
EU Prepares "Right to Repair" Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans - SwellJoe
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/eu-prepares-right-to-repair-legislation-to-fight-short-product-lifespans/
======
maaaats
EU is also working on mandatory two year expected lifetime on many products.
As in, if a product is in a category expected to last more than two years (eg
most products except perishable items), if it breaks down through no fault of
the consumer, the producer will have to fix or replace it. This extends beyond
whatever guarantees/warranties provided by the producers.

I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing
machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years
minimum.

~~~
agumonkey
Funny timing, yesterday we moved a fridge from some neighbor to an old lady
house. As we take her old heavy fridge out to make some room; she giggled '60
years old fridge...'. I was shocked by that figure. That thing ran for 60
years. 60.

Planned obsolescence made people sad they couldn't have 20 yo appliances ..
but 60. When that thing left the store my mother was a few months old.

~~~
zelos
Modern fridges use roughly 25% as much energy as fridges from the 70s
according to this page though:
[http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html](http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html)

I doubt keeping a 60 year old fridge running is the cheapest option.

~~~
xexers
The question is, why do modern fridges seem to break more frequently after a
few years than older fridges. Is it:

1\. modern fridges are more complicated, thus more things can break

2\. The manufacturer wants it to break after about 5 years so you buy a new
one (planned obsolescence)

3\. Old fridges did indeed break as much as the ones today... and the ones we
see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)

~~~
emn13
There are at least a few additional options to those three to consider here:

\- The manufacturer doesn't so much _want_ it to break, but rather, they
expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough
components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that
happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly.

\- smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are
cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less
unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads
to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the
tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers
completely informed.

\- throwaway items actually _are_ more efficient, because small savings accrue
from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own
(i.e. the premise is misleading)

\- some combination of all of the above.

Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and
unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation
(and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so
completely disregard longevity.

~~~
inetknght
I'd say it's certainly possible to get everyone involved to pursue profits in
such a way as to accidentally completely disregard longevity.

~~~
emn13
I think it's possible too. But also think it's a little implausible nobody
realized what was going on: longevity is too important (if only for guarantee
purposes) for producers to have completely forgotten about it - well, most of
em anyhow. And given how commercially self-serving the outcome, and how
actively firms strategize for all kinds of income flows, I can't really buy
the idea that it's all a benign unfortunate accident. It's possible; sure -
but it wouldn't be my first guess for most non-tiny firms anyhow.

~~~
inetknght
It doesn't take "nobody" to realize what was going on; it only takes the
decision makers to either not realize it or to actively decide for profit
against longevity.

Imagine a situation: Investors say: give me investment returns! People in
charge say: give me profits! People making decisions say: profits or quality!
People conducting day-to-day operations say: worry about regulations first,
then profits, then quality! People doing the work say: this quality is poor,
but I need my job and don't want to rock the boat!

Maybe it's just anecdotal evidence, but that's generally been my experience
over the past 10 to 15 years of doing things

~~~
emn13
Yeah, I agree completely. I just think that kind of behavior deserves a
certain small amount of opprobrium ;-).

------
filleokus
Is this really a good idea? Sure, "right to repair" and longer lifespans might
sound good. But think of all the advancements made by people like Apple with
almost all of their products that would be prohibitively hard to do under this
legislation. How would you design a iMac where the user could easily fix
broken parts (without using a suction cup to remove the whole front glass) or
a superthin Macbook Pro where no parts could be fastned by glue, like the
batteries. Not to mention the iPhone. I imagine that by demanding easy user
repair would make everything look like the bulky Lenovo machines.

I don't believe that Apple design their stuff with the intention to make it
hard to repair for end users, but rather that they make trade-offs that
improve other things with the cost of making user repairs hard. But I might be
wrong...

~~~
q3k
Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem.

The problem is lack of genuine replacement parts, lack of (legally available)
schematics and other technical documentation, and software/firmware that
prevents repairs by bricking devices [1].

[1] - [https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-
error-53-c...](https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-
error-53-class-action-lawsuit/)

~~~
mason240
>Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem.

