3 ms·

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

by 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...
- al_borland 2mo ago
  The customer can still choose to buy a whole new set of headphones if their case fails or gets lost, if that's really the experience they want. Offering a replacement doesn't change that.
  - eru 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - al_borland 2mo ago
      No intelligent or sane person would enter into a contract that is nothing but downside for them. In what situation would someone want to be obligated to buy a whole new set of headphones because they can't charge their current set anymore due to a missing/broken case?
      - eru 2mo ago
        Well, if people don't enter into these contracts anyway, why do we need to protect them?
        al_borland 2mo ago
        Gigachad already covered this. > 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. We shouldn’t make an entire population hunt through fine print, or research every situation that might come up with a product over the lifetime of ownership, to protect themselves from a practice that seeks to enrich companies while offering no defensible improvement to the product. Can you name even one way locking down a charging case makes the product better?

by kelnos 2mo ago

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...
al_borland 2mo ago
The customer can still choose to buy a whole new set of headphones if their case fails or gets lost, if that's really the experience they want. Offering a replacement doesn't change that.
- eru 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - al_borland 2mo ago
    No intelligent or sane person would enter into a contract that is nothing but downside for them. In what situation would someone want to be obligated to buy a whole new set of headphones because they can't charge their current set anymore due to a missing/broken case?
    - eru 2mo ago
      Well, if people don't enter into these contracts anyway, why do we need to protect them?
      - al_borland 2mo ago
        Gigachad already covered this. > 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. We shouldn’t make an entire population hunt through fine print, or research every situation that might come up with a product over the lifetime of ownership, to protect themselves from a practice that seeks to enrich companies while offering no defensible improvement to the product. Can you name even one way locking down a charging case makes the product better?