Slashdot Mirror
EU Parliament Calls For Longer Lifetime For Products (eubusiness.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Europe's Parliament called on the Commission, Member States and producers Tuesday to take measures to ensure consumers can enjoy durable, high-quality products that can be repaired and upgraded. At their plenary session in Strasbourg, MEPs said tangible goods and software should be easier to repair and update, and made a plea to tackle built-in obsolescence and make spare parts affordable. 77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new ones, according to a 2014 Eurobarometer survey, but they ultimately have to replace or discard them because they are discouraged by the cost of repairs and the level of service provided. "We must reinstate the reparability of all products put on the market," said Parliament's rapporteur Pascal Durand MEP: "We have to make sure that batteries are no longer glued into a product, but are screwed in so that we do not have to throw away a phone when the battery breaks down. We need to make sure that consumers are aware of how long the products last and how they can be repaired."
As long as people are willing to pay 2-3x the current cost, they can have a TV with replaceable parts and the infrastructure required to support it. Of course, many people won't be able to buy these products, but boy howdy, if they do, it will really be great.
My first-gen iPod Touch should have lasted ten years before the battery died. It only lasted eight years.
Being a US Citizen, I feel I am being dragged into some backwards Theocratic Police State where the common person has no rights, has no say and is there to serve solely as a profit center for the All Mighty Capitalists
In the EU, they proactively look after the interests of their people and society
Sure, they pay higher taxes and they ave plenty of downsides, but I find that far more acceptable than living in the US
I have an iPad 2. I cannot upgrade iOS to the current version and as a result, I cannot upgrade some of my apps.
I have an iMac from 10-12 years ago and I cannot upgrade it to Mac OS Sierra - the current version.
I use my hardware until the wheels fall off - and sometimes even further (when I built my own machines, I'd treat the thing like a car - until I couldn't upgrade/add memory because the latest version of the software I was using needed it - INCLUDING LINUX!!!
We need to upgrade to security reasons and because bugs that may have been sitting around for YEARS were finally fixed. And no, it's NOT just a Microsoft thing.
Often the pricier one isnt better, and sometimes its even worse.
If you walk into a store and buy the expensive item "because its better quality" you will soon understand.
"His name was James Damore."
The government needs to stay out of free market economics. Consumers have bleated incoherently
FTFY
Someone had to do it.
Hit the manufacturers with a "life cycle tax" to cover the true cost of the ENTIRE life cycle of the product - including disposal in a landfill or the ocean.
Pros: You'd be able to repair a lot of stuff because it'd be cheaper to sell. And the Great Pacific Garbage Patch(es) would stop growing pretty quick. McDonald's Happy Meal toys would either be made of wood or disappear altogether.
Cons: Implementing it would be difficult - full of more regulations to comply with. And stuff would go way up in price. McDonald's Happy Meal toys would either be made of wood or disappear altogether.
77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new ones
And what percentage would be willing to pay significantly more for those repairable products than they are paying now for the non-repairable versions?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The study in question was in relation to major household waste management. 77% of respondents said they would "make an effort to get broken appliances repaired before buying new ones." {Emphasis Mine} It was a study about the home, food waste, plastic waste, and general appliances. I too would put every effort into getting a dishwasher repaired. I just drove my coffee machine to the other side of the city for that reason too.
However I couldn't give two shits about my smartphone, tablet, or any other device with glued in batteries, or batteries in general. Most of these status symbols will be replaced while in a perfectly working condition. I applaud the idea behind the repairability rules, but if you don't back it with the right study you will not find the support you need to tackle this issue, an issue which manufacturers will fight.
They always claim "it would be nice" to be able to upgrade an existing device than to have to buy a new one, but in practice no one does that. It's been that way in the PC world for years. Maybe you upgrade the RAM or hard drive, but that's usually it. You go through the cost of the upgrade, and in the end you still have the same dinged and dirty old thing you had before. People much prefer the experience of going out and buying a shiny new thing.
You pretty much make my point for me. Self Important Elitists should tell everyone what to do, because we're too damn stupid to know better.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
We have to make sure that batteries are no longer glued into a product, but are screwed in so that we do not have to throw away a phone when the battery breaks down.
