Hacker News Reader

Comment by causality0 | Hacker News Reader

One of the most user-hostile companies on earth. My John Deere lawnmower came with a fuel gauge that runs off a CR2032 that's embedded in epoxy. The battery runs out of charge in about six months and the gauge stops working. If you saw the gauge open and replace the battery it doesn't start working again. If you disconnect the gauge the lawnmower won't start. Replacement gauges are $60.

View on HN

That’s wild.They had to go out of their way to not wire it to the 12V.

They had to go out of their way to make it not work after you replace the battery with a good one.

Chances are you might find a compatible replacement from China on Ali and the other usual sites for a fraction of the price.

In EU, a product such as this would have a 2 year minimum warranty. How long was yours?

Again, it's a misconception(and I'm from the EU). EU law guarantees that for 2 years from purchase(it's actually 6 on most items) the seller has to fix any issues that arise from manufacturing faults. In the first 6 months of ownership, any fault is automatically presumed to be a manufacturing fault, after 6 months the buyer has to prove that it is. That is not the same as a warranty, if your laptop randomly stops working 2 years in you don't automatically get a right to have it repaired unless you can prove it failed because of a manufacturing defect(which as you can imagine, is actually quite hard to prove).

A lot of manufacturers have alligned their warranties to be 2 years long in the EU because they don't want to deal with the above, but it's completely 100% legal to offer a 1 year or 6 months warranty in the EU on any item. Your rights with regards to seller's responsibility are not affected by it.

The example of a lawnmower fuel gauge only lasting for 6 months due to a non-replaceable battery would definitely fall under the durability/repairability clause. It would count as a defect that existed at the point of manufacturing, not that it sounds like that even matters.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

> In order for goods to be in conformity, they should possess the durability which is normal for goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect given the nature of the specific goods, including the possible need for reasonable maintenance of the goods, such as the regular inspection or changing of filters in a car

> Given that when implementing Directive 1999/44/EC, a large majority of Member States have provided for a period of two years, and in practice that period is considered reasonable by market participants, that period should be maintained.

> For a period of one year, or for a period of two years if Member States choose to apply a two-year period, the consumer should only need to prove that the good is not in conformity, without also needing to prove that the lack of conformity actually existed at the relevant time for establishing conformity

> EU law also stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised. In some countries national law may require you to provide longer guarantees.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...

Unless there is something I'm missing on consumer protection legislation. I've seen in the past regional sellers that claimed that their provide a shorter guarantee. They sold their products on a marketplace platform, and once I reported them they changed their claims.

You're not missing anything. The key is this sentence "If the product you sold turns out to be faulty — or doesn't look or work as advertised — within the timeframe of the legal guarantee" - it's only when the product "turns out to be faulty" meaning - it has a manufacturing defect. It's defined exactly in the text of the legislation, would need to dig it out. If the product doesn't have a manufacturing defect, it "just" stops working at 23 months mark, the seller isn't legally required to fix it, unless you can prove that it's due to a manufacturing defect.

>> I've seen in the past regional sellers that claimed that their provide a shorter guarantee.

The sellers have to provide that guarantee against manufacturing defects for a minimum of 2 years, correct. Manufacturers can provide any length they like as they aren't the seller(in some cases and with some products they are legally bound as well, but it's not for everything - cars for instance have their own set of rules which bind the manufacturer not just the seller).

They might be able to work around that by arguing it’s a consumable, so not a warranty issue.

Fuel is a consumable, and fuel gauge is also a consumable? You have lots of terrible judges if anyone could seriously consider that argument.

Oh the argument would never be phrased that way. Rather, you start from the completely uncontroversial point that a CR2032 battery is a consumable, come up with some reason why you can't use a bare cell like that and need some sort of assembly around it, and incrementally justify adding more functionality into that assembly.

Also, remember that you don't need to prove that the design is sensible, only that it isn't deliberately malicious.

This is where small claims court can have a HUGE impact.

Where I live, in small claims:

* Lawyers are not allowed

* There is no forced discovery. Sue John Deere, and they cannot ask for endless documents

* There is no way to assign costs on loss. If you lose, you never pay costs for the person you sued (which makes sense -- no lawyers)

* If you don't understand something, typically the judge will act as a mediator and explain it to you.

Yet meanwhile, suing in small claims will typically result in a big company using lawyers, who will try to pretend the above is not true. They will also rack up large costs for the company. In the end, sometimes a lawyer will appear in small claims court beside a company employee. However the company employee will do the talking.

My cost to file is $100. My cost to serve (via courier with tracking + sig) was $10. The company I went after, a fortune 500 company, I suspect spent >$50k on lawyers. While small to the company, it is truly a way to level the playing field.

What I find amusing here is, you could sue for a replacement unit. Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor. Citing this issue while describing all of this, could result in two outcomes.

1) Deere employee claims (in their defense) that a batch of units were defective. They then deliver a fixed unit to you. While not perfect, it would be amusing, because they'll have just spent $50k in paying lawyers, along with making a proper unit.

2) You just claim that the tractor is defective, you can't sell it as it is, except maybe for parts. And you're not sure most of them are usable (weird electronics), and even cite that Deere stuff apparently is designed to break without authorized repairs. So how can you in good faith, even try to sell it to anyone??

