Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyrra | Hacker News Reader

"There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."

Why make the decision for the consumer. This is forcing a choice on them by the state, that is going to have trade-offs, most likely increasing the price of the initial product significantly.

And as others have called out, no name brands that ship from overseas are not going to follow this and there is likely no enforcement mechanism to make them do that. So all this will hurt are large legitimate companies. It would likely drive many large companies out of various product lines.

View on HN

Consumers already had little to no choice in the matter where it counted. California is making the decision for the producer that they must offer the choice to consumers to repair a product that brakes in a semi-reasonable timeframe (should definitely be longer for some product categories, arguably less for others).

American brands often already enjoy significant advantages in reputation (not to mention actual quality), in part due to regulations and business norms in the states. This only strengthens that.

Moderately more expensive products that can be expected to be operable for substantially longer is a big win for the overwhelming majority of society, including future generations (in more ways than one). It remains to be seen if that is the actual result of legislation like this, but it is certainly a noble goal for society and worth attempting.

> Moderately more expensive

This bill hurts the poorest people by making certain products even more inaccessible to them. Before, they could at least have a choice between something they could afford and something repairable. Not anymore, that choice has been taken away from them.

I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit about the poor when it comes to the literal basic necessities like food and housing.

And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking when the whole point of right to repair is to reduce the total cost of ownership and longevity of electronics by making them not disposable.

This reasoning also applies to literally every regulation in every field and product segment. We can apparently never set the bar higher than the ground.

> I'll believe this argument when we start giving a shit about the poor when it comes to the literal basic necessities like food and housing.

You’re right, we should greatly reduce the regulations around housing in CA to allow for faster development so the poor can have newer, cheaper homes.

> And plus, this is such shortsighted thinking

No. The issue is the use of force. If you want a repairable option, pay more and get one. You’re forcing the poor to pay more for what you willingly chose to, and that’s bad. Don’t tread on the poor, keep their options open.

Consumers had all the choice. They literally kept buying unrepairable devices, so the market naturally shifted away.

99% of users, even after this bill, will never repair anything ever. It's forcing niche desires onto everyone.

It's a law that forces producers hand to do something the vast majority of consumers don't actually want.

Almost everyone will continue to buy a new phone when theirs breaks. No one wants to use a year old phone. It's already outdated. That's what makes it anti-consumer - being directly out of line with what consumers actually want.

>No one wants to use a year old phone. It's already outdated

Speak for yourself, moneybags.

Everyone wants the latest version even if they can’t afford to upgrade. No one buys the latest phone and is wishing “man, I wish I had bought last year’s iPhone”

You live in a different world where noone wants to use a year old phone. I certainly live in a different, and perhaps non-standard, world as well. At my game night last night there wasn't a single phone newer than 5 years.

And not a single person there had any desire for a newer phone?

Well they all work in tech and make well over 6 figures, they could buy one if they wanted. There may be some desire, but it's balanced by other factors.

> Why make the decision for the consumer

Because that's not really what's happening, consumers are product takers and this law also affects them. It's as much a law about not buying trash as it is not selling it.

The number of product segments where none of the firms in the market offer long term support and parts, especially in consumer electronics is embarrassing. I have an easier time finding parts for products makes 40 years ago than 5 years ago.

> It would likely drive many large companies out of various product lines.

Fantastic! Literally overjoyed to hear it. The louder people complain the more I believe this law will actually change things and do some positive good.

>Why make the decision for the consumer.

How do I go about making the choice to buy a repairable cell phone?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com