Hacker News Reader

Comment by miltondts | Hacker News Reader

> I mean it's a natural progression of how products are designed and made. We have electronics that are relatively easy to break (either through normal use or casual misuse), and then are simply not economical to repair.

The primary reason this happens is that companies don't want you to repair their products because that hurts their revenue. It's only natural in a system that rewards profits above all else and has little to no mechanisms to enforce compensation for the externalities.

View on HN

No, the primary reason is that being unrepairable is simply a side effect of being the least expensive way to manufacture it and people buy primarily on cost. I used to work for an outfit that made wearable consumer electronics: customer being able to repair something was never on the table. Hell, even with the right equipment, it was difficult for us to repair them sometimes, if we had a limited number of prototypes and needed to get a broken one working.

Yes, it seems like it's in the company's best interest to make something unrepairable, but the reality is that repairing a cheap electronic item simply doesn't even occur to most consumers.

I think you are right, but at the same time, if the cost of manufacturing doesn't reflect the overall cost then we need to make laws for that.

Also in video after video of electronic repairs: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOrKQtC1tDfGf_fFVb8pYw

The primary reasons for why he can't repair something are:

- lack of documentation

- can't find the components for sale

- design choices (like using glue instead of sealing rings)

I think at least some of these things can be easily provided at little to no cost to the companies.

I'll admit upfront that I'm not a fan of more legislation but let's look at that.

Lack of documentation: some components are provided with docs under NDA, so you can't get them anyway.

Can't find the components for sale: many components are only sold through approved representatives and their MOQ (Minimum Order Quantity) may be in the thousands.

Design choices: are you planning on legislating how a device is designed?

Look, I'm all in favor of Right To Repair: I'm a cheapass who still uses a 35 year old snowblower (that I've had for 15 years) because fixing it is cheaper than a new one and I Hate Waste. I repair everything. I'm practically on a first-name basis with the guys at eReplacementParts.com but still even I accept that there's a limit to what's reasonably practical. When a watch uses a COB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_on_board) part with the only documentation available in Chinese, you have to accept that it's probably not going to be repairable. And the reality is that that's a common state of consumer products these days.

Cherry-picking wearable consumer electronics as a class that intrinsically suffers from diminishing returns with respect to repairability doesn't negate the fact that there's a crapton of other classes in a common household whose design space isn't fundamentally constrained in the same ways but nevertheless artificially suffer from unsustainable lifecycle trade-offs that could have easily been designed around or avoided altogether if objectively targeted from the onset.

The "problem" is that people get what they pay for. The majority of consumers prioritize cost, so they get price-optimized devices that are difficult or impossible to repair.

When you prioritize, e.g., reliability or ease of service, that problem goes away, but now stuff costs more. Worth it for commercial/industrial products, but it tanks the consumer market.

My Kitchen-Aid mixer has had its sacrificial plastic gear replaced a few times because I keep overloading it with bread dough. It was designed to be repairable. My cheap Walmart TV, OTOH, is in the garage awaiting the annual electronics scrap pickup because although I know what the problem is, for $200 (about what I paid for the mixer 20 years ago) it simply isn't worth my time fixing it when I can buy a better one for the same price.

A huge portion of the dynamic is that people will buy a $398 device over a $399 device. It isn't just companies relentlessly pushing unrepairable stuff.

I agree, it always comes down to how much the buyer cares about anything other than the price paid.

Markets/companies care about whatever their customers care, and the way customers vote/express themselves is with their dollars.

We can talk all we want about how wrong this is or not, but that doesn't change the underlying reality.

Not disagreeing, but part of the underlying reality is that companies are not financially responsible for the externalities they contribute to (such as climate change) or post-consumer costs such as disposal. The result is that the "true" cost of the product to society is not reflected in the consumer-facing price.

I think regulation should be a last resort, but in this case, some kind of taxation or regulation is necessary, because there is absolutely no incentive to be good stewards of the Earth within our current version of capitalism.

It can sure help, but then, as a company, you might want to find a way to avoid the regulation to keep the price low if that's what your customers care about.

Maybe some form of labelling could have a greater real impact: let the customer know what the real impact/cost of the product is, and let the customer made an informed decision.

As maxerickson notes, I believe it's really important to note that this is an issue that impacts and stems from both sides. While I agree that manufacturers are incentivized to increase revenue, we should also be clear that the likely end-game is that everything becomes more expensive upfront.

We can't dance around with bullshit and tell people that right to repair (depending on the flavor), and sustainable pricing, and proper pricing of disposal will just result in the same or cheaper upfront costs - it won't - and we need the right answers for the obvious questions like "won't this just screw over the poorest people"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com