31–40 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's like devices are not even planned to be repaired. They are designed to be sold and then abandoned. That's the real issue. Not cost of repair. Absolutely. Smartphones are the best example, the software makes the hardware unusable or insecure because of the lack of updates pretty quickly.
Agreed. Software and hardware should be sold separately.
Of course, the flipside of this is the flipside of Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness - if the cheap boots that fall apart quickly didn't exist, Sam Vimes would not be able to buy boots at all in the first place. The solution is, of course, to put more people in a position where they can afford to buy the more expensive boots and see the value in doing so.
I am unconvinced that more expensive = better quality for a lot of things these days. There are some anecdotal examples of people with Miele washing machines that have lasted for decades etc (... as an aside I guess we wont know about today's Miele washing machines for several more years at least ...), but in my experience paying a premium for a product more often than not just gives you an as-cheaply-made product bu…
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...
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 made consumers want those bulbs.
If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would have (it's not like that cartel is still going - 1940 was a long time ago) - I don't think what they did was that dissimilar to desktop software moving to subscription models to increase profit - as long as they introduce value from that change to justify it, then it's not wrong.
The century-old bulb is an extreme outlier and there was never an expectation for anything to last that long. Trying to imply that modern bulbs are handicapped intentionally to such an extreme is just misleading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU already made mandatory 24 months warranty for all products sold in Europe. I think this has been beneficial not only to European citizens but also to the US where there isn't a minimum warranty by default. Businesses who sell products on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have mirrored the imposed warranty of the EU in the US. I am in favor of extending the minimum warranty. PS: isn't there also some regulatio…
Don't forget that the 24 month warranty is one of the stated reasons for justifying the sale price difference for the same product between the US and the EU. If it's increased, manufacturers will just increase their EU prices so that their costs will be covered.
In the US they advertise the price excluding tax, in the EU we advertise the price including tax.
When counting taxes, there isn't a big difference.
Manufacturers should be made responsible for disposal. This would provide an incentive to make products last and be repairable.
> The directive imposes the responsibility for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers or distributors of such equipment.[3] It requires that those companies establish an infrastructure for collecting WEEE, in such a way that "Users of electrical and electronic equipment from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni...
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably do not live in Europe (or maybe you just like trolling?). First I am a voter and I do take the EU parliament seriously. I also consider what the groups and candidates voted in the past before giving them my vote - especially on topics like world trade giant agreements (TTIP, TATFA, CETA... - yes they also vote on that and it is very meaningful for our future). You may also read some documentation on the…
> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation. Wasn't that the European Commission (and not Parliament) though? They seem to be significantly more powerful.
The complexity stems from the legal status where the EU is in some respects a confederation of sovereign states, where the governments of the member states need to represent their respective nations, and in some respects a union of people. The gradual shift of power towards the Parliament represents attempts to shift it towards the latter, while the Commission and Council represents the treat realities where delegating more power to Parliament would require constitutional changes in a number of member states to cede the sovereignty (currently this is worked around by having the treaties bind the respective governments to take make the required decision - it's exploiting the wide latitude most governments have in exercising treating rights and obligations.
The article says that consumers are discouraged by the cost of repair. A few weeks ago, I repaired an eltronical appliance and was surprised to see that all screws were screwed into plastic. As I unscrewed them to access the inside of the device, the plastic around the screw broke. I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. That just makes no sense appart from upfront cost. Once the plastic is b…
A law requiring a particular material? Unless it’s health or safety related, no way. The last place I want to see government is regulating how a product must be constructed (unless it’s health or safety critical obviously.) If you want a device without plastic screw holes, pay more money and find one or make one yourself, market it and sell it to other like-minded people. If I have a toaster that breaks, the time it…
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?
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?
Wait. Wages have gone up? Where and source?