Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

eubusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 241 posts

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#161

Post by freehunter »

thinkfurther wrote: post #135

Why can't we have economies that can be stable without the sky falling, can grow when wanted, and shrink when needed without a cascade of catastrophies? Can't we? It's a honest question, I have no clue. Because I also think this is a great idea too, but everything else being the same, the general insanity being the same, something else will probably give. On the other hand, if we did have this hypothetical more flexi…

That would take central planning. The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high, and can't force businesses to close or merge when there are inefficiencies in the market. A capitalist economic system is inherently reactionary: someone notices a demand and creates supply for it. Someone tries their hardest to keep their business open even with low demand, right up until the point where they fail catastrophically. The drive to do better than everyone else is what keeps our economy afloat, but it also sometimes runs competitors out of business.

We can have an economy that is stable and fair for everyone with no winners or losers. But people have been trained against socialism and communism for so many years, it'd be a very tough sell. The only way to have an economy flex responsively is if the government is a central planning agency for businesses.

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#162

Post by observation »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #40
EGreg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. Wages have gone up? Where and source?

Purchasing power has gone up for those who can take advantage of cheap goods, but as your question insinuates, wages have not gone up; they've been stagnant for decades.

I am browsing Kevin Kelly's Cool Tools book.

It is remarkable how the prices of maybe three out of four items has doubled in the last four years.

Maybe the market has simply bifurcated.

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#163

Post by marcosdumay »

Latty wrote: post #33
NicoJuicy wrote: post #29

This made me think about the lamp that shines for 100 years in a fire department somewhere. It even has a cam http://www.centennialbulb.org/ Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have more sales. I think this was the article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbu...

I mean, LED bulbs have made traditional ones redundant and have incredibly long lifespans, so this isn't really true any more. The article makes some good points that lifespan was controlled, but not as drastically as you imply. They were talking about losing a third of the lifespan. While yes, they were clearly aiming to reduce the lifespan of bulbs, they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that ma…

> they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers want those bulbs.

Brighter and more efficient.

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#164

Post by freehunter »

patkai wrote: post #44
lumberjack wrote: post #8

Wages have gone up and consumer goods have gone down in price and build quality. It's not feasible to have a repair business any more. Growing up, there were still loads of repair businesses around. You could fix anything. If build quality and price go up, you can revert to an economy where you would fix your broken appliance once or twice before you replacing it. But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?

If they changed to a service model they would have an incentive. If they leased a dishwasher 5€/month suddenly it wouldn't break for 15 years. Ten years ago I talked to a person in aerospace, he said they would change to a service model similar to jet engines, but since customers don't push them, they will wait it out.

Anyone remember the unbreakable old AT&T landline phones? AT&T owned the phone, you just leased it from them, so they were completely indestructible. They weren't pretty, but they were bulletproof and you could slam the receiver down on a telemarketer without worrying about it getting damaged.

So yeah, you're completely right. If people didn't own their own hardware, if it was owned by the company and leased, we'd likely see more incentive to make sure they lasted.

Then again, companies discovered that you can lease something to someone and then charge them full price if/when they break it, so maybe not.

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#165

Post by freehunter »

ptaipale wrote: post #95
toomuchtodo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purchasing power has gone up for those who can take advantage of cheap goods, but as your question insinuates, wages have not gone up; they've been stagnant for decades.

What you get with your wages has changed. Real estate is more expensive; you get less of that with your wages. Mass-produced electronics and other consumer goods is much, much cheaper; you get more of that with your wages.

But in the 50s you weren't buying a new iPhone every few years, or a desktop/laptop computer or a tablet, or multiple TVs, or a cell phone contract, or an Internet contract, or cable TV, or Netflix.

As our purchasing power has decreased and inflation has increased, we've also invented a lot more expensive stuff to spend our fewer and fewer dollars on.

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#166

Post by ksk »

cwyers wrote: post #159
ksk wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is more like 'soldered RAM' versus 'user replaceable RAM'.

Which is done because solder is thinner/lighter than sockets, and therefore you can get a thinner/lighter laptop. There are real engineering tradeoffs all over the place here that are being elided over in order to make "things should be easier/cheaper to repair" seem obvious rather than a complicated set of tradeoffs.

