5 ms·

On the Bose one: Consider if your laptop was paired to it's specific charger and would refuse to charge with any other cable or charger. Lose or break your cha

On the Bose one: Consider if your laptop was paired to it's specific charger and would refuse to charge with any other cable or charger. Lose or break your charger and suddenly your $2000+ laptop is irreparable. That seems obviously stupid, right? And the sort of thing that ought to be illegal? Well, the headphones are the same, just with a different looking charging cable.

eru 2mo ago
> That seems obviously stupid, right? Yes. > And the sort of thing that ought to be illegal? No, why? As long as you know ahead of time what you are getting, seems fine to me. People are also allowed to buy impractical shoes in stupid colours, and that shouldn't be illegal.
- Gigachad 2mo ago
  Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make sure they aren't abusing my rights in some confusing way that only shows up years down the line. In the same way I like not having to check restaurants are poisoning me, I like knowing my consumer rights are being respected in every other industry.
  - eru 2mo ago
    Your preferences are not necessarily shared by other people. What's next, banning pineapple on pizza? > Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. Don't buy stuff, then? Or in general, ask your legislators for a tax on ewaste? > And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make sure they aren't abusing my rights in some confusing way that only shows up years down the line. Read reviews, or rely on brands that have a reputation to burn, or ask your AI helper to read the fineprint.
    - Gigachad 2mo ago
      Thankfully my preference for not destroying the environment and abusing buyers is shared by the majority in my country which is why stricter consumer laws are catching up to these tech companies.
    - kelnos 2mo ago
      What a weird way to frame the argument. Banning pineapple on pizza takes away choice. Legally requiring that headphone manufacturers offer the ability to buy a new charging case for them just saves people money and reduces harm to the environment. Please don't argue in bad faith.
      - eru 2mo ago
        What you are suggesting also takes away a choice.
        Gigachad 2mo ago
        Takes away the choice to not have the choice to buy replacement parts?
        eru 2mo ago
        Yes, exactly. Consenting adults can use contracts and agreements to restrict their later choices. Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. Strictly speaking, entering that contract takes away a choice in the future. Or a car company might offer today to buy back your car in the future for a given price. If you ban that contract, they can still choose to buy back that car in the future, but the customer cannot rely on it today.
        godelski 2mo ago
        Do such products even exist? At the same quality? Your argument only makes sense in markets with high competition and high information. But those aren't the conditions of the markets today. You're acting like there is a company that actually provides the things people are complaining about. But people are complaining because they can't buy what they want. So stop arguing in bad faith. > Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. So imagine I have a contract to buy potatoes next year and they all are rotten. You're arguing "well the contract didn't specify that they wouldn't be rotten." What a shitty thing and of course the seller will be sued. There's implicit parts to the contract. Even if you hid in the contract "might be rotten" it's clear that's not in good faith. That has big externalities as people no longer trust potatoes. Which is exactly what we're seeing happening in tech...
  - charcircuit 2mo ago
    >creating mountains of ewaste. Earth is much much bigger than you think it is. Even if you care about reducing waste, less then 3% of total waste is ewaste. Ewaste is not destroying the planet.
- rockskon 2mo ago
  So long as it wasn't something that changed due to a firmware update after purchase, sure. One of the most common grievances on ConsumerRightsWiki is when the terms of the sale seem to change after you've already purchased the product.
- Telaneo 2mo ago
  Is there any legitimate reason why those Bose headphones should be able to pair with with any case? If there's a legitimate preference here, then I don't see an inherent problem with it, assuming the consumer is informed, but that doesn't seem to be the case from my understanding. If there is no legitimate reason for them to not be able to pair, then they're just generating needless e-waste. That probably should be illegal, or at least regulated as to discourage it from happening. A normal consumer wouldn't assume this to be the default behaviour, and I doubt Bose wrote this (or whatever possible advantage you'd get from this behaviour) on the box or website blurb.
- ball_of_lint 2mo ago
  It shouldn't be illegal because it's stupid, it should be illegal because it's a needless artificial restriction that the product would be functionally identical without. It would literally have cost them less development time to make the headphones without this restriction. And that would be better for the consumer. The only purpose this restriction serves is to make the headphones easier to break (possibly increasing the number of purchases? It's deliberately anti-consumer. This is exactly one of those places that capitalism doesn't work well and regulation is needed. Businesses would rather have you purchasing a new item every year instead of building something that lasts, but it's dramatically better for society when products are actually good instead of crap.
