
EU Parliament calls for longer lifetime for products - smnc
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/durable-products.47bf
======
SeanDav
I totally support this. I accidentally cracked the touch screen of my car
radio console. The car is nothing special, a Ford Mondeo that is a few years
old.

Cost to replace touch screen module: more than the _entire_ value of the car!
That is insane. Effectively, if I want to claim from insurance - crack the
touch screen (it is a replaceable module) and have to scrap the entire car.

In this case, I managed to get a replacement (fitted) from a scrapped car for
1/10 of the price the Ford dealer was quoting me.

~~~
runeks
How does regulation solve the issue that replacing e.g. the touch screen may
take many man hours of labor, whereas making the car itself took
proportionally less, thus making replacements more expensive? Your experience
is a symptom of a high degree of automation in one area (car manufacturing)
and the absence in another (repairs), and regulation does not change that.

~~~
dTal
This is the fundamental issue, yes. Some thoughts:

A large part of the discrepancy is not automation, but cheap labour in the
East where many of our products are made. Regulation can help redress than
inequality.

Repair is so expensive because it's made to be. It _shouldn 't_ take several
hours of skilled labour to replace an easily broken component like a
touchscreen - it should be snap-in. Regulation can address that by mandating
reparability.

It's also worth thinking about why we consider replacement being cheaper than
repair to be a problem at all - if you trust the market, what's so horrible
about that? Real time saver right?

Answer: the price of new goods does not reflect their full environmental and
social cost. The switch in your toaster breaks - you buy a new one for a fiver
instead of repairing the switch. The old one goes in a landfill. A quantity of
non-renewable resources like oil and metal are used up; a the increased demand
for these things contributes to the deaths of miners, and people who live near
the factories and refineries. Fuel is burned to deliver the new toaster to
you, and the Earth's temperature goes up a teeny-tiny fraction. None of these
things are included in the price. Regulation can help that too.

~~~
cwyers
> Repair is so expensive because it's made to be. It shouldn't take several
> hours of skilled labour to replace an easily broken component like a
> touchscreen - it should be snap-in. Regulation can address that by mandating
> reparability.

Which can increase the original cost of the good.

~~~
sly010
> Which can increase the original cost of the good.

... to better reflect it's real cost by including all the otherwise
externalized costs.

~~~
marcosdumay
To cross subsidize some kind of use, raising the cost for people that won't
have the product broken.

I'm not saying that it's a net loss, nor that even if a net loss that it isn't
worth it. But there is a cost there, and you are shoving it away on your quest
to regulation instead of looking at it and deciding its worth.

~~~
anigbrowl
No, you're assuming the regulation is an end in itself and coming to a
tautological. Regulation is essentially saying 'wait, let's factor in these
unaccounted-for-but-predictable costs (like repairability)' and you're saying
'but what about the costs of assessing the costs?!'.

Yeah, incorporating some product standards is going to raise the cost of all
units sold, which represents a loss to the buyer who hoped to get the product
at the cheapest possible price and was either willing to take perfect care of
it or tolerate it not being fully repairable if it were broken. But that's OK,
because when regulating something the most important person to consider is the
median user, noth the clumsiest/unluckiest nor the most skilled/luckiest.

If the median user buys a car expecting to drive it for 5 years, and there's a
>50% chance that it will suffer some damage to some major functional component
during that time, it would be pretty inefficient for said damage to cost more
to fix than the cost of replacing the whole car, _unless_ cars were to become
so cheap that it was actually cheaper and better to scrap them - perhaps
thanks to some breakthrough in large-scale 3d printing technology or so.

That's what happened with computer keyboards; it used to be that they were
fairly expensive and if someone spilled coffee into one it was worth
dismantling, cleaning, and re-assembling, but then cheap membrane keyboards
assembled with increasing levels of automation brought the price down faster
and faster, and today you can get a PC keyboard for something ridiculous like
$10. A few fetishists still pay out for old-style IBM Model M, but most people
will just replace a damaged keyboard.

But while cars remain relatively expensive _and_ hard to dispose of, it makes
sense to minimize the economic losses stemming for a lack of modularity and
repairability across the market as a whole, rather than seeking to minimize
the costs for the stingiest buyer.

~~~
bashinator
A lot of people use their computer keyboard more than any other single object
they don't sleep on. There's finally (thank you Cherry MX) a supply meeting
the presumably pent-up demand for decent keyboards. I hated those membrane
things, and you could get them for under $10 as far back as 2003. These days
you can get a perfectly good _repairable_ mechanical switch keyboard for about
$35.

~~~
anigbrowl
Still though, if you pour orange juice into your keyboard and don't have the
time/ability to repair it yourself, who's going to do it for under $35? I seem
to remember that fixing a messed up one took 1-2 hours, but that was like >25
years ago when I was an eager whizkid and a new keyboard ran for $120 or
something.

