5 ms·

Enterprises are able to pay huge maintenance fees. Single consumers are not and game theory teaches us, that they are unable to unite to get it (free rider prob

Enterprises are able to pay huge maintenance fees. Single consumers are not and game theory teaches us, that they are unable to unite to get it (free rider problem). So I fear, that we need stronger consumer protection for software products. I do not know the situation in the US, but in the EU we have a mandated 2 year warranty for almost every product with very few sensible exceptions (food and the like). We need the same for software. Features that are advertised have to be guaranteed. Of course software has bugs, so the law has to be about software getting fixed, not being perfect. Actually that is the same with physical products as they do not have to be replaced, they can be repaired, so this does not even make a difference. There has to be some lightweight definition of non-functional requirements. This one is difficult and dangerous as the big players could unite and regulate the small ones out. Related to that, double or triple the warranty periods. This is not so much an issue with smartphones and the like, as they become obsolete by superior successors or fashion, but with stuff like printers, vacuum cleaners or electric toothbrushes. Of course, this would hurt companies like hell and will never happen. I imagine in the long run, it would actually be super beneficial to those, who remain, because it would create a brand "Sold in the EU" much like "Made in Germany" with all the mythos of the deregulated Autobahn but the highly regulated warranties :D

maccard 12y ago
> Related to that, double or triple the warranty periods. I'm not convinced that this solves anything. When you buy a 50 euro/dollar vacuum do you expect it to have the same life expectancy as the 500 dollar vacuum made with higher quality parts? If the company is required to provide a 6 year warranty for a machine that they estimate to last 2 years, they will simply stop producing the cheaper vacuums, meaning everyone who wants a vacuum has to now pay 500 dollars. My knowledge of Vacuum cleaner economics is limited, granted, but I can't see how this works out well in the longer term for anyone, other than the people who would have anyway purchased the more expensive product (that normally comes with a lifetime/extended warranty from the manufacturer anyway)
- allendoerfer 12y ago
  Valid point. Several things apply: You have to adjust the price for the cheap vacuum cleaner in your mind. You are actually talking about several of them, because of their reduced lifetime. Prices do not necessarily reflect the actual costs of the product directly sometimes not even remotely. Printers or game consoles for example are hardly or not at all profitable. The main purpose of prices is to differentiate the product classes, otherwise it would be harder to tell, which one actually is the higher class product. So that part of the pricing would not move at all. Economics of scale. The higher quality parts will be produced in greater mass and become cheaper. Innovation. If there is a need for cheaper vacuums, somebody will eventually find a way to build one. Finally, the main point: Planned obsolescence [0]. Products are actually designed to break directly after the 2 year guarantee. One could argue, that designing costs would actually fall, due to the obsolete step. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  That's why Australian consumer law says that things should remain working for a 'reasonable' amount of time. The law makes distinctions between a manufacturers warranty (e.g. Apple says it's devices come with a 12 months warranty, which is true and legal.) and, and the manufacturers/retails obligation to resolve defects (Apple will repair/replace devices for free even after that 12 months). The law is purposefully vague around this (I believe it says products should last for a reasonable period of time, depending on it's price and perceived quality), and different retailers/manufacturers honour this in different ways. This lead to some interesting situations, like Apple covering mobile devices for 24 months since purchase OR last repair/replace date, so it's actually possible to get infinite warranty on a device if you get to replace every 24 months.
TheDong 12y ago
This cannot work in this case. The software is not what is being sold; it's the hardware. The software is free. Let me paint a slightly sillier picture; imagine your law existed and one man wrote a small toy project in his free time 5 years ago... some company (e.g. Samsung) starts shipping it as part of an appliance they sell. If there are bugs in the software then is the original man obligated to fix them? Is he breaking the law? Open source software just isn't compatible with laws mandating that it be maintained in a given way and it makes little sense, in my mind, to create such laws.
- allendoerfer 12y ago
  You realize, that this is also the case for physical goods? If Bosch ships a shitty part to VW and VW sells it to consumers, VW has to replace or repair it and VWs lawyers try to get something back from Bosch. So if Google ships shitty software to Samsung or Samsung uses free shitty software, but sells a device, claiming it has a barometer, which does not work due to shitty software, Samsung has to replace the device or repair the device in this case through a software update.

maccard 12y ago

> Related to that, double or triple the warranty periods. I'm not convinced that this solves anything. When you buy a 50 euro/dollar vacuum do you expect it to have the same life expectancy as the 500 dollar vacuum made with higher quality parts? If the company is required to provide a 6 year warranty for a machine that they estimate to last 2 years, they will simply stop producing the cheaper vacuums, meaning everyone who wants a vacuum has to now pay 500 dollars. My knowledge of Vacuum cleaner economics is limited, granted, but I can't see how this works out well in the longer term for anyone, other than the people who would have anyway purchased the more expensive product (that normally comes with a lifetime/extended warranty from the manufacturer anyway)

allendoerfer 12y ago
Valid point. Several things apply: You have to adjust the price for the cheap vacuum cleaner in your mind. You are actually talking about several of them, because of their reduced lifetime. Prices do not necessarily reflect the actual costs of the product directly sometimes not even remotely. Printers or game consoles for example are hardly or not at all profitable. The main purpose of prices is to differentiate the product classes, otherwise it would be harder to tell, which one actually is the higher class product. So that part of the pricing would not move at all. Economics of scale. The higher quality parts will be produced in greater mass and become cheaper. Innovation. If there is a need for cheaper vacuums, somebody will eventually find a way to build one. Finally, the main point: Planned obsolescence [0]. Products are actually designed to break directly after the 2 year guarantee. One could argue, that designing costs would actually fall, due to the obsolete step. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
madeofpalk 12y ago
That's why Australian consumer law says that things should remain working for a 'reasonable' amount of time. The law makes distinctions between a manufacturers warranty (e.g. Apple says it's devices come with a 12 months warranty, which is true and legal.) and, and the manufacturers/retails obligation to resolve defects (Apple will repair/replace devices for free even after that 12 months). The law is purposefully vague around this (I believe it says products should last for a reasonable period of time, depending on it's price and perceived quality), and different retailers/manufacturers honour this in different ways. This lead to some interesting situations, like Apple covering mobile devices for 24 months since purchase OR last repair/replace date, so it's actually possible to get infinite warranty on a device if you get to replace every 24 months.

TheDong 12y ago

This cannot work in this case. The software is not what is being sold; it's the hardware. The software is free. Let me paint a slightly sillier picture; imagine your law existed and one man wrote a small toy project in his free time 5 years ago... some company (e.g. Samsung) starts shipping it as part of an appliance they sell. If there are bugs in the software then is the original man obligated to fix them? Is he breaking the law? Open source software just isn't compatible with laws mandating that it be maintained in a given way and it makes little sense, in my mind, to create such laws.

allendoerfer 12y ago
You realize, that this is also the case for physical goods? If Bosch ships a shitty part to VW and VW sells it to consumers, VW has to replace or repair it and VWs lawyers try to get something back from Bosch. So if Google ships shitty software to Samsung or Samsung uses free shitty software, but sells a device, claiming it has a barometer, which does not work due to shitty software, Samsung has to replace the device or repair the device in this case through a software update.