Excuse me ... ... something in my eye.
Seriously my fingers are sore from typing almost this exact sentence over and over again. It's good to see someone of influence actually cares.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Its usually the expensive products that aren't reparable.
Being someone who spent a number of years repairing Other People's Broken Shit (and profited intellectually thereby, believe it or not; knowing how things break and how they could be made better is of great practical use), I appreciate and agree with the sentiment behind this from the EU, but as with so many things technological, the politicians in this case don't have an appreciation for the technical problems associated with it. Many of the devices they'd like to be repairable aren't manufactured in a way that makes them easily repairable in the first place. Much surface-mount component technology itself makes it almost impossible to diagnose problems down to the component level (BGA packaged integrated circuits especially). Then there's the cost associated with diagnosis and repair of a circuit board; in many cases it might cost more to do that than a new unit would cost. Changing the way things are manufactured to facilitate repair might not be possible, at least without going backwards, having devices that are larger and bulkier, so that repairs can even be made. As-is, some devices can be 'repaired' just by replacing an entire circuit board, which while it irks my sensibilities is the most cost-effective solution; defectives can either be recycled or repaired in bulk in a factory setting for much cheaper than as a one-off. Your smartphone, on the other hand, is more-or-less one circuit board to start with, is very densely packed with components, most/all of the VLSI ICs are BGA packages, and the PCB itself might not even survive the removal/replacement process, even if you can manage to diagnose the problem; there's no real way to make them repairable short of replacing entire assemblies, which in many cases might cost more than half of what a new smartphone costs. Many other portable devices are in the same boat. Appliances, vehicles, $LARGE_THINGS? There's little reason why they can't be made repairable, it's just company policies that prevent it (I'm looking at you John Deere). I'd hope that the EU is really going to target that class of 'device' than any other.
Have any economists studied the planned obsolescence economy and production cycles based on intentional forced turnover?
It strikes me as the (probably wrong) layman that a lot of companies seem to have business models that are predicated on planned obsolescence generating demand for replacement products.
Obviously there's a whole category of computer-related products where improvements make the product obsolete no matter how much the design suggests upgradability -- even though your Socket 7 motherboard has a removable CPU, other improvements mean you can't stuff a Core i7 in that motherboard.
But in a lot of ways it seems that products are just made non-serviceable intentionally so that they have to be replaced, guaranteeing a kind of annuity-like continuous stream of business as consumers are forced to replace products which can't be fixed at all.
We may pay lower prices for the product because lack of service access makes them cheaper to make, but it's sure hard to sort out where this is a real consumer benefit and not just some way to make people keep buying the same product. And of course manufacturers are caught in the race to the bottom by consumers who shave pennies in the short run and won't accept tiny price premiums for something can be repaired, basically preventing a manufacturer from even making a repairable product at all.
I'm sure I will be denounced, but this does seem like an area where imposing some kind of regulation would have good environmental consequences (reducing the waste stream) and consumer benefit even if it results in marginal price premiums.
Of all the tall tales, I think my favorite is the one about Eli Whitney and the interchangeable parts.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
>Consumers have spoken and prefer
Uh, no, reduced sales at greater margin means exactly the opposite of that, but with more profits. The part that matters, far more than your illusions.
Preference means shit.
Profit means all.
I'm not saying there's a solution, I'm not recommending regulation, I'm not even rebuking worship of the commercial altar, I'm just making sure we're all clear about a very old, very permanent reality:
Consumers didn't do this, revenue did.
There's a fine balance to be walked here, but frankly lots of companies haven't walked even near that line for years.
They've honed a culture of making it impossible to fix anything, when the truth is that minimal changes would make it easy to fix most common problems for - not all, but many people and their friends.
The sudden appearance of a ton of small iPhone and related repair shops prove there's market for this.
I predict a lot of naysayers are going to turn up in this thread, and yes, it's a balance. But there's lots of low-hanging fruit out there.
Unfortunately, I don't think most companies will pick it themselves unless repairability gets into the competitive focus. There are signs it might, though. When people talk about sustainability and a circular economy, it doesn't take long to figure out that the longer the cycle lasts, the less resources needs to be put into it.