------
lumberjack
Wages have gone up and consumer goods have gone down in price and build
quality. It's not feasible to have a repair business any more. Growing up,
there were still loads of repair businesses around. You could fix anything.

If build quality and price go up, you can revert to an economy where you would
fix your broken appliance once or twice before you replacing it.

But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?

~~~
FTA
> But what's the incentive for the manufacturers?

Possibly reducing the companies' environmental footprint on the world.

Instead of cheap devices being scrapped every two years and sent to the
landfill, consumers could instead hold on to the companies' products for much
much longer. If products have comparatively more time and quality parts, the
cost will indeed go up--both for manufacturing and retail price.

My grandmother had the same bread mixer the whole time I was growing up. And I
know she had it long before I was born. It was built to last and she took care
of it. My mother, on the other hand, went through at least six different
plastic, Made in China bread mixers over the course of my childhood.

Where's the corporate responsibility for all the waste that is generated by
crappy products?

If you were KitchenAid or another brand, wouldn't you want to set yourself
apart from the others as a company who cares about the environment by making
products that will last for years to come and acknowledging that in
advertising? Products that can also be repaired if there is an issue, as
opposed to chucked aside for a new one because of their lack of value?

I'd consider such a company the "Whole Foods" of appliances. Citizens who
share similar conservation values will likely pay more for that product, just
as those who opt for solar/wind energy over coal.

~~~
Brakenshire
This isn't really an incentive though, unless this is driven by very
knowledgeable consumers the companies that don't do this will make more money
and eventually drive out the moral companies.

One way of doing it would be to charge companies up-front for the cost of
handling the waste for the eventual disposal of the product. That directly
disincetivizes companies from make it poorly, pile it high, sell it cheap
business models.

~~~
politician
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that manufacturers should be responsible
for the full cost of disposal, and that this obligation should be non-
transferable to consumers.

After all, they built the widget! The vast logistical network of freight,
retailers, consumers, and waste disposal services merely transported the
widget to a landfill.

But there are difficulties with this viewpoint. How does the disposal
obligation work in horizontally-integrated industries (e.g. car
manufacturing)? How does it work with globalization (import taxes?)? Is there
any viable way to account for the waste (core samples into landfills?) or will
the cost be a guess subject to lobbyists?

One approach might be to require the manufacturer or importer to rent space in
a network of landfills by tonnage. Call it "waste disposal insurance".

EDIT: A random idea would incorporate a blockchain containing transactions
identifying the serial numbers of the products or components. That way,
assemblages could be formally shown to be composed of properly insured
components, even requiring the final serial number to be the hash of its
components. The tokens could be traded between manufacturers and landfills
directly, closing the loop on the product lifecycle. Compliance audits would
simply compare sales records to the public chain.

On the landfill side, tokens operate as space reservations by tonnage, and can
be efficiently traded to balance loads without requiring products to be taken
to specific landfills.

------
odabaxok
I agree with this too. I always try to repair things first and then replace
them if necessary (even if it is a torn shirt or backpack, a broken zipper on
a shoe or broken connector on a laptop).

Also, I try to buy things which are durable, but a lot of times it is hard to
tell what will be durable so I go with the pricier option hoping it will last
longer. This is not always true, especially for shoes and clothing, but in
electronics too. The problem is when someone looks for reviews, they only find
reviews of new models, but there's no website which would say this product can
be used for X years without breaking. Do you guys know about such a site? Or
something similar? I am always thinking about starting such website, which
would provide reviews for older things, so there would be chronological
ratings and we would see which brands make quality products and which of them
not. ...but that would need a lot of input data to be useful and I am not sure
how could this be started. Or even if this would be useful for others or only
I am concerned with this.

What do you guys think about this?

~~~
pmontra
> there's no website which would say this product can be used for X years
> without breaking.

The problem is the X years.

For electronics that website would be almost useless. I could tell you about
the failure modes of my past laptops and phones but would you buy a
discontinued product? At best you could hope that newer products of the same
brand fixed some of the problems of the past ones and didn't add new issues.

The same applies to most goods because they are replaced by new models yearly
or faster.

~~~
odabaxok
Yes, it is hard to tell if a new product will last and for them it is useless,
but such website could tell which brands are more trusty in this manner.

------
vertex-four
Of course, the flipside of this is the flipside of Captain Samuel Vimes
'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness - if the cheap boots that fall
apart quickly didn't exist, Sam Vimes would not be able to buy boots at all in
the first place.

The solution is, of course, to put more people in a position where they can
afford to buy the more expensive boots and see the value in doing so.

~~~
mattlondon
I am unconvinced that more expensive = better quality for a lot of things
these days.