  - eru 2mo ago
    Why doesn't the competition undercut them, if it's such a no-brainer? It's not like Bose has a monopoly on headphones.
    - ball_of_lint 2mo ago
      Because there's (at least a perception of) less money to be made making a product that doesn't break within a few years. As an example of this, look up Instant Pot.
      - eru 2mo ago
        Sorry, could you please elaborate. No one is forced to buy a Bose product, and there are plenty of competitors. I can see why companies would try to sell you a product that breaks, sure. But competitors can point out that their product doesn't break (in case it actually doesn't), and try to win over customers.
        ball_of_lint 2mo ago
        Instant pot went through bankruptcy, at least in part because they made a good durable product. The durability resulted in them not geting many repeat customers. People liked it so they bought one and it just worked for years and years, quickly satisfying the market. https://www.bonappetit.com/story/instant-pot-bankrupt?srsltid=AfmBOoq85yIWaKqxtwv3D9plbYMXZCbatItK3P8Lp2yAl-7yFx8a492O https://www.bonappetit.com/story/instant-pot-bankrupt?srslti... Generically, yeah there's some markets where that works alright. For example, I don't think the car industry is unhealthy in this way. The phone market is unfortunately rife with this - the biggest players are all doing it, to their own benefit, and it's difficult enough to seriously enter the market that it's not very open to disruption.
- JamesTDG 2mo ago
  But the problem is that this is equipment that is going up in price exponentially now. Equipment that is also mandatory to be able to hold a damn job in a lot of these cases. Realistically speaking, it should be illegal to be doing practices that make it harder or literally impossible to repair anything we buy. For example, with Ford, they're trying to make it so you can only use THEIR repair people to fix your car. Gives a whole new meaning to Found on Road Dead...
- atoav 2mo ago
  Yes, it should be illegal. The default expectation when you buy a device should be that something as simple as a power supply can be replaced. I could agree with you if products that fail with the regulation have to put these shortcomings front and center on every place they are marketed on and not some fine print in some manual. The idea of regulation is to allow consumers to just buy a thing and have certain expectations met. If you buy a piece of lettuce you should be able to eat it without owning a fucking biology lab to check it first for example.
- akramachamarei 2mo ago
  Shhh don't ask that. The authoritarians are here.
- godelski 2mo ago
  > As long as you know ahead of time what you are getting This doesn't matter when the choices are limited (i.e. low competition). Clearly people are looking for another option. One that isn't being offered. So the appropriate question is to ask why this market inefficiency exists. Is it because no competitor has entered the market and there's a golden opportunity? Is the barrier to entry very high? Does the average consumer even know they want <X> at the time of purchase? Or do they think really there only exists a basic option, Android or iPhone, and that the actual decision comes down to other things. (Listen to what most people actually talk about. Not HN people, the average consumer.)
Gigachad 2mo ago
Apple gets all the heat for consumer rights issue, and rightfully they do need to do better, but every time I look, they are one of the best companies for repair and consumer rights. The rest of the industry is straight up atrocious. Apple will sell you a replacement left or right airpod, and a replacement case. If you bought all 3 to form a complete product it comes out hardly more expensive than buying a new one so the replacements are fairly priced too.
- m463 2mo ago
  Don't give it a pass, at all. I have many friends with a laptop that has an issue, just out of warranty. Apple will "repair" it for a LOT, suspiciously like $200 less than a new laptop. Personally happened to me 2 times.
  - Gigachad 2mo ago
    Doesn't give them a pass, but if you look at the alternatives, most of them won't even have a repair location at all. When I wanted to get my Pixel phone fixed I couldn't even contact google because their support contact required giving a serial number and the phone being within the warranty period. Apple repairs might be over priced but Google wouldn't even give me a price
    - paulryanrogers 2mo ago
      Does Google control the 3P repair market for its devices? Such as by parts pairing? Because sometimes a free market of unofficial options is better than an exclusive and exorbitant option.
    - m463 2mo ago
      Instead of looking at "alternatives" meaning competing companies, I think maybe looking at what is broken and has to be fixed instead. What I suspect they do is take your entire machine in trade, and give you a refurb machine. Then they take your machine whether barely broken or very broken, fix it up, then add it to the pipeline for the next person. They charge a specific amount for this pipeline (anchored by the price of a new machine).
WrexyBalls 2mo ago
[dead]

eru 2mo ago

> That seems obviously stupid, right? Yes. > And the sort of thing that ought to be illegal? No, why? As long as you know ahead of time what you are getting, seems fine to me. People are also allowed to buy impractical shoes in stupid colours, and that shouldn't be illegal.