You shifted the argument (which nobody was making) to being "modern is better" using your car example. I'm bringing it back to user-serviceable is _better_.

>Which is done because solder is thinner/lighter than sockets, and therefore you can get a thinner/lighter laptop.

So let them figure out another way to make it thinner/lighter. I don't want them to do it at the expense of upgrading common parts. We're not asking for every single chip to be replaceable. Just the obvious parts that have an established 10+ year history of being serviceable. I bet welding every single part on a car makes it lighter too, but I don't think people want to replace the entire car if their fuel pump breaks.

>There are real engineering tradeoffs all over the place here that are being elided

Huh? You switched from purely cosmetic factors - thinner/lighter, to engineering. You will have to explain that one to me...

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#168

Post by freehunter »

Latty wrote: post #33
NicoJuicy wrote: post #29

This made me think about the lamp that shines for 100 years in a fire department somewhere. It even has a cam http://www.centennialbulb.org/ Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have more sales. I think this was the article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-lightbu...

I mean, LED bulbs have made traditional ones redundant and have incredibly long lifespans, so this isn't really true any more. The article makes some good points that lifespan was controlled, but not as drastically as you imply. They were talking about losing a third of the lifespan. While yes, they were clearly aiming to reduce the lifespan of bulbs, they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that ma…

Yeah, that old lightbulb is so dim that it's basically completely useless. Even if it lasts 300 years, I don't want it in my house. I want lightbulbs that can actually illuminate a book well enough to read the words.

It's hardly a conspiracy. You can keep an old car running forever, but I want a car with air conditioning, power locks, Bluetooth, ABS, power steering, variable valve timing, and good gas milage. All of those things are complicated systems that are expensive to repair and break easily. Doesn't mean the older car is better or newer cars are a rip off.

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#169

Post by cwyers »

ksk wrote: post #166
cwyers wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is done because solder is thinner/lighter than sockets, and therefore you can get a thinner/lighter laptop. There are real engineering tradeoffs all over the place here that are being elided over in order to make "things should be easier/cheaper to repair" seem obvious rather than a complicated set of tradeoffs.

You shifted the argument (which nobody was making) to being "modern is better" using your car example. I'm bringing it back to user-serviceable is _better_. >Which is done because solder is thinner/lighter than sockets, and therefore you can get a thinner/lighter laptop. So let them figure out another way to make it thinner/lighter. I don't want them to do it at the expense of upgrading common parts. We're not asking…

Thinner and lighter are not purely cosmetic (although I think Apple overvalues them) -- laptops are meant to be carried and therefore being smaller/lighter are actual benefits. Even if they were purely cosmetic, however, there is actual engineering required to do them. The laws of the universe don't go, oh, you only want to make a cosmetic change, therefore you can get X into this space/thermal profile without any other tradeoffs.

User-serviceable parts are better, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal. You're trying to mandate tradeoffs for everyone else, and I don't think you understand everyone else's tradeoffs well enough to do that.

Re: EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products

#170

Post by pizzetta »

Silhouette wrote: post #103
pizzetta wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but should still result in lower TCO. Lower TCO means lower velocity of money.

OK, but why should we consider the economic concept of money changing hands more rapidly to be an inherently good thing? There are both environmental and quality of life issues with the way our culture has evolved recently, particularly around advancing consumer technologies, which aren't (directly) financial in nature but are definitely things we could change for the better. Meanwhile, the increases in money moving…

I think they have to be considered with respect to people's relative purchasing power. Ensure that if the velocity of money goes down that people's relative purchasing power remains equivalent.

In other words, if making things more durable results in people working fewer hours, then we need to know whether that results in negative income repercussions for workers.

A rudimentary example:

1x disposable widget took .5hrs to mfg. market price =$10 and lasts 1yr. CO = $10/yr

1x durable widget takes .6 hrs to mfg. market price =$50 and lasts 10 yrs. CO = $5/yr

And you extrapolate that...

So, yes, your costs go down over time, but so do your wages, so the deflation has to be measured so that earnings don't go down quicker than cost of living/cost of goods and services. Commensurate.

Post reply on HN