This is already not true for independent auto repair shops. Manufacturer
specific computer diagnostic tools can cost them tens of thousands each and
often they don't have the same level of tools as the dealers.

~~~
bb611
> Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools

The tools themselves aren't the issue, the only thing specific to these tools
is a complete mapping of proprietary error codes. If manufacturers were forced
to release a list of all error codes and their meanings as part of the owner's
manual this would be a non-issue.

~~~
problems
Keep an eye on projects like this:
[https://github.com/commaai/opendbc](https://github.com/commaai/opendbc)

------
zabana
To me what's actually ridiculous is that this is even subject to debate.
Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be
assumed. Also, this raises a lot of frightening questions with regards to
ownership (and its transfer) and how it's perceived by the Apples and Samsungs
of this world. Realistically, if we let this slide, it could open up the door
for many more abusive violations of rights, but I digress.

~~~
runeks
> Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be
> assumed.

Shouldn't my right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts
also be assumed?

The problem with creating rules is that you don't really fix anything, you
just force those who disagree to accept your preference (e.g. replaceable
parts, at the higher cost this incurs). Most people purchase devices with non-
replaceable parts because they prefer the low price that comes with mass-
production versus being able to repair it. Why take away this ability?

~~~
renesd
There is no "right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable
parts". You just made that up. But I'll answer your question anyway.

Because it's a giant waste that is destroying the planet, and is economically
irresponsible and noncompetitive?

Why should the arseholes who produce things that break in one year have a
competitive advantage over companies that do the right thing by their
customers and by the planet?

~~~
friedman23
There is also no right to have companies build products that are easy to
repair. The EU and a bunch of internet activists made this up.

You have the right to try to repair something. If it was built so that it was
hard to repair, well you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Almost all rights are "made up". Anyway, I really hope this law passes because
it will fuck up even more small businesses in the EU and drive them to the US.

------
skrause
The right to repair is a good step, but I think the better approach to fight
short product lifespans would be much longer and mandatory guarantees on
products.

A mandatory 5-year guarantee on laptops and 10 years on washing machines or
dryers doesn't sound unreasonably.

~~~
pmlnr
ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you can
extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5, but they are significantly more
expensive than a laptop in [random local PC store].

The first step would be to make people understand that the shiny new is most
probably nothing better - not in power, keyboard, etc - than a 3-4 years old
business rugged one (there are always exceptions, we're talking generic
category here), so just go and get a used, perfectly functioniong business
tank instead.

~~~
runeks
> ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you
> can extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5 [..]

I think this is a great solution. I don't see the purpose of preventing people
from purchasing the laptop with a 3-year warranty by mandating a 5-year
warranty. Why not just let the people who prefer the 5-year warranty pay for
it?

~~~
baq
Because this isn't about individuals. It's all about the whole society and the
environment it's in. See also tragedy of the commons.

------
bluGill
Right to repair means nothing without ability to get parts.

I work on embedded products. We have perfectly good working machines that
don't need any changes, but the CPU (or some other off the shelf chip) is not
going to be made anymore so we have to do an expensive port to a new CPU:
EVERYBODY loses. We have to charge more for our products because the cost of
engineering is only amortized over a few years. we have ideas for a different
machine we could build, but that engineering budget (expertise as much as
money) is stuck working on the port. If someone does find a bug we have to fix
it in both versions.

In the mean time you can find parts for 100 year old cars. Part of that is
someone in their garage making them (can you make a replacement chip in your
garage given just the old one) but part of that is the molds to make oil
filters still exist so they can make another batch on demand.

~~~
Jach
Yup, things can be a mess when you can no longer source a part with the same
spec. I haven't read the proposed legislation yet but does it account for
being unable to do repairs because e.g. no one makes 555 chips anymore?
(Albeit those are relatively simple.)

You can delay the porting if you buy a bunch of spare parts in advance but
that has inventory price overhead.

