171–180 of 249 posts
"Providing open access to the technical specifications of consumer electronics would enable criminals to “more easily circumvent security protections, harming not only the product owner but also everyone who shares their network,” and "On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures" Of course they're doing it all for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually things like coffee grinders or electric stand mixers that have a motor and a gearbox include a plastic piece that is intended to fail first precisely so they are easily and cheaply repaired. They honestly should advertise it on the box, but that'd cut into their repair business.
In some cases, this is attributed to bad design or bad materials choice; and maybe in some cases, it's done to make you purchase a new model. But in many cases, such breakable parts are put in place for a reason. They are called "mechanical fuses" - also known by a few other names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrificial_part https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_pin They are designed to break if the machine comes un…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... how much do you think device disposal actually costs?
ex·ter·nal·i·ty noun a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved (emphasis added) https://www.google.com/search?q=define+externality
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You trust google more than I do. I'm sure there was a tit for tat exchange or back room deal if it went down. It wouldn't be the first time for these companies.
Apple in the past has made back door deals to not hire the employees of other companies, I believe Google was one of them. Wouldn't surprise me if this was the case here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your selected example has a negative externality of being deadly to bystanders if driven on a public roadway, and a more measured man might make some stipulation about such a vehicle only being driven on private land, but this is fundamentally how I feel. If I want to die in a flaming wreck, or if I want to accept a chance of dying in a flaming wreck in exchange for a discount on material goods, I don't want well-mea…
> Your selected example has a negative externality So does planned obsolescence. > If I want to die in a flaming wreck, or if I want to accept a chance of dying in a flaming wreck in exchange for a discount on material goods, I don't want well-meaning bureaucrats to gavel about telling me I can't do it because they know what's best for me. The well-meaning bureaucrats aren't out there to take away your freedom. They'…
I never claimed to be a perfectly rational market player engaging in a fully voluntary exchange of goods. Any human claiming to be fully rational lacks a healthy amount of introspection, and we're almost all faced with the prospect of starving if we don't partake in the exchange of goods. I want choice despite these shortcomings, and I don't have any desire to deprive others of choice if they're less rational or more desperate during their decision making processes.
>History teaches us that if the market can get away with unsafe goods, not only it will, but those goods will become the only thing available to people without lots of discretionary income (i.e. most of the population).
If those goods are banned, the alternatives will cost more. Who am I to tell somebody who can't afford a car with airbags that they shouldn't have the option to buy a car without airbags? You rightly point out the wretched state of the world with dispossessed masses of people, but then you deny those dispossessed masses the ability to make their own decisions about what to do with those few possessions they do have.
Edit:
> I might not like you telling me which tradeoffs to take, but I would appreciate if you were able to take some of the things forced on me and turn them around, or at least back into real tradeoffs.
Cost saving quality cuts are a real tradeoff -- they make goods and services available to those who would otherwise not be able to afford them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would be great. In my state any vehicle under 25 years old must go in for emission testing every few years or the tabs can't be renewed. > If it weren't so easy to get away with not having that filter, then what would happen is a secondary market that sells replacement filters for old cars, just like it happens for every other car part. Assuming owners have a right to repair of course.
Many states have gotten away from tailpipe sniffer inspections (more expensive and less convenient) and gone to visual and car ECU inspections (hook up the scanner, if there are no emission related codes and the car reports “ready”, you’re good).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She explained that in these two lines: > I write all of this because the prevailing theory in our industry is that this is Apple's way of fighting against right to repair. > If only Apple authorized service providers are allowed to advertise on Google for repair-related keywords, Apple will have taken more teeth out of "right to repair."
It's a hypothesis. It's also Google's call, and Google is the one they're paying for ads. It's really seems like a stretch without any evidence or more detailed reasoned argument. I mean, why would Google support Apple in doing this?
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/21/18624846/amazon-marketpla...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried advertising on DuckDuckGo? There's not as much traffic, but it could be worth it.
How many people do you know who use DuckDuckGo? How many of them would consider a repair shop instead of doing it themselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Google sells phones too. That nearly everyone in this thread has missed this fact so far is baffling.
Their ad revenue must be several orders of magnitude higher than their phone sales revenue, though.
Like on the ads they'll see on their devices.
Hey, what big change did Google make to Chrome with regard to Adblockers recently for Enterprise users?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awful, honestly. The last set we ran on Facebook cost us $40 per booked appointment...not even break-even for us. We are working on video ads for pre-roll YouTube, etc., but it takes $ for tools (like cameras) and production. On Google, we learned how to optimize our ads and we were doing really well.
Yeah, that sucks. For very occasional purchases like repair FB ads stink because so few of your potential targeted customers need a repair at any moment - you really need search ads to hit on the moment of intent. Could definitely see YT ads doing well if you target repair videos.