Gigachad 2mo ago
Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make sure they aren't abusing my rights in some confusing way that only shows up years down the line. In the same way I like not having to check restaurants are poisoning me, I like knowing my consumer rights are being respected in every other industry.
- eru 2mo ago
  Your preferences are not necessarily shared by other people. What's next, banning pineapple on pizza? > Because it's destroying the planet creating mountains of ewaste. Don't buy stuff, then? Or in general, ask your legislators for a tax on ewaste? > And because as a consumer, I don't want to spend a week doing research on every product to make sure they aren't abusing my rights in some confusing way that only shows up years down the line. Read reviews, or rely on brands that have a reputation to burn, or ask your AI helper to read the fineprint.
  - Gigachad 2mo ago
    Thankfully my preference for not destroying the environment and abusing buyers is shared by the majority in my country which is why stricter consumer laws are catching up to these tech companies.
  - kelnos 2mo ago
    What a weird way to frame the argument. Banning pineapple on pizza takes away choice. Legally requiring that headphone manufacturers offer the ability to buy a new charging case for them just saves people money and reduces harm to the environment. Please don't argue in bad faith.
    - eru 2mo ago
      What you are suggesting also takes away a choice.
      - Gigachad 2mo ago
        Takes away the choice to not have the choice to buy replacement parts?
        eru 2mo ago
        Yes, exactly. Consenting adults can use contracts and agreements to restrict their later choices. Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. Strictly speaking, entering that contract takes away a choice in the future. Or a car company might offer today to buy back your car in the future for a given price. If you ban that contract, they can still choose to buy back that car in the future, but the customer cannot rely on it today.
        godelski 2mo ago
        Do such products even exist? At the same quality? Your argument only makes sense in markets with high competition and high information. But those aren't the conditions of the markets today. You're acting like there is a company that actually provides the things people are complaining about. But people are complaining because they can't buy what they want. So stop arguing in bad faith. > Eg a farmer and a super market can contract today to trade potatoes next year. So imagine I have a contract to buy potatoes next year and they all are rotten. You're arguing "well the contract didn't specify that they wouldn't be rotten." What a shitty thing and of course the seller will be sued. There's implicit parts to the contract. Even if you hid in the contract "might be rotten" it's clear that's not in good faith. That has big externalities as people no longer trust potatoes. Which is exactly what we're seeing happening in tech...
- charcircuit 2mo ago
  >creating mountains of ewaste. Earth is much much bigger than you think it is. Even if you care about reducing waste, less then 3% of total waste is ewaste. Ewaste is not destroying the planet.
rockskon 2mo ago
So long as it wasn't something that changed due to a firmware update after purchase, sure. One of the most common grievances on ConsumerRightsWiki is when the terms of the sale seem to change after you've already purchased the product.
Telaneo 2mo ago
Is there any legitimate reason why those Bose headphones should be able to pair with with any case? If there's a legitimate preference here, then I don't see an inherent problem with it, assuming the consumer is informed, but that doesn't seem to be the case from my understanding. If there is no legitimate reason for them to not be able to pair, then they're just generating needless e-waste. That probably should be illegal, or at least regulated as to discourage it from happening. A normal consumer wouldn't assume this to be the default behaviour, and I doubt Bose wrote this (or whatever possible advantage you'd get from this behaviour) on the box or website blurb.
ball_of_lint 2mo ago
It shouldn't be illegal because it's stupid, it should be illegal because it's a needless artificial restriction that the product would be functionally identical without. It would literally have cost them less development time to make the headphones without this restriction. And that would be better for the consumer. The only purpose this restriction serves is to make the headphones easier to break (possibly increasing the number of purchases? It's deliberately anti-consumer. This is exactly one of those places that capitalism doesn't work well and regulation is needed. Businesses would rather have you purchasing a new item every year instead of building something that lasts, but it's dramatically better for society when products are actually good instead of crap.
- eru 2mo ago
  Why doesn't the competition undercut them, if it's such a no-brainer? It's not like Bose has a monopoly on headphones.
  - ball_of_lint 2mo ago
    Because there's (at least a perception of) less money to be made making a product that doesn't break within a few years. As an example of this, look up Instant Pot.
    - eru 2mo ago
      Sorry, could you please elaborate. No one is forced to buy a Bose product, and there are plenty of competitors. I can see why companies would try to sell you a product that breaks, sure. But competitors can point out that their product doesn't break (in case it actually doesn't), and try to win over customers.
      - ball_of_lint 2mo ago
        Instant pot went through bankruptcy, at least in part because they made a good durable product. The durability resulted in them not geting many repeat customers. People liked it so they bought one and it just worked for years and years, quickly satisfying the market. https://www.bonappetit.com/story/instant-pot-bankrupt?srsltid=AfmBOoq85yIWaKqxtwv3D9plbYMXZCbatItK3P8Lp2yAl-7yFx8a492O https://www.bonappetit.com/story/instant-pot-bankrupt?srslti... Generically, yeah there's some markets where that works alright. For example, I don't think the car industry is unhealthy in this way. The phone market is unfortunately rife with this - the biggest players are all doing it, to their own benefit, and it's difficult enough to seriously enter the market that it's not very open to disruption.
JamesTDG 2mo ago
But the problem is that this is equipment that is going up in price exponentially now. Equipment that is also mandatory to be able to hold a damn job in a lot of these cases. Realistically speaking, it should be illegal to be doing practices that make it harder or literally impossible to repair anything we buy. For example, with Ford, they're trying to make it so you can only use THEIR repair people to fix your car. Gives a whole new meaning to Found on Road Dead...
atoav 2mo ago
Yes, it should be illegal. The default expectation when you buy a device should be that something as simple as a power supply can be replaced. I could agree with you if products that fail with the regulation have to put these shortcomings front and center on every place they are marketed on and not some fine print in some manual. The idea of regulation is to allow consumers to just buy a thing and have certain expectations met. If you buy a piece of lettuce you should be able to eat it without owning a fucking biology lab to check it first for example.
akramachamarei 2mo ago
Shhh don't ask that. The authoritarians are here.
godelski 2mo ago
> As long as you know ahead of time what you are getting This doesn't matter when the choices are limited (i.e. low competition). Clearly people are looking for another option. One that isn't being offered. So the appropriate question is to ask why this market inefficiency exists. Is it because no competitor has entered the market and there's a golden opportunity? Is the barrier to entry very high? Does the average consumer even know they want <X> at the time of purchase? Or do they think really there only exists a basic option, Android or iPhone, and that the actual decision comes down to other things. (Listen to what most people actually talk about. Not HN people, the average consumer.)