There are some anecdotal examples of people with Miele washing machines that
have lasted for decades etc (... as an aside I guess we wont know about _today
's_ Miele washing machines for several more years at least ...), but in my
experience paying a premium for a product more often than not just gives you
an as-cheaply-made product but with a brand name you've heard of. I am very
happy to pay for decent stuff, but I am not prepared to pay extra for the same
quality stuff just to get a brand name.

What seems to be the biggest problem these days for me is not _mechanical
failures_ , but what can only be assumed to be _software failures_ \- things
just going haywire or flashing an LED/error code and not doing what they
should.

Perhaps there is some cheap capacitor that has blown somewhere, but it is
often a waffly explanation along the lines of "logic board has failed" (and
they are always super-expensive to replace due to it being 10 years old and
not made/stocked any more etc etc). It is usually more sensible to replace a
5-15 year old appliance with a new one, rather than buying a spare part that
costs 50% of an entire new appliance, (plus then you usually get the benefits
of improved energy efficiency)

~~~
roel_v
If you buy a Miele appliance anf get the extended guarantee which is ~10% of
the purchase price, you get 7 _years_ guarantee. As in, something breaks,
tomorrow a repairman will be at your house and fix it, no extra cost.

Quality _is_ available, people just don't want to pay for it. Those washing
machines that lasted for 15 years? Back then, they cost one or two months'
wages. Try to get anyone to pay $2500 for a washing machine today.

~~~
lindner
Speed Queen is making a go of it. Slogan is "Built Better to Last Longer."

[https://speedqueen.com/](https://speedqueen.com/)

When my Frigidaire washer finally dies that's what I'm getting. I already
injured myself replacing the pump once. And now that I've seen the cheap
plastic parts used I don't have confidence it's going to last.

~~~
undersuit
I like it. It's like buying a commercial TV because they aren't full of smart
features[1] and are made to run under harsher conditions(i.e. 24/7). Better
yet, the MultiSync V404 model can have a Raspberry Pi plugged in for your own
custom smart features.

[1][https://www.nec-display-
solutions.com/p/uk/en/products/choic...](https://www.nec-display-
solutions.com/p/uk/en/products/choice.xhtml?cat=PublicDisplays)

------
thinkfurther
Why can't we have economies that can be stable without the sky falling, can
grow when wanted, and shrink when needed without a cascade of catastrophies?
Can't we? It's a honest question, I have no clue.

Because I also think this is a great idea too, but everything else being the
same, the general insanity being the same, something else will probably give.
On the other hand, if we did have this hypothetical more flexible economic
system, making things well instead of hustling and externalizing costs might
come as a lasting side effect of that.

~~~
freehunter
That would take central planning. The government in capitalist societies can't
force someone to open a business when unemployment gets too high, and can't
force businesses to close or merge when there are inefficiencies in the
market. A capitalist economic system is inherently reactionary: someone
notices a demand and creates supply for it. Someone tries their hardest to
keep their business open even with low demand, right up until the point where
they fail catastrophically. The drive to do better than everyone else is what
keeps our economy afloat, but it also sometimes runs competitors out of
business.

We can have an economy that is stable and fair for everyone with no winners or
losers. But people have been trained against socialism and communism for so
many years, it'd be a very tough sell. The only way to have an economy flex
responsively is if the government is a central planning agency for businesses.

~~~
mrkrab
>The government in capitalist societies can't force someone to open a business
when unemployment gets too high

It does all the time, no? At least here, town halls give stupid jobs to people
when unemployment is too high. Obviously, the results are catastrofic.

~~~
freehunter
There are notable exceptions (like the New Deal) but it's not a really
widespread program. The government can certainly give people jobs, but they're
either filling existing demand (like Manpower-type headhunters) or they're
creating demand through government work (like road construction).

It's not like Soviet Russia where the government can open a new plant and put
people to work there producing private-market goods and then shut it down when
supply gets too big.

------
Areading314
Manufacturers should be made responsible for disposal. This would provide an
incentive to make products last and be repairable.

~~~
oever
A better incentive would be to _require_ manufacturers to sell unlimited
(yearly) warranty for their products. When you buy a product, you'll get the
option to pay a yearly renewable sum that guarantees that any failings from
normal use will be repaired.

Such a requirement will make the seller optimize the product for affordable
longevity and make it cheap and easy to repair the product.

A significant number of consumers will appreciate the predictable cost for the
use of the product and take out such a warranty.

~~~
TylerE
That isn't really reasonable. No product is expected to work _forever_. Things
fail. ICs go out of production.

~~~
oever
At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or
parts could be replaced. The cost of this will be reflected in the price of
the warranty which also serves as a down payment for a replacement product.
But still, the producer will have an incentive to do an honest assessment of
the longevity of the product via the cost of the warranty. Too low will cost
the company and too high will shy away the consumer.

~~~
undersuit
>At some point an equivalent product could be offered as a replacement. Or
parts could be replaced.

