Hard to imagine any reasonable individual being opposed to this, regardless of politics!
If your net worth is high enough that anti-consumer policy pumps your assets harder than it dumps your consumption, it's rational. A huge jerk move, sure, and arguably unreasonable on those grounds, but it's rational. Unfortunately the $600B sponsor and $6B president are faaaar on the other side of the invisible net worth boundary where that starts to be the case, so I wouldn't expect RtR to get much traction, but who knows. There is enough chaos to make it worth a try even if it "ought" to fail on grounds of "government by the rich, for the rich."
Not quite yet. An admirer of dictators. He's a wannabe dictator. Stacking the decks with loyalists and purging those that don't roll over. Never failing to take an opportunity to divide, to tear down, to fabricate, to create chaos for the 99%. Constantly crossing lines that would've been unthinkable for any other president - including previous Republican candidates.
Offtopic: I often think of the alternate universe in which John McCain won the Republican nomination over Donald Trump. What a different world we'd be in! Good chance Biden wouldn't have won in 2020. Good chance Russia wouldn't have had an opportunity to invade Ukraine a second time.
Sounds like narcissistic personality disorder to me. Why are some of us worshipping these people again?
safety (i.e. "if an amature does the repair wrong, they could hurt themselves or the owner"),
security (i.e. "if we let people know how it works, it'll be easier to hack"),
technilogical advancement (i.e. "smartphones would have to be chunky bricks with no water resistance if we designed them to be easily opened for repair"),
consumer protection (i.e. "unauthorized repair technicians are unaccountable and might do something unscrupulous to your device"),
value (i.e. "if companies have to design for repair and provide support for repair, then those costs get passed onto consumers"),
among other things. I don't find these arguments compelling and I think there is plenty of precedent for repairability being best for consumers. But they come up a lot - especially from anti-R2R lobbiests.
Our society has also been trained to be consumers, always throwing away old stuff in favor of the latest and greatest. When something breaks, the first thought is usally "how much will it cost to replace this?" instead of "how do I fix it?" Everything is treated as disposible, so there isn't much motivation for the average person to care about repair.
I would really like total control of my car's ECU, but I know the most popular use of such a power would be to circumvent emissions controls and maximize MPG or HP.
sort of like the bathroom hand dryers that have many biased points saying they are better than paper towels.
I think the benefits outweigh those costs, but the argument isn't unreasonable.
Dell is currently better off buying the same RAM etc used by other computer manufacturers.
second: even if it may make up for it, the manufacturers profits still will be reduced
replacing some components means fewer components sold overall, because whole products 'replace' just all components
Economies of scale don’t mean things are free. The marginal cost of each transistor is still greater than zero even though where producing what 10^20 ish of them per year.
Idk where I implied zero cost of things anywhere?
And they're arguably NOT arguments at all, as doing something to make your product less repairable is generally MORE expensive that NOT doing that thing. Most of the time in product manufacture, costs come from performing actions, so by not performing actions, those costs go away. That's what these laws are usually about, skipping repair-unfriendly design choices, making repair documents available (that's free, they already exist, companies need not keep them secret/internal), and not creating software locks that are only for keeping out "unauthorized" repairs.
Apple could save money by using all hex/phillips screws and doing away with pentalobe screws as they'd have few different items to buy and use. Apple could save a really good deal of money using NVMe drives, or an open standard for flash-chip boards like in the M4 Mini, because currently they waste a lot of engineering resources on their proprietary solutions. Devices with ultrasonically welded plastic cases could skip the ultrasonic welding step and just use clips on the plastic frame. Etc.
I wouldn’t call what you mentioned as reasonable, but nobody with the financial muscle or brain power wants to do that deep dive analysis.
But for the non-farmers, perhaps it'd really sway tribal mindsets to understand people "similar to them" (more so than elite techies...) benefit too.
As if I'm blind or stupid and wouldn't try the obvious??
