> I don't agree with 20 years warranty, many things like batteries and capacitors just don't last that long
Some capacitors can last just as long depending on their specs. For batteries, it's more complicated but longer warranty would probably incentivize R&D for durable batteries instead of smaller/stronger batteries, which would be a great win for the environment (see also: supercapacitors).
But the point is most devices are designed to be thrown away, not repaired. If your devices had apparent screws, and easy-to-replace parts, it could be repaired very easily by any skilled laborer (preferably as a public service, but it could also come from a local private workshop). Unfortunately, i don't know a single way to incentivize manufacturers to produce easy-to-repair products apart from extending warranty significantly: when they hold the responsibility to do repair on 100% of units not just the 0.1% people actually care to return (which will likely be replaced not repaired), they may be interested to make stuff easier to repair for everyone else.
The incentive for companies is to design products that are obsolete after a few years, such that they can sell a new one and make money on the new sale. While it's beneficial for customers to be able to repair their devices, their choices are limited by the availability of repairable devices.
The government has plenty of levers to use to improve repairability and reducing the amount of discarded electronics. They could mandate a minimum service life for electronics, where the manufacturer has to repair or replace any device that fails during that service life, for free, as long as the repair isn't due to customer negligence. They could mandate having a serviceability score label on electronics, just like the energy star rating or nutritional information label. They could require that manuals and parts are available to third party repair shops, without discriminatory pricing and availability. The list goes on.
It's not unlike fuel efficiency and clean air mandates. Once all the manufacturers had to abide by the same rules, unsurprisingly, fleet efficiency and air quality improved.
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 broken, there is no way but to throw the broken device away. Unless you can somehow glue everything back together, but that seems unpractical.
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.
I would expect that, at least for companies that aren’t woefully poorly run and are in fairly competitive markets, creating more durable/repairable good will result in higher costs. I mean, if they could make a better device for less or the same amount of money, it seems they are just giving up a competitive advantage for no reason, and somebody would eat their lunch, right?
But of course the consumer gets the benefit of a better device. It seems really industry specific how the pros and cons would balance out. If anyone is making predictions for how it would work out for the whole market, I’m pretty suspicious that they are overstating their level of confidence.
That would be a proof of concept that their current practices aren't justified, not only from a marketing standpoint but probably also from a legal standpoint.
The problem isn't providing replacement parts. I think the issue is that locking their customers in their maintenance services is part of their business model.
Most likely the lifetime of service (decades) wouldn't easily be fitted into the margin of a specific model.
The failure mode makes sense to me. The battery pack replacement, motor replacement, blocks of electronic control systems and so on. Yeah, those would cost quite a bit.
I think the point was to make it at-cost (i.e. break-even) for the manufacturer so that they aren't trying to gouge the customer by creating a product that will surely break (forcing them to pay marked up repair prices or just buy a replacement).
That makes sense. Manufacturers keep proving to us they don't value making maintainable products so it seems obvious they need to be forced to do that one way or another.
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.
That's a pretty blunt instrument though. It looks like it just hits retailers, not manufacturers, and the fee is assessed regardless of whether the device ends up disposed. Seems like such a fee would serve only to make everything more expensive, instead of actually incentivizing the production of longer-lasting goods.
Another idea (probably full of holes, I'm sure): Tax manufacturers based on the length of their products' warranties, say 100 minus YEARS. So no warranty means company pays 100% of the product's sale price in tax. 5 year warranty means company pays 95% of the product's sale price, etc. down to no tax if the company offers a 100 year or more warranty.
I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better with some regulation regarding this. I'm not sure. But it kind of goes hand in hand with the whole repairability thing. And unrepairable devices have more externalities...
Yeah because such a company would make less profit because people wouldn’t have to replace their products as often. But having a private industry body ensures that company that does opt to make their product repairable get duly accredited. Then if you want to buy this more expensive device then you have the choice. If not enough people are willing to pay the premium then maybe this solution isn’t as urgent as we think and isn’t work the regulatory overhead and increased product cost
Exactly, which is why you would want products which last long or are easy to repair. This reduces the need to manufacture lots of devices. Obviously this goes against the desires of companies which want to maximum sales.
Yep, it's why they're so expensive to repair. Everything is basically a single piece, so if a $2 part goes out you replace basically the entire system. Sounds economical, and consumer friendly!
But why are they making machines out of parts they know are defective? Why are they not incentivised to fix the design? For example, a washing-machine electronic control panel with a defective circuit design, which meant that a certain diode was overloaded, and would reliably burn out a short while out of warranty.
Electronic control panels for white goods are incredibly expensive. Come to that, if you started from scratch to build (e.g.) a washing machine from manufacturer's parts, you'd have to sell your house. If the parts really cost that much, it's a wonder they can sell their own version so cheaply.
Any electronics product from a major manufacturer will have provisions made for repairs. Some repair/refurbishing center will have bid for the repair contract, promising to repair FooPhones at $23/unit or whatever. They will get documentation, parts from the manufacturer, and train a bunch of people in FooPhone repair. Then when Timmy drops his brand new FooPhone, the manufacturer can tell him that for just $79.99, he'll get a factory refurbished one in 2-3 weeks.
Those supposed costs you talk about were already incurred. It's just a requirement that the manufacturer not just limit repairs to "factory authorized" repair centers. There's a very similar debate going on about repairability of automobiles.
What is a manufacturer to do when someone opens a device that functions as advertised, zaps it through a careless electrostatic discharge, puts it back together and gets free warranty service?
Well, that manufacturer has to raise prices (or invest in even more involved ways of detecting damage, or in hardening the electronics against ESD, all of which cost more). This harms those that don't want to mess with their devices.
Is this the only way they can make sure they break down frequently enough to force you to buy a new device every few years rather than building something that would normally last a generation. Also I guess they might save a couple of pounds in controls. I found a good local appliance repair guy recently (could probably do it myself, but I'm not good at that sort of thing). I intend to try and repair anything from now on rather than buy new.
Perhaps electronic manufacturers that are big enough could have a state mandated "cost of parts and actual labour costs" repair service.
reply