For instance, a company like Apple may not be able to ignore this if the hipster crowd figures out another company can make greener products.
"The government needs to stay out of free market economics" means that someone has no idea under what conditions a free market works. For a free market to work it is necessary that the rules balance the power between the different actors on the market. One often overlooked problem is that normally, consumers know much less about the products they are buying than the manufacturers and the sellers. While consumers need many different products of very different product classes and need to have a very broad knowledge about virtually everything, manufacturers and sellers can specialize on their sector of the market and thus have a big informational advantage, which they leverage in contract negotiations. Many regulations thus are concerned with consumer protection and try to shift the balance of power away from the manufacturers and sellers which have to adhere to very strict rules to stop potential or real abuse of their negotiational power.
Seriously, new appliance reliability has gotten so bad, that I'd say probably 20% of purchases fail or have problems in the first 18 months. And even when under warranty, the customer must fight and fight to have the problem resolved.
I think the simple solution is mandate the warranty be based upon price increment.
Minimum Warranty Period
$100 = 90 days
$100- $200 = 1 year
$200-$500 = 2 year
$500-$1,000 = 3 year
$1,000+ = 5 year
Evert iPhone should come with a free pony! The EU demands it!
They will propose any stupid shit that comes into their head, if it sounds like it is pro-consumer/anti-corporate.
For example:
"Batteries must be SCREWED in"?!?
Screwed into WHAT?!?
So now, the battery has to have some sort of threaded-insert, decreasing space inside the battery for, uh, BATTERY, and making it so that nice IP67 rating is RIGHT OUT, because now we have to have a HOLE in the body for the screw to pass through?!?
And don't whine about o-rings or other nonsense. Those quickly lose their effectiveness, as the screw loosens under vibration and flexing of the outer shell.
We are paying 2x-3x the cost.
We used to pay good money for an American made product that would last several years. Then cheap Chinese/Asian products came on the market. They were cheap, often a 1/3 of the cost. Now you can't find those American made products. And instead, the cheap Chinese/Asian products such as dishwashers and washing machines are now more than the old American ones were. But the failure rates are thru the roof, the warranties are almost non-existent. It is so bad, every store offers you extended warranties. Most of which extend the factory 1 year to two years. And honestly, god help you if you have to actually use one of those warranties. You will discover they won't fix your problem, and when you go back to the store that sold you both the fridge and the warranty, they'll tell you it is not their problem as it is a 3rd party warranty.
Friggin' niceholes....
A free market requires unrestricted competition and balanced bargaining power. If certain groups have much better bargaining power than others, then it is not a free market.
Large corporations have more bargaining power when they can flood the market with cheap shoes, where less experienced people simply purchase cheaper shoes because they can't really tell which one is actually better. Thus it's actually corporations that speak on behalf of consumers by pricing better options out of the market.
It worked as far as Trump wanting to Make America Sick Again (tm).
Speaking of health care, that's not a free market either. Just one pharmaceutical company creates an essential product (e.g. Epipen), makes it a requirement for organizations to have them on-hand, then jack up the price. This would be a non-issue in any other western nation with socialized medicine - only the USA is the one still having trouble with health care.
Breaking Bad would be a 5-minute short if it took place in any sane country. "You've been diagnosed with lung cancer, but our socialized medicine system can take care of you, plus you have life insurance that doesn't cancel because you suddenly got sick."
I have hemmed and hawed about how closed off and unrepairable/un-upgradable the smart devices are these days. When my PC's hard drive breaks, i just buy a new one and place it in there. Can't play the latest video game? Looks like I just need to upgrade the graphics card. System getting slower and unresponsive every day? Time to re-install the OS and start with a fresh clean slate! I can't do ANY of these with my old smart devices. I have an old samsung phone i would love to install a fresh image on, because it would make an excellent Mp3 player with its vast storage and touch screen. To bad there is no legit way to install a new OS onto the thing.