~~~
TeMPOraL
How much of that would be easier if detailed specs were available? Could
someone throw a pin-for-pin compatible implementation of that hypothetical 555
(to continue your example) out of a small FPGA?

Also, the most annoying to replace and most complicated parts are usually the
ones that run software, which creates another problem. I bet half of the
people at my local hackerspace could build a replacement board for their
washing machine or fridge from just doing a visual inspection of the original,
but it doesn't solve anything if you don't know what code the original was
running. Having to hack the original into giving you its firmware blob raises
the difficulty of replacement significantly, and you'll probably be breaking
some laws too if you try it.

I wish we would be able to force companies into revealing both schematics and
_all_ code running on a device when they sunset it. But I know it won't
happen, because the companies will immediately say that some of that old
software is still being used on new devices, and therefore it is an Important
Trade Secret.

~~~
bluGill
For a washing machine your local hackathon could probably get most of the
functionality in software as well. For years they were simple mechanical
timers. Fill until the full switch trips, then run the motor for so long. then
pump the water out, then run the motor at a higher speed....

Of course computers and modern sensors allow for "dirt sensors" which if they
exist will be much harder to interface to.

------
diego_moita
One company deserves a lot of praise for respecting the "right to repair" is
Baratza[1], a coffee grinder manufacturer in Seattle.

Support for customers is one of their mission statements and they provide not
only instructions but also all necessary parts and plenty of videos on You-
Tube on how to fix their products. Sometimes they even provide upgrades on
parts at no extra cost.

No, I am not associated with them in anyway other than being a customer.

[1] [https://www.baratza.com/](https://www.baratza.com/)

~~~
thenomad
Seconded. I have yet to have any problems with my Baratza grinder (which I've
certainly had for more than two years) but if I do I've heard time and time
again about their excellent support.

Also completely unassociated with them in any way.

------
objectivistbrit
People are focusing on the wrong question.

The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-
repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks.

The question is: who should decide?

That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" \- which means a
ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture
both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which
they want to buy?

A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture
a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the
"Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign
in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the
virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for
startups to spring up to fill it.

None of this requires the government.

~~~
Fej
In a perfect world, consumers have perfect information and understand the
subtleties of repairability and all of the unseen costs of disposable
products. This is not a perfect world.

Government needs to step in because waste is a serious problem that affects
everyone, not just the purchasing consumer (and, additionally, to compensate
for the fact that consumer ignorance is unavoidable). Contribution to global
warming by requiring the purchase of more appliances and devices, for example,
is a classic negative externality. One of the core purposes of government is
to correct for externalities (according to Adam Smith).

~~~
sol_remmy
This law being sold as being pro-consumer. It is called "Right to Repair" and
not "Right to Restrict Freedom of Choice to Help the Enviroment".

Please provide an argument on why this law will benefit consumers. The focus
here is not on the environment.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
It doesn't matter what they are selling it as. It's only important that it
gets passed.

Electronics in general make use of a variety of "Rare Earth metals," that we
are quickly running out of. At our current pace, we are set to run out of some
of these Rare Earth metals in just a few decades. The United States is already
100% reliant on imports for many of them. Some sort of reduction scheme is
necessary, otherwise the cost of all electronics will skyrocket in just a few
years.

[http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-
wi...](http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-
enough/)

[https://www.bu.edu/cas/magazine/spring16/elements-of-
conflic...](https://www.bu.edu/cas/magazine/spring16/elements-of-conflict/)

------
rdl
It might be nice for some products to have this designed into them, but the
transition will be tough. It might mean redesigning a product well before the
end of a natural product cycle. It will almost certainly raise costs (and thus
prices) at transition.

Last big EU effort like this was RoHS, which actually lowered product
lifespans and reliability substantially.