So you ask for your time, costs, and full replacement costs with another brand.

Adding your wage/hr is somewhat typical here, for calls, research, sawing it open, all of it.

Anyhow.

If #1 is chosen and it breaks again, then you can repeat the whole fun process.

And I do mean it is fun.

$100 + I filled out a 2 page form, and then fedexed it to them. Their lawyers kept pestering me, to which I simply said "No" and "I don't need to give you anything, there's no forced discovery". This too was very satisfying, when I kept in mind how each call to me cost the company probably about $1k.

I mean, literally I'm sure each 5 minute call was around that ballpark. It was sheer joy. (Just don't discuss any aspect of the case in these calls.)

Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat. I was told that "nothing said here can ever be used in court", which made it more fun. The system's attempt to resolve before trial. That too was fun, for I got to finally tell the company, over and over, how wrong they were.

Anyhow.

It's a fun process.

>Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat.

This is them trying to intimidate you right? Or settle pre-court at least? Not part of the actual process where some retired judge always mediates before trial? It reads as gross.

Many small claims court procedures, at least outside the US, include mandatory mediation that would fit this description, and there is nothing gross about it.

Given that a "retired judge" was present, I assume it was such a mediation meeting (i.e. the retired judge was most likely a neutral, court appointed mediator, whose job is basically to tell both sides to please come to an agreement, and potentially tell one side to pull their head out of their ass and stop being idiots before the court has to tell them that they are being idiots).

Yes, exactly.

Sounds like a fun anecdote and not doubting it at all. So just wondering how that max comes into play

> Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor.

While I haven't bought a tractor before from some searching and impression they seem much higher. If fair market value is that low, I can see how 1) works but if for 2 it caps out at $30K, it doesn't seem like it would get you a full replacement with another brand.

The loss to John Deere is funny but isn't it also a loss to the customer, who would hurt more from the lost tractor?

Tractor? The comment I am replying to was for a lawn mower.

Clarity, I see I wrote tractor above once. Here lawn mowers are often called lawn tractors.

Hot take: it takes mental gymnastics to think that planned obsolescence is not fraud.

I personally like to call it "forced obsolescence."

Forced obsolescence is when the consumer always buys the cheapest product that checks their boxes, regardless of build quality. This forces you to either use cheap parts that you know will break, or leave the market entirely. The consumer may bitch at "planned obsolescence", but when push comes to shove and they're looking for what their next <thing> is going to be, they only look at the price and features, not quality and longevity.

We should be re-framing this in consumer's minds, and list "price divided by warranty" as an important dimension to evaluate a product on.

In Europe everything has a warranty of 2 years for private individuals and 1 year for businesses: it doesn't work as a useful metric: there's no device that I rely on that I expect to run for less than ~5 years, except maybe toothbrushes. That's great as a "it's illegal to make something attrociously low-quality", but I expect at least 5 years out of every electronic appliance I have, and there's no way to assure that, except private insurance, which is more expensive than rebuying the devices that end up being defected.

So, I buy the cheapest thing that ticks the other boxes. Not because I'm inherently cheap, but because I have no trust in the market. There's no way for me to know if I'd be paying extra for luxury features, brand premium, or reliability. Yes, I try to research things I buy, and avoid red-flags, but there's only so much you can learn that way, and most people don't have neither the experience, nor the know-how, nor the time to research everything properly to high exhaustion.

Depends how its planned. If its planned to fail but designed in a way thats cheap and easy to replace its ok. Because sometimes it can be the case that to much is spent over engineering a high use part when would be more practical to let it break and replace it every 2 years or so.

It's consumer fraud. It's shareholder fraud. It's environmental fraud.

Products like this simply shouldn't be allowed on the market. As if we need to destroy the planet so my Mother can enjoy looking at her 401k balance in the morning.

Sure, if it's truly planned. I think the tricky part tends to be that it's hard to distinguish between "planned obsolescence" and "incidental obsolescence".

Is there a bright line between cost reduction and planned obsolescence?

Obviously a small unreplaceable battery is not a good example for that discussion.

I think there is: It is the line between "not spending extra money to make sure it works" and "spending extra money to make sure it won't work".

There is a related problem with warranty: an inferior third-party replacement part may cause damage to higher-quality original parts. There is a line here between "making sure you don't have to deal with follow-up damage caused by inferior parts" and "preventing the use of inferior parts". This is a bit more blurry because most cases won't be clear-cut, and dealing with them will be a burden on the original manufacturer.

I think it is important that we reward the nice players as much as we punish the bad ones. A blanket "all companies bad" just means that no company has an incentive to be anything less than bad.

Going out of your way to make sure the gauge doesn't work after the battery is replaced surely is.

I wonder if the gauge is just a horrible design that uses the battery to keep some memory alive.

Microcontrollers with persistent memory are not expensive, so something like that would just be horrible design, not something you could even try to justify as a cost reduction.

Oh, I suppose it is using the battery to write after shutdown. Bleh.

I had an interesting situation where we had failure of a Thule bike trailer wheel and could see where the connection-to-the-trailer design had changed from an earlier version (from the company that Thule bought). The wheel functioned the same, but you could see a clear difference which fully explained the failure. I expect it was a cost optimisation, and we only encountered the failure because we used it very heavily.

Edit: they also failed to honour their warranty commitments, but that was secondary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com