As much as I want to blame the 'evil manufacturers' I don't see many people willing to take their smartphones in for repair. The cellular companies often will replace a broken phone for free or at a severely discounted rate and customers don't seem to mind trading in their two year old phones that still work just fine and would be even better if the OS could be freshly installed, for a brand new phone offered for FREE by the cellular network company. I blame the consumers for not caring that their freedom to repair and reuse electronics is being taken away. I blame the consumers and manufacturers for being so uncaring about what this does to the environment. WE are ultimately the problem and I'm not sure a law can fix this any more than a law banning sale of alcohol can get rid of alcoholism
Now that they have solved the issues of crime and poverty, it's good to see them move on to something important.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
the EU [..] will be around for a long, long time to come
Not with these youth unemployment numbers.
This crap has been going on for a long time, and it is high time that governments start standing up for their citizens over the lobbyists. From cars that cant be repaired because every part is electronically tagged for the sole purpose of blocking non-OEM parts to smart phones with un-replaceable batteries or software updates that brick your personal property for using a non-OEM vendor to repair your screen or battery. Businesses have been going out of their way to screw over the consumer, repair businesses, and aftermarket parts manufacturers to the tune of billions of dollars, all while the federal government and the EU twiddled their thumbs. It is good to see the EU standing up for their citizens, hopefully the recent Lexmark decision will do the same for the US. https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
On the flip side, I hope that there are allowances made where there is real economic benefit for integrating components permanently (SOC for example can't be repaired. or soldering onto a board VS using a connector saves space and money). Your average TV these days should have an accessible main board that can be replaced, but if the screen fails, it is probably time to buy a new one.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Stamped on the back is it's birth date: July 2, 1992. Built like a battleship and still going strong.
My assumption is that most peoples stance on repairabllity is closely aligned to where they live on the new/novel vs old/familiar spectrum. If you enjoy new things than you don't worry as much about repairing what you have as those who have found something they like and want to keep it.
Nothing wrong with either position so don't feel obligated to convert everybody to your point of view.
The point the EU is trying to make is that buying new will always be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option.
Personally I like clicking away on my dinosaur keyboard and hope to live long enough to see it hit 50.
Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
The government needs to stay out of free market economics. Consumers have bleated incoherently
FTFY
Actually, the consumers have spoken loud and clear:
"We want cheap stuff with the most amount of features possible."
Except for cell phones. The most expensive cell phone is the most popular on the market right now (those by Apple). Cheap Androids are getting only a small portion of the marketshare, and more expensive Android phones are the lionshare of the remainder.
Windows XP still has significant market share almost as much as Windows 8 but Microsoft isn't supporting XP, with all the ransomware out there Microsoft should be made to support Windows XP or pay for upgrades including software rewrites for apps that are not compatible with newer versions such as MRI machines, CNC machines and ATMs.
Mozilla too should be forced to support pre Firefox 57 for the large amounts of legacy extension users.
If I break the screen on my iPhone given how it's built it's easier and less expensive(?) to go out and buy a new iPhone. If the battery stops holding the charge I need to get a new iPhone because the current one is glued in. The point is that the phones and other items like it should be manufactured so that if something goes wrong to a component like one of those then it should be easy to take the phone in to be repaired. It would be nice to be able to upgrade your storage after purchasing a phone but they aren't even calling for that.
If there was something wrong with anything on the motherboard then you would just take out the board and replace it with an new one. Even that is a lot better than replacing the whole phone. But it's hard to do when manufacturers use special screws and slather glue everywhere.
No, a free market simply means that the government doesn't interfere in business transactions; it doesn't "require" anything beyond that.
Epipen is not an "essential product", there are many cheap alternatives. And Mylan doesn't have the power to make it "a requirement", government did that.
You're right, in the sense that other western nations with socialized medicine will likely simply tell you to use a cheap alternative when some proprietary drug or device is too expensive.
Walter White was a public school teacher and had a good health plan which would have treated him, he just wasn't satisfied with that. In fact, Walter White would probably have been worse off in the UK.
I'm all for getting a UK-style health care system, but that has to include UK-style cost controls. The UK spends about $4000/person/year (PPP). If we get Medicare/Medicaid spending down to that level, we can have universal healthcare in the US without a dime of new spending. On the other hand, a UK-style health care system with US-style per capita spending is not acceptable.
