Hacker News Reader

Comment by kartickv | Hacker News Reader

We're more dependent on corporations when we buy things, since we have given them all the money upfront. A service model gives us more leverage.

As someone who had to throw away a washing machine because the company wouldn't service it, I would have very much preferred a rental model where the loss would have been theirs.

To flip your question: Are you okay not being able to buy a washing machine because you couldn't make a significant one-time payment? Are you okay with your investment going waste because the company wouldn't service it? I would say no to both.

View on HN

> We're more dependent on corporations when we buy things, since we have given them all the money upfront. A service model gives us more leverage.

No, we aren't and no, it doesn't. Buying things up-front means your interaction with a corporation is brief and to the point. With service model, they get to gouge you for money and restrict the things you can do with the item you now don't own, but rent.

> Are you okay not being able to buy a washing machine because you couldn't make a significant one-time payment?

There are plenty of ways to amortize that using third parties that have no interest in limiting your control over the washing machine.

Also, it's you who get to choose when to do the purchase. Once you enter a contract, you'd better have a stable paycheck for the entire duration of it, or you'll be SOL.

That's wrong. A service model gives me leverage — I stop paying the rent whenever I want and return the washing machine. Maybe you have a different service model in mind, like a contract, in which case we'd naturally disagree, but I'm not talking about such a model.

Neither do I care about my flexibility to modify my washing machine. All I care is that it washes my clothes well.

BTW, what's "SOL"?

> That's wrong. A service model gives me leverage — I stop paying the rent whenever I want and return the washing machine.

It's more inconvenient to you not to be able to use a washing machine when you need it than it is for a service provider to have a random customer unable to pay them on time.

> BTW, what's "SOL"?

Shit Out of Luck.

It seems that I didn't explain the model I have in mind: the washing machine would be installed in my house, and I pay them a monthly fee, which I can discontinue any time, at which point they'll come take away their washing machine.

In this model, I have the washing machine to use whenever I need it. If it breaks, or if I need a bigger capacity model, or I'm not happy with its performance, I can immediately switch to another supplier. Paying for the entire machine up front closes my options. They already have my money, so they can offer poor service and get away with it.

The entire point of the article is that you (or a local technician) should be allowed and able to repair your washing machine and not rely on the company exclusively to fix it. Having to throw it away is exactly because you don't really own it without the right to repair. You "own" a machine that it is impossible and illegal to fix or modify, which is not ownership at all, which means you already are renting it as a service, the company has just lied to you by redefining ownership in a way that makes them more money.

Not true — it's neither impossible nor illegal to get someone to fix my washing machine. It's just that I don't know who's reliable, and will it cause severe problems, like a flood. Or will it break up when rotating at high speed, hurting whoever is next to it? I merely chose to throw it away and buy another one.

The point of my comment above, and amelius's if I understand correctly, is that a service model eliminates this risk from the buyer. I'll be able to get another washing machine without incurring a financial loss.

What matters at the end of the day is having a working, safe, reliable washing machine. Having a right to repair is only a means to this end, and not an end to itself. A service model is another means to this end. Don't confuse the means for the ends and entertain only one means.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com