Some computer graphic card manufactures have a system like this. If the card
fails in it's lifetime warranty they will replace the card with an equivalent
or better model. One of my friends had their RMAed EVGA card upgraded even
though it was 5 years old, and it wasn't to just the current performance
equivalent, their $300 5 year old card was replaced with a $300 new card.

------
jbmorgado
Although I would welcome this, I can't understand how such broad demands can
be enforced.

If the EU is really interested in increasing the lifetime of products, it's
simple, just increase the mandatory warranty from 2 to 5 (or some other
appropriate number) years.

That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products, but would also,
put a strain on the manufacturers to make it easier to repair (after all, if
you have to increase the number of repairs to your products, you are going to
make it cheaper to repair it in order to save money).

~~~
sigstoat
> That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products

there's no guarantee of that. the manufacturers could just charge X times
more, and expect on average to send 1.5 replacements out.

(or less, most likely. folks who wouldn't bother to ask for warranty service,
or lose the device first, or otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements of the
warranty.)

~~~
simion314
They can charge more, but they need to compete with the others that will
charge less if their own products are not breaking that often or if they have
a cheaper way to repair instead of replacing the product.

------
roceasta
Perhaps I'm being naive, but how about reducing sales tax ('VAT' in UK) for
items which come with long guarantee periods? So sale of a washing machine
with a 10 year guarantee would be taxed at 5% instead of 10%, or similar.
Wouldn't this give manufacturers an incentive to make more durable products?

------
forinti
I recently changed the display on my Kobo Touch and was appalled at what I
found inside it.

The battery is glued to the case and the wires are soldered to the board. The
display is also glued to the case (I had to break the original display into
bits in order to take it out).

The whole thing was designed to be disposable. This just seems wrong. It's
unfair to the customer and bad for the environment.

------
perfectstorm
I agree. We need something like this in the US. By law, electronic products
sold in EU carries 2yrs warranty and I always wondered why U.S has only 1yr
warranty. I can think of an incident where my laptop crapped out right after a
year of purchase but the manufacturer was nice enough to repair it for free.

With phones running $800+ nowadays, i would expect it to last longer (3yrs
min.) like a laptop.

~~~
boobsbr
My HTC One M7 is 4 years old now, and still works perfectly.

Battery life is not awesome but still lasts a full day with light 4G usage. I
don't get software updates anymore, but that isn't an issue for me.

I know that when the battery dies for good, or if the display shatters, I
probably won't have a way to repair it, and that is bad because I really don't
need a new phone.

Availability and cost of spare parts, and ease of repair should be major
decision factors for people buying electronics. It already is the case for
cars.

------
driverdan
> 77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new
> ones

This is most likely a misleading stat. You can repair most things if you're
willing to spend the money or time to do it. Many consumer goods cost more to
repair than it's worth. No one is going to do that.

~~~
makapuf
It can be made way simpler and faster if optimized for this. Products are
designed for being cheap to buy, not cheap to use.

------
thiagooffm
I agree. I live in the EU and bought a washing machine for 450 eur. After 1
year and 2 months a big hole in the Drum appeared and this makes it flood my
apartment. LG wants 530 eur to fix it, so obviously not worth it.

My parents had 2 washing machines in their whole life, in contrast...

~~~
driverdan
If this was a concern for you why didn't you buy a more expensive washing
machine that has a longer warranty and a reputation for quality?

These things exist but they cost more. Consumers need to be willing to put
money where their mouth is.

~~~
izacus
450EUR is an expensive washing machine, they start at about 200.

"Reputation" for quality won't ensure you anything and noone gives out
warranty over mandatory minimum enforced by law.

~~~
lhnz
Miele [0] give a 10 year guarantee on their washing machines.

[0] [https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-
wa...](https://www.miele.co.uk/domestic/10-year-parts-and-labour-warranty-
included-on-selected-washing-machines-3138.htm)

------
jaclaz
The issue (that only partially has been solved by the WEEE directives in
Europe) is the same as most of the issues when money is involved.

The best form of recycling is of course repairing, you only throw away (and
need to dispose of) a tiny piece of (metal, plastic, etc.) instead of having
to dispose kilograms or tons of the same stuff (the whole whatever).

But the point is "who is gonna pay for disposal?" a part of the WEEE
directives (related to solar panels) goes into the right direction but still,
see the previous thread here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250584)

The manufacturer saves today but will (maybe) pay tomorrow.

The only way (unfortunately not very practical) is to have manufacturers
deposit today (in some sort of fund) the sum that will be needed tomorrow for
disposals, with some sort of scale so that longer lasting products will need
less money to be deposited or maybe allowing the withdrawal of a quote of the
deposit after some lasting performance has been measured, that would make them
think about the opportunity of making shorter or longer lasting (or non-
repairable vs. repairable) devices.

------
illys
It seems like a good idea to rule on this: I always used to fix my electronic
products... Up to recently it was sometimes difficult to find the issue, but
always fine with opening and closing.

I had my very first anxiety thrill ungluing an iPad window to replace the
broken microphone; and I look with anxiety at my S7, thinking of when the
battery starts aging.

------
simion314
Is there also a term that describes this phenomena ? "Each year we get an
update for product X with a few minor changes that makes the new version parts
incompatible with the previous year version (maybe not all parts are
incompatible). I noticed this with washing machines, I wanted to buy a similar
model with something that I own and they made a different model, redesigned
the outside, maybe small changes inside. I also know that cars get updates
each year, some stuff gets changed on the front of the car to look "better"
but now under the hood some parts do not fit and need to be moved around and
redesigned, then the car needs to be tested again. I think it would be healthy
to launch a product, then in first year(s) analyze the defects your products
get, next product would be an evolution that addresses the issues. I agree if
you have new ideas on how to improve your product go ahead and make the new
version but don't make a new model of a microwave that is identical with
previous one except you changed the shape, moved some buttons and added a
gimmick feature.