I share your distaste for my government doing this.
BUT I FUCKING LOVE SOMEONE ELSE'S GOVERNMENT DOING THIS!!
The market "votes" on cheap-vs-good the same way that Americans vote for who should be president: most people lose and don't get what they want. The nice thing about Europe doing this, is that maybe products will start to exist to be imported, so that Americans can start to vote for their favorite. And Europeans who vote for cheapness over repairability can import American (Chinese) stuff too.
And people don't even need to "vote party line." Maybe my next Widget Type A might come from Europe (because I really like my Type A widgets to last) whereas I still buy the American style Widget Type B (because the next Type B widget is going to blow away this generation's crap). As far as I'm concerned, everyone wins.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This is why social democracy cannot work as a long-term economic solution. As long as a free market remains, this kind of thing will never be more than a mere "suggestion" to manufacturers. Sure, they can try to incentivise it with tax breaks and other means, but ultimately, corporations are going to do what earns them the most money. Planned obsolescence is pretty much the entire business model of the mobile industry these days. I would love to see a change to this, but it's simply not possible until we move toward a more socialist system.
I've been involved in manufacturing things. They're 'slathering glue everywhere' because everyone wants smaller/thinner/lighter and they don't want to hear excuses as to why not. They also want cheap, cheap, cheap, and adding actual fasteners to hold things together not only costs more money per unit on the Bill Of Materials but it costs more for assembly per unit too, so they glue things together to make it cheaper, lighter, smaller, and thinner. Then everyone buys that they make a big profit and their decisions are validated. Like I said above if people want a pocket-sized computer with radio transceivers in it to be repairable then it's going to be more expensive and may not be as small thin and light anymore. FFS look at Microsoft and their tablet, they tore one down to look at it and taking it apart was impossible without literally destroying it; that's not repairable at all, it breaks you toss it in the e-waste bin. I'd NEVER buy something like that, I'm not sure I'd even take one for FREE, given that I would have little faith in it's reliability if it's designed to be a throw-away.
Ass-holes like you should shut the fuck up. NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE told cell phone manufacturers to make it so you can't replace the battery.
Fuck off and die troll.
Actually they haven't. You just think they said something by simply making a purchase. Not the same as actually asking someone what they want. Moron.
That's because more often than not, the $20 widget turns out to be the $10 widget in a more expensive looking case. Having been burned over and over by that, the consumer now buys the cheap one to limit the loss.
If I bought a phone with Android JellyBean does not mean I should automatically get upgrades to Nougat (4 versions newer). If I am satisfied with the functionality of the device when I bought it, then I should learn to be satisfied with the same functionality 4 years later or I should buy a new device.
That said, I would like the hardware to be opened up to third parties and hobbyists as well. If I can get security updates on my old phone, even if not from the original vendor, that has a big influence on if I can continue to use my phone or not.
I believe it is better for everyone to set up plans up front to make it Free Software than to bring the hammer down on vendors years after they released products. Because even if the EU laws are perfect, the OEMs are only going to do the bare minimum to comply. But hobbyists are going to go above and beyond those minimums. And the free software aspect could even me on a schedule, such that the first 2 years the company offers official closed source support, but after that time they provide source and signing keys to enable third party development.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a US consumer. but I also repair my devices rather than replace them. I'd rather have a laptop that I've repaired minor issues several times over the years than a new one that might break and be junk. My old laptop has proven to tolerate my rough use, and I'm skeptical of anything new holding up.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Everything under 100 Euro is 5 years warrantied.
Everything over 100 Euro is 10 years warrantied.
>> Not with these youth unemployment numbers.
There is no place in this discussion for fact-based assessments using historical data. XD
But there was a time when models with replaceable batteries were available and models without replaceable batteries were available and people did choose overwhelmingly to buy the models without replaceable batteries instead of last years model with replaceable batteries. That does tell companies something about replaceable batteries. Namely, the ability to replace the battery was a less important feature than the newer features on the new phone to most people.
Remember the Nickel-Iron batteries?
Edison developed them in 1902 and the last Ni-Fe plant was shut down in the 70's. (China is making them again, now, in response to solar power demands).