Even if it is overall a net good, the winners here will be those selling to EU
people but exempt from the regulation during the transition (US, Canadian, etc
retailers); once all the costs have been paid by EU consumers to the point
that it makes sense to voluntarily adopt elsewhere, then global production
might shift overall to selling these kind of devices only.

So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate
ways.

~~~
kbart
As an European, I don't mind that as long it works and makes the world a
little bit cleaner. Your RoHS example was spot on why this works as even cheap
Chinese knock offs are usually RoHS compliant now.

~~~
rdl
Indicate RoHS compliance, at least :)

------
squarefoot
Ths is good, but let's see how it clashes with copyright laws since
"repairing" an obsolete electronic appliance might involve its reverse
engineering and at least distributing information on how to do so if not
complete binaries containing parts of the original firmware along with other
parts which were hacked or developed from scratch. I expect some opposition by
the usual suspects lobbied by the industry.

~~~
pdkl95
Making additional copies of a copyrightable work is not the intent of repair,
even if copies of some of the _parts_ art made during the repair process.
Intent matters in law, and a repair should only leave the same single copy.

Trying to prevent someone from repairing a product (as or private act or as a
for-profit service) is not a right granted by copyright. Preventing repair is
a misuse of copyright, which allows copyright infringers to avoid
liability[2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse)

[2] _Lasercomb America v. Reynolds_

------
jaclaz
Related previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14700784](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14700784)

------
Osiris30
See the previous discussion on HN - "recraiglist" and "They Used To Last 50
Years" (1) - a well-circulated blog post by a successful used home appliance
repair & trading entrepreneur.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365)

------
yummybear
How are planned obsolescense implemented in practice?

~~~
IshKebab
It isn't. What really happens is cost reduction
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_reduction)).
Basically the design is changed to make it as cheap as possible to
manufacture, _while still lasting the guarantee period_.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability)

Examples of what you might do:

* Change the design to relax tolerances.

* Switch from nuts/bolts to other fixings like glue, snap-fit, screws into plastic, etc.

* Reduce the thickness of plastic parts that rarely fail

* Switch to cheaper materials, e.g. metal->plastic

* Integrate electronics into fewer places / components / PCBs.

I have a theory that first generation products last longer than recent ones
because they haven't had a chance to make them crap yet (though this may also
be selection bias).

None of it is really done to screw the customer over, rather to maximise
profit.

You can't compete on reliability nearly as easily as on price. It takes many
years and lots of reviews for customers to learn the reliability of a product.
It will probably be obsolete by the time its reliability is clear to the
average person, so really only huge long-lived brands can compete on
reliability. Cost is easy to compare.

~~~
kuschku
> You can't compete on reliability nearly as easily as on price. It takes many
> years and lots of reviews for customers to learn the reliability of a
> product. It will probably be obsolete by the time its reliability is clear
> to the average person, so really only huge long-lived brands can compete on
> reliability. Cost is easy to compare.

That depends. There’s a reason people buy Miele.

You can also make reliability and quality your business model.

------
pasbesoin
My 40 year old microwave just died. Magic Chef, manufactured in October, 1977
in Anniston, GA. Ran like a champ up to its last moment. A faint wiff of
overheated electronics, at the end of one run, and upon the next, the
magnetron (or klystron, someone told me such an old unit might have?) wouldn't
power up. Control panel still works just fine.

My previous furnace, a Lennox, was circa 35 years old when it was replaced.
The blower motor was failing and I took the advice of the technician to put
the money to repair instead towards a new unit. A Rheem, which came with at
least two significant (and noisy) defects that took repeated, ineffective
visits (with additional expenses) and over a year to finally partially
mitigate. What a piece of shit, that "highly regarded" Rheem unit. And the
subsequent support for it, under warranty. And, I understand it's expected
lifetime is on the order of 15 years.

New stuff may be more efficient, but a lot of it is crap for endurance and
sometimes even simple convenience. And, I am increasingly comparing the
supposed savings (energy, water, etc.) against cost -- both in money and in
time and effort -- of maintaining and replacing these... "chintzy" newer
models.

Sure, slap a sheet of stainless steel on the exterior. Style it up. Inside,
it's still kind of a piece of crap.

My parents replaced their many years old Kenmore washer with a top of the line
top-loader made by LG. (For various reasons, a front-loader didn't work for
them.) The clothes consistently come out of the LG wrinkled as well as covered
with lint. If you air dry (which makes clothes last longer and not shrink and
all sorts of good things), it's a real problem.

The suggested work-around passed on by the seller? Run all loads with the
"Bulky Items" setting on. What does this do? Fills the drum to the top with
water. There go the supposed water savings and some of the energy savings
(from the mass of heated water consumed, as well as the additional power to
move the extra water around). At least the unit has this setting -- thank
goodness! Otherwise, it would be pretty unusable.

Someday, someone's going to take the time and effort to research and write up
a book full of comparisons between our current household machinery and older
generations. And, I suspect, some of the results aren't going to be pretty.

------
Shivetya
I have a feeling that in some cases less efficient manufacturing and more
individually replaceable parts will be more damaging to the environment.

what worries me most is who is to decide what parts of a product must be user
replaceable or replaceable at all? Does the piece have to comprise a certain
percentage of the device or will the separate it down to only specific
components? Components being battery, screen, and logic board.

