If made to fulfill the word of the law without actually having to follow it in spirit, this would be my modus operandi too.
By designing $1200 deposit, $49 rental & two Pelican suitcases of tools and manuals, while keeping the battery replacement price same at $69 (what you'd normally pay in total at Store), they have entirely disincentivized self-repair without actually breaking any law.
While I have no data to support this, I don’t think “regular people” are purchasing OEM parts, renting tools for a $1,200 deposit, and risking self-repair. To me, the idea is almost absurd.
How about at a rate of $parts + $labor? If the device was defective and broke then it would still be the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it. But if it breaks due to wear and tear, accidental damage, or intentional damage then the user should reasonably foot but bill (either out of pocket or with insurance).
Existing laws apply to repair shops as well - warranty is just as legally binding as anywhere else and they can't sell you dangerous part like say exploding battery. That's the certain minimum.
You are claiming that people will always pick the cheapest repair but that's not the case in any other market. Similarly as you are not always picking the cheapest food. Even if health inspectors do their work flawlessly, (wishful thinking,) there are more factors to consider besides price so you check the reviews and there is correlation between quality and price.
I've always felt this policy was a mistake. I kinda understand locking down the software, but not parts, especially when said vechicle is out of warranty.
Get the parts out to DIY'ers. Don't make enemies right out of the gate?
Plus--some of these rebuilders are brilliant.(This guy who out a electric engine in a Honda--for one.)
I know the legal aspect, but just put a disclaimer on the part, like the rest of the them?
So many people are buying high ticket items, but can't repair the item then it breaks.
I guess it's the way the wealthy think? I don't have that luxury. I buy second hand stuff the haves discard.
If I buy something, I should be able to fix it when it breaks down. I'll sign whatever legal papers you this at me. Fool me into thinking your company isn't violating The Sherman Antitrust Act?
I've been poor all my life, and just don't like Authorized Repair Centers touching my stuff, at their outrageous prices.
Especially when that joke of a warranty ends.
To the guy who just bought a $25,000 Rolex watch this weekend.
When it stops, and is out of warranty, you will not be able to repair it yourself. Even if dad taught you how to repair watches from a early age. You can open it, but buying a part from Rolex is something you can't do.
How did I go from Tesla to Rolex? Just a bit off tonight?
I do feel like I'm alone though. In the end, I just don't like the feeling I'm being fleeced, and then telling me, "Oh, it's for Quality Assurance. We care about you."
That doesn't work for the simple reason that there is no market, therefore there is no way to determine that price. The whole point is essentially that the manufacturer can only have the monopoly on repairs if they are free, if they want to charge for it, they have to allow competition.
As for intentional damage, I think that should not be handled based on costs at all, but simply based on depreciation. Based on normal durability of the device, if you damage the device, you have to pay the remaining value in order to get a new device.
This. I totally want to buy repairable products, and do when I can, but I don't wish to force other consumers to pay extra to cover the expenses of a feature I want.
Before this, you could take advantage of their poor planning and not keeping parts or offering repair service. Now they're required by law - as long as the product is still being sold.
This is probably intentional - now that they've allowed repairing of your own devices (allowed is a bit too generous, more like strong-armed into allowing). So, they do the next-best thing... make it expensive to do self-repair (via parts cost) and cheaper to offer repairs. It's win-win. They come out on top looking good ("Oh look, we're absorbing some of the cost for repairs.") and consumers lose out. The net effect is that repair shops will also find it costly to repair.
> If company does not want to allow consumer to repair a device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the consumer for a small fee.
I would modify that:
If a company restricts a consumer from repairing a device (either explicitly in warranty policies, or implicitly by producing devices that are hard to repair, restricting part availability, or not having manuals available), then the company must (not should) provide an extended warranty for all damage scenarios at cost.
This would be brilliant! Buy any product over $200 and 10kg? If it breaks within x years you repair it or if thats impossible/too hard, return it to a broken-shit-r-us where you get $20 and they turn around and charge the manufacturer full retail price as mandated by law. Should be incentive enough for easy repair design.
I'd love to see a company which doesn't copyright repair manuals, doesn't make devices difficult to home-repair on purpose, doesn't do this "planned obsolescence" things or any other assholy tricks to get a short term profit; and then market the shit out of this attitude - explicitly show people the things it doesn't do. I'd be their life-time customer without second thought.
So as a non-certified repairer, you have to offer a city tour around the block, at a ridiculously high price, and then repair the device at no additional cost. All a matter of perspective.
Repair labor is a huge percent of the repair cost, and includes no warranty, and hence the incentive to just buy new. If the government is going to intervene, maybe what they ought to do is a.) reduce the VAT on repairs, b.) require a 90-180 day whole device warranty, c.) increase the VAT on new products. a) and b) would approximately cancel each other cost wise to the consumer, but give them more confidence in the repair process, which a) alone doesn't do; and c) increases the spread in cost between repair vs new which was the point of a).
Of course the ideal would be to make it just as easy to disassemble consumer devices as it is to assemble them. i.e. if the cost of disassembly were equal to or less the value of physical materials in the product.
By designing $1200 deposit, $49 rental & two Pelican suitcases of tools and manuals, while keeping the battery replacement price same at $69 (what you'd normally pay in total at Store), they have entirely disincentivized self-repair without actually breaking any law.
Masterstroke.
reply