EU Prepares "Right to Repair" Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans

Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.

Longer-lived more durable products might also be amenable to app-based rental ""sharing economy"", for people who don't want to keep the thing.

Or just rent it if you only need it one or two times?

FYI and TLDR: you're spending more money than you should by using this method. (and wasting resources, but that doesn't seem to hold weight against you)

(edit: yes i'm aware this from a fantasy book, but there's also actual evidence behind it as well, even if presented in a humoristic way)

The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum.

I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.

I even had two items (headphones and oven) breaking 1/2 month before the expiry, and still, they have been replaced.

I can imagine cases where this works against the consumer, but in most cases where I buy things, the seller is far more accessible, and perhaps more importantly, also far more exposed to EU jurisdiction such that they bother to actually comply with these kinds of EU regulations. For example, if I buy a microwave at Wilko, it works to my advantage that Wilko, not whatever company in China manufactured it, is the responsible party.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I know it's a difficult balance to find, but sometimes you have to restrict the individual's freedom of choice to protect the environment and society as a whole.

Wasteful short product cycles may just fall into the category. Long-lasting products won't prevent you from buying the new stuff all the time. But instead of throwing away the old stuff, you might be incentivized to sell it to others who happily use older stuff.

That depends how long things last on average. If things get 25% more expensive, but tend to last twice as long as a result of the legislation, they're actually much cheaper than they were before.

The problem is, consumers don't have a good way to compare product lifetimes, so they tend to judge based on sticker price. Mandating minimum lifetime makes these prices more meaningfully comparable.

Although personally, I think an even better market solution would be to mandate that products list price per guarantee-year prominently.

And can we please try to keep the snark out of the snarko-capitalist rethoric?

So in practice, consumers have been conditioned to just assume that nothing is really guaranteed to last, therefore just buy the cheapest one. With the exception of certain brands such as Miele who are very popular among people with enough money to drop on the high up front price.

You're right in that this could potentially be addressed other ways, for example with packaging regulations. If it says "15 year warranty", then it shouldn't have any hidden terms or charges.

[1] Although with the EU guarantee after 6 months it's technically your responsibility to show fault, with large non-moving appliances the usual assumption is it's probably the device's fault.

I doubt keeping a 60 year old fridge running is the cheapest option.

There are a ton of Asahi Pentax cameras that come with a classic 55mm Takumar lens for $20-30 on Yahoo Auctions (Japan) right now.

The fridge I had before that was my parents' old stand-alone fridge which was 20 years old when I got it, and was still working perfectly fine 8 years later when we replaced it because we bought a new kitchen with built-in fridge. It never had any problems.

I recently came across a recommendation to replace old fridges because they were energy inefficient, but I have my doubts. I do think stand-alone fridges are probably always going to be better than built-in ones. Easier access, easier to repair, and no issues with somebody installing it incorrectly.

A few more years and it would have entertained a fourth generation, but I think lasting 4 decades and surviving long enough to play N64 games was quite an achievement.

but if those costs aren't correctly accounted for in the price then being able to choose a "low priced thing" is just pushing the clean up costs onto society.

that said, people who have historically gotten a benefit and pushed costs on to third parties will of course probably be unhappy about a change that forces them to pay for the costs. see also: capitalism generally, climate change.

You could give up some model churn, lowering actual costs by using the same parts in many model years. It's hard enough to maintain parts inventory in an automotive repair context, and there's just not enough money in the devices to sustain a similar level of complexity in appliance repair.

You could sacrifice some compactness, using interchangeable brackets and larger assemblies that connect together with fasteners instead of custom-molded brackets and glued-up assemblies that can only be assembled, never disassembled. These might be more expensive for a single model, but over several years economies of scale would catch up.

Finally, you could make these replacement parts available at home improvement stores and at the same retailers that sell the devices, instead of through distribution chains only usable by licensed professionals. I was able to repair my furnace this winter when the exhaust blower failed (and my AC when the capacitor failed) because I could buy the part I needed on Amazon with next-day shipping. I had the day off, and was willing to drive around, but on calling 12 different places within an hour I found none that would sell the parts to me. And just a visit for a quote would have cost more and taken more time than shipping the failed component from Amazon.

The manufacturers would prefer that you buy an entire new appliance from them, and have made decisions which harm the environment and harm consumers, but benefit them. Regulation is required.

Would you consider your front door broken if it is vulnerable to being opened with a screwdriver? What about a wine glass that breaks unless you aren't extremely careful when washing it?

In my opinion it depends on how it was marketed.

The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost.

We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.

As a consumer I'd much rather have such non-choices out of the way, so that I can have the assurance that if I buy a wash machine it'll still be around in several years.

Never heard that kind of lingo before, it's weird ;)

Reasonable on the surface, but what about trade secrets?

* Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them.

That’s reasonable.

* Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues.

What about when those special glues ARE needed? For example: water resistance (IP67).

* Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device.

