Hacker News Reader

Comment by olliej | Hacker News Reader

I feel like the analogy to a car requiring potentially expensive work/replacement parts isn’t reasonable, as you only have to replace those parts when they actually die, not at some random fixed point (as much as dealer-workshops may try to convince you otherwise)

View on HN

It seems pretty analogous to an air filter or oil filter to me. You do eventually have to replace these. It's a consumable part that is required for the product to function. The differences seem to be that a) the lifetime of the ink pad is not told to you and b) you can't replace the consumable yourself.

Drafting “right to repair” legislation strikes me as tricky, but this feels like a perfect example of what it should be pushing.

Consumables like this should be standardized; if they aren’t, they should be manufactured for a guaranteed minimum period of time by their manufacturer. Maintenance should be something I can do myself, or I can take it to an independent servicer or a dealer.

I’m not saying cars don’t have consumables, I’m saying a car doesn’t brick itself when it decides that you’ve driven sufficient miles to need to replace the relevant filters. That you can replace your filters yourself is a secondary (though related) issue.

If you don't replace a belt it absolutely can brick itself, somewhat violently too.

To be clear I don't think Epson is in the right here. Just trying to find analogous things we already deal with.

Doesn't belt wear produce noticeable symptoms prior to actual failure? I recall timing belt issues at least being noticeable prior to them failing - the only sudden failure I am aware of was when the engine dropped out of the bottom of my parents car when I was a kid - and honestly you could have argued that that car was itself evidence that everything in it needed to be replaced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com