Little too late here. But also better late than never.
The annoying part is how HN users want right to repair, but not enough to pick such options. I hate to say corporate marketing is stronger than the human brain.
> It's weird that repairability (either right to repair, or simply technical feasibility) has been a huge topic for at least 10 years in cars, mobile phones, home appliances, etc. And yet i haven't seen any end-user product really advertising it.
99% of people don’t want to repair their appliances. They either “don’t want it to break”, or want it to be repaired by someone else.
A product labeled “commercial grade! 10 year warranty!” will always massively outsell a product labeled “user serviceable! Schematics included!”
Sorry to sound cynical but haven't they taken something that's existed for a long time and spent money on marketing it to add / repair value to their brand? It feels a little obvious to me to be honest?
I didn't say it was a _good_ reason, or that all companies make it hard for people to repair their products.
I'm just saying that if a company _does_ make it hard to repair their products, and you sat in on the meeting where that decision was made, you're going to hear "I'm tired of people trying to repair our products and screwing it up".
It's a vicious cycle. As things become less repairable (due to complexity or forced obsolescence) new generations will lose the ability to figure things out and effect a repair. I presume that's what these companies want.
This isn't entirely a strawman. One of the things that pretty much all repair professionals seem to hate is dealing with hardware that people have tried to fix themselves, especially stuff dating from the days where this was possible, because it's a huge amount of work to try and figure out what they could've screwed up. Now every company with a warranty has to either put in that work or give no-questions-asked warranty replacements to people who damage the products they sell, and all their other customers have to pay for it.
Getting to the point as a company where you're fighting right-to-repair seems like you're a company on your last gasps. It means you can't sell enough product at a profitable margin to keep yourself going through sales alone. In fact, there isn't even enough product out there so that your dealership/repairmen can have enough business to not worry about independent repair shops.
HD is a prime example of one of these brands. HD has been running brand loyalty fumes for decades.
That seems like the classic mistake of believing that the larger market assigns importance to repairability. I haven't seen much evidence this is true.
> If it was there at a fair price, lots of buyers would pick it.
I don't think this is true. Lot's of folks on a forum like this would pick it. But the social norms around repair have degraded significantly (in large part no doubt, to it not being a cost-effective option). But my main point is that it will take more than just availability. And thus there is no market pressure, so it doesn't appear to me that this is indeed a market failure, instead it looks like the market responding to the demand.
Let me illustrate further, if a top provider of electronics and appliances, but not fully market dominate in many niches, say LG, pledged and followed through on their pledge to ensure the repairability of their products, and remained price-competitive, would they gain significant market share over their competitors? In phones? In appliances sold at a big box store? Or would people choosing an Apple device, or GE Fridge still choose those options because of features and market clout and ignore the repairability? I predict they'd gain some marginal sales, but really wouldn't incentivize change amongst their competition.
Now there are markets where the dynamic is different. Farming equipment, where there are some strong challengers to Deere and one of the things they sometimes use to different is repairability. There the market failure I'd be concerned with is the vertical alignment of dealers with service.
You assume the customer has the information needed to make that decision before the purchase. In reality, most people don't have a reliable way to compare the repairability of products/brands before making a purchase. Even if they did, if the majority of the market doesn't valie repair, that can easily ruin it for those who do. It especially punishes those who are behind economically and can't afford replacements or "authorized" repair options (assuming they are even available).
Yeah, it can't get pro-consumer and pro-right-to-repair than that. Disappointment with lackluster stock infotainment followed by disappointment in the move away from repairability felt a bit hypocritical to me knowing that world. 2DIN holes are fine!
Consumers voted for this a long time ago, people want cheap s*t. There are manufacturers that do take pride and their products can last a lifetime if not easily repairable. Guess what, nobody actually wants it. (except the HN crowd aparently).
All this proves is that people are unwilling to make a value judgement. To most consumers, having the "highest tech choice" is more important than having a repairable device. To really put one's money where their mouth is with repairability, one would have to show that they value repairability even if it comes at the expense of other things they value.
> but you shouldn't expect repairs to be covered forever.
or you could design your products so that if it breaks, its easier for the user to repair it themselves instead of advocating for throwing it in the trash and buying a new product.
The annoying part is how HN users want right to repair, but not enough to pick such options. I hate to say corporate marketing is stronger than the human brain.
reply