Star ratings. Even with regulations like Energy Star, you can't just assume they're being followed accurately. It's much easier for companies to game one government-run system than a whole ecosystem of reviewers who are competing on the accuracy of their reviews.

relaxing 1y ago
If everyone has to buy a subscription to consumer reports that is effectively a tax. …only it’s better than a tax because it preserves the freedom to get ripped off if you choose. Yay freedom.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  You don't have to buy a subscription to anything. You're welcome to make a purchasing decision in any way you want, including ways that are free like word of mouth.
  - azemetre 1y ago
    What a weird world where only certain people are allowed the privilege of information via money rather than enforcement thru the government to level the access.
  - relaxing 1y ago
    Notoriously reliable word of mouth. Very cheap, much freedom.
    - mike_hearn 1y ago
      People trust word of mouth much more than other sources of information. That's probably because the person giving you a recommendation has social skin in the game (if they're talking smack you won't trust them again in future), and no conflicts of interest. Versus asking the manufacturer ("very efficient sir") or the government ("efficient and we ignored every other aspect of the product so it might not actually work", see the dishwasher discussion).