The problem is that users are stupid. If you allow people to downgrade, you open them up to security holes. There’s a reason Apple doesn’t let you downgrade iOS, and it’s not money (what money do they make from preventing downgrades?), it’s security. People are gullible and could easily be tricked by some scam site to downgrade their device in order to “win”.

> I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.

What about Apple? If you recycle your device through Apple, they attempt to recycle as much as they can.

This is already not true for independent auto repair shops. Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools can cost them tens of thousands each and often they don't have the same level of tools as the dealers.

Maybe a few things aren't "genuine", like finding OEM batteries is pretty tricky with some devices, but the ones you get do the job with no significant issues in my experience - just beware of the risks of faked specs and buy the cheapest rather than paying more for faked spec.

The thing about repair is it's often not economically viable, especially if you're paying for labor - for example, I could have payed someone $100 to replace the phone screen on my Nexus 5 - a brand new one on ebay goes for $170. I may as well just buy a new phone or use it as an excuse to upgrade. So in many ways, the repair shops are a bigger impedance to repairs than the parts situation in my opinion. Instead I was able to buy a replacement screen assembly directly out of China for $30 and do the replacement myself for free, it's the only way the repair made economic sense.

It's not as you can't buy a computer thats easily upgradeable (every PC ever almost) if you would like to made that trade-off yourself. (Again I would also like to see an upgradeable iMac / cheaper Mac Pro)

I wouldn't, and I hope Apple finds a way out of compromising its standards for the sake of random European regulations.

Let's hope they don't use those.

Simply because there's like 3 or 4 other types out there which look really, really close to a phillips, but aren't. They have slightly different shapes, and use different shaped bits/points on a screwdriver. Some are compatible with each other (but none are compatible with all!) - and others, if you use the wrong driver on the wrong screw, will tend to strip it out, or cam out with damage to either the screw, the tool, or both.

There are much better yet still easy to obtain drive profiles out there to use for screws (torx is one of them).

Because it's a giant waste that is destroying the planet, and is economically irresponsible and noncompetitive?

Why should the arseholes who produce things that break in one year have a competitive advantage over companies that do the right thing by their customers and by the planet?

The article is about the EU preparing legislation that would require this sort of guarantee. A functioning government would not allow them to turn the process into a hellish ordeal.

I think this is a great solution. I don't see the purpose of preventing people from purchasing the laptop with a 3-year warranty by mandating a 5-year warranty. Why not just let the people who prefer the 5-year warranty pay for it?

Also, the most annoying to replace and most complicated parts are usually the ones that run software, which creates another problem. I bet half of the people at my local hackerspace could build a replacement board for their washing machine or fridge from just doing a visual inspection of the original, but it doesn't solve anything if you don't know what code the original was running. Having to hack the original into giving you its firmware blob raises the difficulty of replacement significantly, and you'll probably be breaking some laws too if you try it.

I wish we would be able to force companies into revealing both schematics and all code running on a device when they sunset it. But I know it won't happen, because the companies will immediately say that some of that old software is still being used on new devices, and therefore it is an Important Trade Secret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC

Umm - yep.

Please provide an argument on why this law will benefit consumers. The focus here is not on the environment.

Further options: 3rd party reliability testing as branding, tear down by trustworthy experts, easy to see repairability, guarrateed access to affordable repair parts

That depends. There’s a reason people buy Miele.

You can also make reliability and quality your business model.

Afterall, F1 is a competition: winner takes all (well, almost all). That last 0.1% really matters.

For a fridge? Or really for almost everything people actually use? Nobody cares about that last 0.1% - heck, I wouldn't notice huge gaping performance chasms such as say 2%, but that would allow much, much better quality.

Frankly, I doubt the advantages of skimping on longevity really amount to much in almost all cases.

Also, let me ask: would you recommend the government to look for a service contract for their fridges/lighting/washing machines? Or would you recommend them to look into buying this equipment?

What would be different for companies and consumers?

And repairability? I don’t see the problem. If my iPhone breaks, I can go visit the Apple store, and they’ll take care of it. Having third-party repair services for some so tiny and complex is just a recipe for warranty problems and headaches.

Please

ie. the Eurocrats want to dictate hardware design. Hard to imagine anything good coming out of that.

Like it or not, at the level of miniturisation we’re at, you need skilled technicians with proper equipment, and the easiest way to guarantee that, is for producers to do the service themselves.

Otherwise, you’ll end up with lots of consumers with broken phones, because they chose the wrong repair-option.

Building a small amount of concept phones is one thing, shipping (and supporting) 100 million devices a year, with extended warranties, quite another.

The "right to repair" doesn't give people the right to buy a Fairphone. They already have the right. It removes their right to buy other kinds of phone.

I've long imagined a lifestyle-as-a-service business. Imagine pledging some (large?) fraction of your income for inclusion in an association that provides housing, transportation, appliances, food choices, vacation rentals etc as a service. A sort of concierge life. Just join and move in!