~~~
guimarin
Textbooks? Seriously though I think there is a movement among the rich in
America/world to buy products that are simple to use, high quality, and
durable. The problem in my view is not that these products don't exist but
that it's very hard to find them and verify quality in production over time.

~~~
simion314
I am not impressed by the "expensive" products, as an example I own a Nexus 7
tablet, touch input stopped working reliably, I searched and found many
similar issue, the solution is to open it and plug back a connector that got
lose and maybe add some paper to have the thing pressed on it's place, so this
is not a cheap, no name product, the problem could have been avoided maybe
with a few more cents investment per product. I have similar experience with
brand name keyboard and mioce that were not cheap and did not perform.

~~~
guimarin
for the most part, I don't consider commodity equipment to be 'expensive' even
if the price point is expensive. I've observed that there are usually two
classes of products in any market, the commodity bottom 80% and then the
premium top 20%. My comment is about products that inhabit this 20%. To date,
and from my point of view, there is no product running android which falls in
this premium category. With the Nexus 7 tablet specifically, I see a commodity
android tablet with slightly better build quality and some more expensive
components. Not a premium product like the iPad Pro.

~~~
simion314
But most of the premium of iPad is branding, the extra money you pay is not in
the hardware, and Apple products also break so you pay a ton of money(you
would need to be rich or really a big fanboy to justify buying an Apple
product in countries with a lower economy like Romania where you also have
taxes and pay a lot more then someone in USA would pay). My point is you buy a
super expensive Apple product but you don't get 5 years warranty even if you
spent 2-4 medium incomes on it.

------
Noos
The EU will have fun then with much more expensive consumer goods, and
businesses keeping flagship lines of products out of them for sale. More
likely this is just another tax increase worded as "consumer protection." No
business will really design products based on government say, but will just
raises prices to cover whatever penalty fee they issue.

------
andrewla
Not to play the free market card too aggressively, but isn't there already a
solution to this, called "extended warranties"? Whether provided by the
manufacturer or from the retail seller, they provide a way for customers to
pay an extra fee in order to extend the product's lifetime.

In theory, they even give a way to price out the effective longevity of
comparable devices by looking at the prices of the warranties.

In the end, my understanding is that customers do not assign a lot of value to
that lifetime extension, and as a result the extended warranties are generally
not purchased.

If the EU enacts measures to enforce product longevity, they force customers
to buy something that they have already chosen not to buy.

~~~
gmac
My hunch: part of the problem here is that people got fleeced by retailers,
who sold hugely overpriced extended warranties, banking on loss aversion and
risk aversion and general lack of technological understanding. When people
realised how much they had been fleeced (assisted by consumer programmes like
_Watchdog_ in the UK), many of them went off extended warranties as a mug's
game — and never came back. (I once had a Xmas temp job at UK electronics
retailer Dixons, commission was on profit, and one extended warranty was worth
dozens of devices sold — beaten only by mobile phone contracts).

So anyway, that's a reason why people's revealed preference for extended
warranties might not correspond with their true preference for longevity in
consumer products.

It's also the case that if you can afford to insure _yourself_ against
something (like a consumer good breaking down), and average the costs across
all such things, then generally you'll save money by doing so — especially if
you reckon, as I do in this case, that you take better-than-average care of
your consumer goods. In that case, the price of the extended warranty is a
signal of expected longevity, and features in your purchase decision (lower =
better), even if you don't buy it. So again, revealed preference for
warranties may not equal true preference for longevity.

Finally, we're collectively using and disposing of too much stuff, and one of
the reasons for this is that externalities such as waste and resource
depletion are not fully internalised. So even if people are not buying
extended warranties, and that truly reflects an indifference to product
lifespan, there may well be an argument that by "forcing them to buy an
extended warranty" — which also forces the manufacturer to take responsibility
for the product over a longer period, and thus pay more attention to how long
it generally lasts — you get higher social welfare, despite some constraint on
individual consumer freedom.

Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that
hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking
may help them in the long run.

TL;DR: I think this measure has potential to be a really good thing all round.

~~~
andrewla
Yes, you can argue that warranties are overpriced, but if everyone factored
the price of the extended warranty into every purchase they made, then
manufacturers would naturally be forced to reduce the cost of the warranty, by
making their product either more reparable or increasing initial quality.

> Finally, people are hyperbolic discounters, they are myopic in a way that
> hurts their happiness, so a regulation that encourages longer-term thinking
> may help them in the long run.

Here it may just be my Yankee self-reliance talking, but this smacks of the
worst sort of paternalism. Arguing slippery slope arguments is in itself a
slippery slope, but why stop here? If buying a bigger TV is not going to make
me happy (or make me unhappier) then surely a regulation should exist to
prevent me from buying it.

When there are significant externalities (like leaded gasoline) then
government regulation is easy to justify. When the externalities are second-
hand (the reduction in demand for product longevity causes reparability to
become a secondary concern for manufacturers) then I'm more inclined to err on
the side of "let the customer set the price of their own risk", rather than
"let's just increase costs for everyone because it may or may not have a net
societal benefit".

I don't trust that regulatory authorities are above the myopia and are truly
able to see long-term more than anyone else.

~~~
gmac
On the last point, yes this is paternalism, but I'm not convinced it's the
worst sort.

On your big TV example, you probably shouldn't be prevented from buying it,
but other measures to discourage you from buying it could in theory be
welfare-improving on a societal level, and if they were then that would
constitute part of a case for imposing them.

------
conradk
The article says that consumers are discouraged by the cost of repair.

A few weeks ago, I repaired an eltronical appliance and was surprised to see
that all screws were screwed into plastic. As I unscrewed them to access the
inside of the device, the plastic around the screw broke.

I think there should be laws that prevent screwing into plastic. That just
makes no sense appart from upfront cost. Once the plastic is broken, there is
no way but to throw the broken device away. Unless you can somehow glue
everything back together, but that seems unpractical.

It's like devices are not even planned to be repaired. They are designed to be
sold and then abandoned. That's the real issue. Not cost of repair.

~~~
briandear
A law requiring a particular material? Unless it’s health or safety related,
no way. The last place I want to see government is regulating how a product
must be constructed (unless it’s health or safety critical obviously.)

If you want a device without plastic screw holes, pay more money and find one
or make one yourself, market it and sell it to other like-minded people.

If I have a toaster that breaks, the time it would take me to go to a repair
shop is more valuable to me than the cost of a new toaster – not to mention
the cost of the repair itself.

In China, you often do get smaller appliances repaired because the labor cost
is so low. So it makes economic sense to get those kinds of items repaired.

But in France, if I want to get a microwave fixed, the item is either still
under warranty or the depreciated value is less than the repair cost. Perhaps
if government lowered taxes and relaxed the labor code, then repair shops
could charge less and it would incentivize people to get repairs on smaller
ticket items rather than buying replacements. But I certainly am not going to
spend €65 getting a €150 microwave repaired when the microwave is already
several years old. I migh spend €20 for that repair if I really liked the
microwave.

I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a
microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be
used. The increase cost wouldn’t even be in materials as much as the
buereaucratic cost of implementing such requirements.

Health and safety regulations – of course. Regulations because you’re unhappy
with screw holes? Not a chance.

~~~
xxs
The electronics could have a 'repairability' rating similar to energy-
efficiency one.

Otherwise there is no feasible way to know what's the build quality before
opening it yourself.

~~~
shabble
Generalising and mandating some sort of 'star rating' \+ notes along the lines
of the ifixit Repairability Score[1] system would be a good first step.

AIUI, for products marketed in the US there are often internal photographs &
other documentation (e.g, a totally random example product I found with one of
the FCC ID search engines:
[https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900](https://fccid.io/2AMOCKST-900))

Having some semi-standardised set of robustness and repairability criteria and
requiring that businesses publish an evaluation of their products against the
criteria would at least allow people to get some idea of the 'build quality'
or other potential decisionmaking info before buying.

Of course, it would be easy for unscrupulous product manufacturers to find
ways to game the evaluations, or just outright lie, so you need some teeth to
the rules if caught.

And on the other hand, you're imposing further regulatory burdens on those
producing new products, increasing costs and maybe time to market. So there
are definitely downsides.

Balancing everything and making it useful without being burdensome is the real
problem.

As an afterthought, even if you look inside _one_ instance of a product, there
isn't any degree of certainty that if you buy an (externally) identical,
matching model number/SKU, it will be the same.

Some regulatory system that actually required version-numbering, or different
model-numbering on non-trivial changes would be useful, especially if combined
with some obligation to record/announce those version releases, maybe even
with some actual change notes.

[1] [https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-
repairability](https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability)

------
NicoJuicy
This made me think about the lamp that shines for 100 years in a fire
department somewhere. It even has a cam
[http://www.centennialbulb.org/](http://www.centennialbulb.org/)

Now lamps have a limited lifespan because of the manufacturers, so they have
more sales.

I think this was the article: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-
great-lightbu...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-great-
lightbulb-conspiracy)

~~~
Latty
I mean, LED bulbs have made traditional ones redundant and have incredibly
long lifespans, so this isn't really true any more.