Ni-Fe batteries worked between -30C and 60C. They were chargeable to 100% and dischargeable to 0% without damage. A 400 Ah Ni-Fe battery delivered the same power to the load as a 1000 Ah Lead acid battery. They are easy to repair and restore to service. There are Edison batteries (as they are called) in service today, nearly 40 years after the last one was made. You can pass your Edison batteries on to your great grand children. Nickle and Iron are common metals and do not pollute the environment like Lead and Sulfuric acid do. So, why would makers of other batteries work to eliminate the Ni-Fe battery?
To have continuing growth of sales either the product has to be continuously improved, or population of purchasers has to grow or, the product has to wear out, forcing the consumer to purchase another one, or all of the above. To increase service revenues the product has to be cheaply made and difficult for the user to service without special tools and knowledge, which are always proprietary trade secrets.
Making something to last decades, if not centuries, and still allow for improvements of the product may make the product too expensive to purchase for the average user. Imagine taking out a loan to pay $30,000 for an iPhone that would be modular and expandable to take into account future improvements. It would be the last smartphone you would buy, if you could afford it. Add to that the loans for cars, light bulbs, pencils, pens, computers, printers, TV sets, athletic and gaming equipment, etc....
Water flows down hill using the path of least resistance. So do products. All are restrained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and so is product manufacturing, distribution and sales, with the profit motive determining the actual of many possible paths.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
>> Not with these youth unemployment numbers.
There is no place in this discussion for fact-based assessments using historical data. XD
I agree, all I see is carefully misleading talking points.
The required durability of products will create situations with unexpected consequences. Many people have had a TV that worked fine after 15 years of use. But those old tube TVs used quite a bit of electricity. The newer sets give superior pictures and use very little electricity. So from the buyer's point of view as well as societies point of view what is the age point at which a TV should be forced out of service? How much destruction of nature is required to build a new set and what is the cost and effect of the electricity that the end user will be forced to pay. How huge an agency will it take to weigh the gains and losses involved in product durability and resolve failures with the buyers? How does one value a 20K Rolex against an eighty dollar Casio? The Casio will be far more durable and require far less maintenance. Check out the fees for cleaning and oiling a Rolex. Apply the same logic to cars. Do we really want a situation in which numerous cars are on the road after 50 years of use?
Nobody tried putting out similar phones with the only real difference being replaceable batteries.
If the choice is that you get 90% of the features you want, and the 10% remaining is the replaceable battery, vs getting 20% of the features you want, but including the replaceable battery, the fact that you chose the 90% doesn't mean that you wanted the battery to be non replaceable.
And that's the problem with the current market, there may be a dozen manufacturers, but they're really all making the same product with very little differentiation. As a result, "choice" is somewhat of an illusion.
Actually they haven't. You just think they said something by simply making a purchase. Not the same as actually asking someone what they want. Moron.
They don't have to be ASKED. They Spake.
Moron.
When Samsung went from user replaceable batteries, to glued shut cases, the thickness of the phone decreased by less than 1mm. I don't think that makes the older phone "thick" But my phone is now on it's 2nd battery, and probably about to be on it's 3rd. That repairability is more than worth less than a single mm of extra thickness.
I agree with your stance but I feel it necessary to correct one important detail: a free market has no rules by definition, hence players in the market are free of any regulation or oversight. It is basically economic anarchy. A better description of the market you describe would be a fair market or regulated market. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just see the term "free market" frequently used to describe a balanced market full of competition but a true free market leads to the exact opposite.
You're right, it's not the same. Purchases are a much more reliable indicator of what people want than asking them directly. People don't consider all the trade-offs involved until they are faced with deciding how they want to spend their hard-earned money given the versions of the products that actually made it to the market.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
>Consumers have spoken and prefer
Uh, no, reduced sales at greater margin means exactly the opposite of that, but with more profits.
It's not a popularity contest; the quantity sold is meaningless. All that matters is the revenue. The consumers, as a group, have spoken and are willing to pay more, as a group, for cheaper, less-durable items.