You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason into
They have no rebuttal because you're now making their own arguments. Regulations that allow those parts to be seized or those people to be jailed should be repealed.
In general the libertarian position is that problems like this would be solved by competition if there weren't government regulations stifling competition. And they're often right. DMCA 1201 impairs adversarial interoperability and therefore competition. Trademark law is meant to be about consumer protection and accurately representing the source of goods to the consumer, not enabling price discrimination by putting up trade barriers to cross-border arbitrage.
But a lot of those bad laws, they're federal. So if all you have control over is a state legislature, and those laws exist and have impaired competition and the state legislature can't remove federal laws, you then have to ask what they can do about the problems caused by those laws, until such time as we can get them repealed at the federal level.
If you want a fun compromise, pass a right to repair bill that only applies to companies with more than a billion dollars in revenue (but using the largest entity in the supply chain, so you can't just use a small business as a middle man to get out of it). That's going to make it apply to any of the relevant companies, but then if you ever managed to actually make those markets competitive enough for smaller businesses to be viable, you don't have yet another rule stacking on more barriers to entry for small businesses.
I'm not going to bother to address most of your comment because of this.... but just.... Unbelievably rude and arrogant of you lol. Par for libertarians.
Anyway no they where not libertarians they where MAGA as I stated.
They weren't interested in any of the BS you espoused. Things seized at border? Must be dangerous or illegal ,good on our boys in blue.ppl in jail? Must be protecting society.. OBVIOUSLY innocent citizens don't go to jail. Etc etc.
Don't believe climate change is real at all
Don't believe COVID is real or was real. At all.
Highly evangelical Christian while being the most unchristlike beings imaginable.
MAGA BULLSHIT not libertarians...
People say "rude" when they mean insubordinate, as if subordination is something anyone is entitled to.
Anyway. My original point stands. Right to repair is heavily politicized in maga crowds and therefore the current Republican party. Most of the arguments they have against it are nonsense and is very much akin to drug war reasoning. The only people in their eyes who want right to repair are pirates ,thieves and smugglers.
I don't give a fuck what libertarians think because they hold no political power or sway.even if they hold the logical ethical high ground in what SHOULD happen.... Nothing ever changes regardless of their opinions. Again see the drug war.
I disagree. There are many situations in which it will always be more profitable to screw over consumers than it would be to not screw them over, even taking into account that you might steal some business from competitors.
Any company that does spring up out of nowhere and do the right thing for the consumer will eventually be forced to screw over their customers or be bought up by someone who will because shareholders will never leave giant piles of money sitting on the table. Even if a company somehow managed to put every one of their competitors out of business, shareholders will still demand endless growth so the only thing left is to screw the customers and degrade the product which is exactly what we see over and over again once a company has anything close to a monopoly.
But this is exactly the point.
A competitive market is going to have at least a dozen suppliers. There are some corporate apologists who like to pretend that a duopoly is competition and only a strict monopoly is a problem, but that's BS. With sufficiently few suppliers they can easily collude with each other or use conscious parallelism to make sure that everybody is screwing customers and therefore nobody has to stop.
A competitive market isn't a thing where one company is so great they put all of their competitors out of business. It's a thing where entering the market is easy so lots of people do it all the time.
Suppose there is a market with five companies all colluding to screw the customer. If entering the market is easy then soon there are six companies, because investors like money. If the incumbents are getting 50% margins and you could go eat their lunch while still getting 20% margins, that's what you do. Then there are six companies getting 20% margins, but that's still a good profit margin and it's still easy to enter the market, so soon there are seven and their margins are 8%. Trying to buy out the new guys or collude with them doesn't work because the combination of "industry with high margins" and "easy to enter the market" means new companies will keep showing up forever until the margins come down.
Whereas if there is a market with five companies all colluding to screw the customer and regulations make it hard for anyone new to enter the market, the customer is screwed. Which is what keeps happening.