The article makes some good points that lifespan was controlled, but not as
drastically as you imply. They were talking about losing a third of the
lifespan. While yes, they were clearly aiming to reduce the lifespan of bulbs,
they did so by making the bulbs better (brighter) in a way that made consumers
want those bulbs.

If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would have
(it's not like that cartel is still going - 1940 was a long time ago) - I
don't think what they did was that dissimilar to desktop software moving to
subscription models to increase profit - as long as they introduce value from
that change to justify it, then it's not wrong.

The century-old bulb is an extreme outlier and there was never an expectation
for anything to last that long. Trying to imply that modern bulbs are
handicapped intentionally to such an extreme is just misleading.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> If you could do both brighter and longer lifespan, I'm sure someone would
> have

No, they did, that's what is called a halogen lamp, quite a bit more
efficient, lasts about twice as long.

~~~
Latty
And a lot hotter and more expensive - hence why they didn't replace normal
bulbs.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Well, no. Yes, a bit more expensive to buy, but not more expensive TCO if they
were actually on a lot, at least for the low-voltage versions.

And also, obviously not hotter, how could they be more efficient at producing
light, and still be hotter? Yes, the filament in halogen lamps is running
hotter, that's why they are more efficient (and the halogen process is what
keeps the filament intact despite the high temperature), but they're also more
compact--the total amount of thermal power produced by a halogen lamp of equal
light output as a regular incandescent bulb is lower, and thus, if you put it
into the same form factor and under the same cooling conditions, it's actually
going to be cooler at the surface.

------
rebootthesystem
As I read through some of the comments on this thread what jumped out at me is
that products today are designed with DFM in mind rather than DFR. Design for
Manufacturing vs. Design for Repairs.

Industrial products are different. There's a class of product that must be
designed for easy maintenance. Not so in consumer-land. For example, to
replace some of the lights on a BMW you have to remove the front bumper.
Crazy.

------
Eridrus
I kind of want these rules to go into effect in the EU just to see what
happens.

I don't expect good things to happen, but one way or another it would be
instructive.

~~~
kyriakos
Mandatory warranty of 2 years seems to be doing fine

~~~
baq
It should be at least 5 years for large home appliances like washing machines,
refrigerators, TVs, etc. Cars too.

~~~
photojosh
I think this is absolutely the only way we're ever going to get better
repairability and manufacturers who make products to last that length of time.

In Australia, we have the traditional warranty by law, but we also have a law
that requires appliances to last as long as would be reasonably expected to by
a consumer. [1] And they must meet any extra claims. Of course, this is an
absolute pain to then try to get the manufacturer to uphold, and you may have
to threaten legal action.

We did this with an Apple Watch that broke when dropped onto concrete. My
argument was that the watch was repeatedly marketed as a "sports watch", and
such a device should be able to withstand a small fall without being
destroyed. Took a few months, but we got a replacement. Have had friends with
good experiences with large appliances, but you certainly have to be prepared
to fight.

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-
warr...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-07/broken-but-out-of-warranty-you-
still-have-rights/2749924)

------
legulere
They can start by changing the warranty regulations [1] to be valid 10 years
instead of a ridiculous two years.

[1]:
[http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...](http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-
returns/index_en.htm)

------
NTDF9
The solution is metered trash/pollution for everyone.

The more you throw away, the more you pay. The more waste you produce, the
more you pay. The more you harm the environment, the more you pay.

This will incentivize individuals to throw less away, hence buy less and seek
more durable products.

------
DannyB2
From TFA: "if a repair takes longer than a month, the guarantee should be
extended to match the repair time,"

Uh, no. That will insure that repairs always take 29 days, except in february
where they will take 27 daze.

Simply always extend the guarantee by the amount of any repair time.

------
handzhiev
When I read about yet another EU regulation of this kind I always remember the
cookie law :/

~~~
miracle2k
I want to write some comment to agree with you, but I can't find the words the
express my frustration with the cookie thing. It beggars belief.

~~~
corney91
I think the idea's reasonable but it was implemented wrongly by everyone,
making it stupid. The aim was to stop unnecessary tracking, not all tracking.
See the list of exempt cookies here:
[http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm)

------
based2
[http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...](http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-
returns/index_en.htm)

------
twii
Finally.. Although I am not optimistic about seeing results soon. Companies
will go to extremes to circumvent such rules.