The manufacturer's profit margin was never a factor. In a competitive market economy the profit margin at equilibrium is going to be approximately the same across all markets regardless of revenues or cost of goods sold. If it's lower than average in one area the marginal suppliers shut down and put their capital elsewhere, allowing prices to rise; if it's higher, new suppliers enter the market seeking a share of the profits and driving prices down. All an individual manufacturer can do to optimize profits is do a better job of giving the consumers what they actually want. In this case, that is less-durable goods at a correspondingly lower price.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
There does need to be some reasonability there. Sure, component level repair on a PCB is probably too much to ask. But consider the most common reasons consumer electronics need repair: broken screen, dead battery, burned out backlight, worn out/broken buttons and connectors. There is no good excuse for those things not being easily fixed.
Nobody tried putting out similar phones with the only real difference being replaceable batteries.
And you aren't going to get that situation, because a replaceable battery requires a very different phone design. People were able to choose from a variety of designs, some with replaceable batteries and some without, and the ones without were more popular precisely because the resources (size, weight, cost) that would have been spent on allowing the battery to be user-replaceable went into other features instead—features which will not be available on phones with replaceable batteries.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Well, you could fix parts of mobos if you knew what was wrong like bad caps. ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I don't know how a user replaceable battery limits the processing power, memory, screen resolution, etc of a phone. In fact, I know for a fact that it does not.
A user replaceable battery adds a negligible amount to the physical size of the device (less than 1mm of thickness) It does not affect anything else.
Nobody tried offering a phone that was 1 mm thicker, with the rest of the specs the same, but a replaceable battery.
The reason we won't see the situation is that the companies realized that if all the other manufacturers are doing it too, there's no downside to them doing it (nobody will go with the competition for a feature the competition doesn't offer either) while increasing the planned obsolescence of their devices.
It has exactly ZERO to do with not being able to make a similar phone design with a removable battery. The way you talk you'd think that batteries were now weird shapes distributed throughout the phone, they aren't, they're still a monolithic brick in one place, usually resting against the back panel of the device. The only real difference is that the back panels no longer snap off, and the connections are soldered instead of pressure fit. That's because of greed, not because of functionality.
People wanted hardware & software compatibility, were willing to pay for it, the technology was possible without too much compromise, and the free market provided it.
That never happened in portable form factors (not even with laptops, really) because the intrinsic technology constraints are more difficult and people didn't care as much about serviceability of portable devices.
When we get to the point where politicians are writing engineering design requirements then innovation slows down dramatically. Be very, very careful what you wish for.
If you could show numbers for phone with replaceable parts and show that it didn't sell, sure I would agree with you but since there's none on the market you just have no idea what the market is for those that want it, only the market for those that don't care. Sure it's popular but it do not mean that you're not missing out on even more. So no, not anything reliable. Personally, the only smartphone I bought had a replaceable battery, an SD card slot and a physical (landscape, sorry Blackberry) keyboard and of course it's old and I would like to change it but until someone offer an interesting product they just won't get my money. You're probably right that I'm alone in this but until you have real numbers to compare to you just don't know.
already do this. They accept any returned electronics and they recycle them.
Another non binding resolution. Remember the EU parliament is a fake legislator, it cannot start a directive project. Only the EU commission can.
I prefer that companies be given "encouragement" to make things repairable rather than all-or-nothing laws.
For example, require clear consumer disclosure* of estimated hours and cost to replace common phone components such as screens, batteries, speakers, microphones, memory, physical buttons, lenses, and ports/sockets. (It's certainly possible the cost may exceed the device itself in some cases.)
I realize micromanaging circuit board design with such laws could be a bear, but the above items have relatively clean boundaries (or should have).
This doesn't force repair-ability on manufacturers, but could embarrass/shame them into making a better effort. If a consumer really wants to pay for compactness over repair-ability, they can and probably will in some cases for fashion/status reasons. But the majority would probably sacrifice some sleekness for repair-ability, if they have enough info to weigh it.
* An in-store purchase could require a customer initial or signature on a time/cost disclosure form, and on-line sales could require a confirmation page before the final "buy" button (sorry Amazon-1-click: it's 2 now).
Table-ized A.I.
Well a lot of people use various set top boxes, so the tv itself is basically just a monitor - it just needs to accept an input feed and display it.