Gigachad 2mo ago

Apple gets all the heat for consumer rights issue, and rightfully they do need to do better, but every time I look, they are one of the best companies for repair and consumer rights. The rest of the industry is straight up atrocious. Apple will sell you a replacement left or right airpod, and a replacement case. If you bought all 3 to form a complete product it comes out hardly more expensive than buying a new one so the replacements are fairly priced too.

m463 2mo ago
Don't give it a pass, at all. I have many friends with a laptop that has an issue, just out of warranty. Apple will "repair" it for a LOT, suspiciously like $200 less than a new laptop. Personally happened to me 2 times.
- Gigachad 2mo ago
  Doesn't give them a pass, but if you look at the alternatives, most of them won't even have a repair location at all. When I wanted to get my Pixel phone fixed I couldn't even contact google because their support contact required giving a serial number and the phone being within the warranty period. Apple repairs might be over priced but Google wouldn't even give me a price
  - paulryanrogers 2mo ago
    Does Google control the 3P repair market for its devices? Such as by parts pairing? Because sometimes a free market of unofficial options is better than an exclusive and exorbitant option.
  - m463 2mo ago
    Instead of looking at "alternatives" meaning competing companies, I think maybe looking at what is broken and has to be fixed instead. What I suspect they do is take your entire machine in trade, and give you a refurb machine. Then they take your machine whether barely broken or very broken, fix it up, then add it to the pipeline for the next person. They charge a specific amount for this pipeline (anchored by the price of a new machine).

WrexyBalls 2mo ago

[dead]