But it's shocking to see their lack of insight:

> software should be easier to repair and update

ROFL!

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Why ROFL? Fixing bugs is essentially repairing software, isn't it? And it
seems perfectly reasonable to me that if I buy some software, I should be able
to "repair" any defects in it.

------
coldcode
You can call for anything, however it will happen only if it makes economic
sense to manufacturers, sellers and customers.

------
Animats
The EU also has a 3-year minimum warranty requirement on consumer products.

Much of what the EU does is to make buying from another EU country within the
EU a seamless experience. They just prohibited phone roaming charges within
the EU, for example. This is the "single European market" concept.

~~~
ptaipale
Not 3 years, it's 2 years, and it's not exactly same as "warranty".

 _Directive 1999 /44/EC says all EU countries have to ensure a retailer could
be held liable for all "non-conformities" which manifest within two years from
delivery._

[https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-
elect...](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-electrical-
goods-guaranteed)

------
farnulfo
paradoxically we want longer lifetime for some products but not for IE 6,
Windows XP, JDK 1 , name your product's support hell...

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Arguably, Windows XP had an incredibly long lifetime (12 years!) in terms of
actual support/updates. The problem is getting people to leave after that
lifetime is _over_.

If something is going to get updates for twelve years, there's no problem with
people continuing to use it.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
XP is still used in all sorts of (theoretically) non-networked applications.

------
netcan
In other news, the parliament took a vote affirming previous decisions that TV
shows should be funnier.

..I guess that was trite. The EU parliament is in a constitutional limbo
state. It doesn’t have real power or a predefined legislative jurisdiction, so
voters don’t take it seriously. They elect quirky, fring-ey members they
wouldn’t elect to their own national parties.

I’m in favour of durable products, but I don’t see how this is en route to
policies that affect this.

~~~
illys
You probably do not live in Europe (or maybe you just like trolling?).

First I am a voter and I do take the EU parliament seriously. I also consider
what the groups and candidates voted in the past before giving them my vote -
especially on topics like world trade giant agreements (TTIP, TATFA, CETA... -
yes they also vote on that and it is very meaningful for our future).

You may also read some documentation on the powers and functions of the EU
Parliament:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and_functions)

You may also just read the news:

-> UK just voted to get out of EU to escape EU funding and regulations - so probably those regulations do exist at a significant extend.

-> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation.

So probably - yes - they can set rules on repairability and durability.

~~~
taway_1212
> A recent example: the GSM roaming (a former giant cash machine against
> consumers) just got extinguished within EU countries by EU regulation.

Wasn't that the European Commission (and not Parliament) though? They seem to
be significantly more powerful.

~~~
vidarh
EU law needs to be proposed by the Commission (though the Maastricht Treaty
gives Parliament powers to request that the Commission should put forward
proposals on their behalf), and then normally approved and/or amended by both
Parliament and the Council, with drawn out conciliation procedures if one or
the other changes the proposals too much.

The complexity stems from the legal status where the EU is in some respects a
confederation of sovereign states, where the governments of the member states
need to represent their respective nations, and in some respects a union of
people. The gradual shift of power towards the Parliament represents attempts
to shift it towards the latter, while the Commission and Council represents
the treat realities where delegating more power to Parliament would require
constitutional changes in a number of member states to cede the sovereignty
(currently this is worked around by having the treaties bind the respective
governments to take make the required decision - it's exploiting the wide
latitude most governments have in exercising treating rights and obligations.

~~~
taway_1212
Thanks for the writeup! This gives some insight into how convoluted the system
is and hence why people don't trust it.

------
Shivetya
Some of their proposals are just the product of people who have no concept of
how technology works. Hell some of it reads like an anti-Apple manifesto being
that they integrate battery and LED and such. What would a tablet with a user
replaceable battery look like? How many years must they last before they are
long lasting? If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is
that sufficient?

With regards to products like cars where the makeup can come from hundreds of
manufactures who decides what needs to adhere to the rules and what doesn't?
Someone posted about a cracked screen on a radio, how far down the component
tree do we go before we stop?

I do like one section, no software should enable the fixing of a user owned
product. The exception would be software that locks out repairs that might
allow for unauthorized access; what I mean is that this could be an end run to
making touch id easily hacked by government by forcing it to be serviced by
third parties.

~~~
Dylan16807
> What would a tablet with a user replaceable battery look like?

[https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability](https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-
repairability)

It looks about the same as any other tablet, but with non-fragile latches
holding it shut and no glue anywhere.

> If a battery in a laptop last four years for a nominal charge is that
> sufficient?

No, the consumer should be able to replace the battery every few years and
keep using it for over a decade, assuming a typical situation where nothing
else breaks.