It's now difficult to buy a non smart-tv, even if you have no intention of using those features. My tv will keep defaulting back to tuner mode, even tho it hasn't got an antenna connected, and it's very easy to accidentally press a button on the remote causing it to switch to tuner mode too. I want it to remain on HDMI mode all the time, the only controls i want from the TV are on/off and to switch between several hdmi ports.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Planned obsolescence has two sides. On the positive end you have new models every year (think cars post 1960). This gives consumers new technologies in bulk where a redesign of an existing framework would lead to stagnancy. The second side involves reducing the quality of goods in order to ensure that consumers purchase new items upon failure. This is a serpentine construct designed to feed off of the captivated consumer. Same price for plastic vs steel in your microwave? Why use steel when plastic will break under load in 15% of manufactured products after 3 years? Extend the warranty to 2 years, the 1.5% which fail in that period will be balanced by the additions in sales. This is extremely problematic in monopolist industries where choice is a valuable commodity. Government is rightful to constrain this business practice. This coming from a fiscal and regulatory conservative. Repairability falls under intellectual property, and hence isn't constrained by the same fundamental principles. A company is rightfully entitled to ensure their product works as intended without modification. The alternative side to this argument arises when dealing with a lock down to ensure consumers cannot repair it themselves. The "app garden" is a widely cited example of this, but imho, should not be. Intent is the primary consideration. Protecting consumers from malware while introducing competitive advantages as a result... this is the benefit of capitalism! There is a greater benefit than harm of profit funneling to one corporation. When intending to change screws and adding custom solvent release adhesives to deter repair, this is purely harmful. This isn't a black and white issue. You must look at the intent to see what is acceptable or not. It helps to frame the concept from a controlled monopolistic standpoint.
Replaceable battery would be a good start.
Farage... is that you spouting out of your arse again?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
True, true.
Then again, I must admit it gave me a chuckle. I mean: all in all, it was funny, even if I agree with you to some level.
It's... I don't know...it's dubious.
There is little denying that the masses ARE often stupid and foolish (and irrational and emo-driven). It's true 'elite' or 'experts' don't have it right all the time neither, but that still doesn't mean the opinion of the hoi palloi is any better, and, in some instances, much worse, indeed. that's why we've moved away from the mob-rule to a more rational justice-system based on experts (judges, lawyers) too, after. yes, those can be pricks and can be wrong too, but they're - overall - still better.
At the very least, when groups of people make stupid decisions, they should pay and deal with the consequences of those stupid decisions. and not let other groups pay for it.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
the EU [..] will be around for a long, long time to come
Not with these youth unemployment numbers.
You would be better off looking at youth employment numbers. Even though the EU officially has higher youth unemployement than the USA, a higher percentage of them are working. You might want to look at your own numbers and the methods used to calculate them.
Utterly fascinating. So because of the wall of text that you just posted, we should allow manufacturers to put effort into making the products non-repairable in order to force us to buy new products?
I fail to understand why you think forcing them to NOT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT to repair is a problem? It is not as if the manufacturers are being forced to use breadboards with wire-wrapped components to ensure that even the most incompetent person could take apart and repair every single component.
I am so weary of all the people who are smoking crack. *sigh* I mean, the last few sentences were reasonable but 90% of what you wrote is pure garbage.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It is based on the impact to an individual's finances to replace.
If the item only cost a $1, it's not a significant impact to an individual's finances. When an individual spend $400 on a brand new dishwasher, and after 90 days it no longer works. It's not as easy to go out and simply buy another one. There is an expectation that said unit would provide a number of years of reasonable working ability.
Likewise, if you spend $2,500 on a new refrigerator, one should be assured it will function a year from purchase. Even three years. You're talking about around a month income of the average American household. An average person can't afford to replace such a unit every year. There is an expectation based on the financial impact.
Every major appliance or major item should be required to have a nice big notice on it saying " We believe that this device will last x years, and it is therefore covered by an unconditional warranty for that time period."
So when something is built to last, the consumer will know. When something is built to fail, the consumer will know that too.
You say that as if you think it is a bad thing. You need to choose your same-sex partners better.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"