~~~
kbart
How can upgrading RAM or changing a broken fan in a laptop be more damaging to
the environment than replacing the whole laptop? I just don't follow your
logic.

------
rajeshmr
This is highly welcome! I wish all the governments introduce this legislation
'coz we are losing our beautiful planet and its resources to capitalistic
greeds. We should by all means, extend the life of products to efficiently
utilize resources.

------
amelius
We should move to a service economy. If instead of buying a washing machine, I
could buy the service of washing my clothes, the company has an incentive to
keep that machine working.

As always in politics, getting the incentives right works wonders.

~~~
Jach
You can already buy that service, there are probably dozens of startups that
exist or have tried and failed and some established names in certain areas. It
might even be a perk in some housing complexes. I think Google even
offered/offers it as a work perk.

Let those who want a service pay for one, and those who don't not. Let's have
a mixed free economy, not a centrally planned one with a bias.

~~~
amelius
A central aspect of a market to function is transparency. With a service
contract, there is more transparency, since you know exactly what the service
will cost. Not so with products.

Also, let me ask: would you recommend the government to look for a service
contract for their fridges/lighting/washing machines? Or would you recommend
them to look into buying this equipment?

What would be different for companies and consumers?

~~~
Jach
You know what the service costs, until the contract is up (or the contract can
no longer be honored), and unless you do a cost calculation you won't know if
you're being gouged. Some people don't care about potential gouging if the
price seems fair to them though.

I would recommend all entities making purchasing decisions to do so based on
some form of economic analysis (e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics)).
The choice of a service contract vs anything else (which may involve other
contracts, or may involve purchasing nothing) is the result of the analysis,
not some broad sweeping bias. I also wouldn't mind seeing a prediction market
for tracking how accurate analysis results tend to be.

------
amiga-workbench
Nice to hear, wish companies and consumers would stop chasing the thinness
meme at all costs and get their priorities straight.

Removing socketed components to save a few cents off the BoM and a couple of
mm off the thickness is a revolting trade-off.

------
lousken
Replaceable batteries in smartphones will return? I might wait for that.

------
mikl
Clueless legislation. When you look inside a modern smartphone or laptop,
you’ll find that all available space is crammed with components or batteries.
If you want components to be replaceable, you’d need much more space for doors
and hatches, and waterproofing would be all but impossible.

Especially when it comes to batteries, this is moronic. Ultrabooks are only
possible, because multiple, weirdly shaped battery packs can be installed
wherever there’s room inside the casing.

This effectively means that hardware producers would need to create a larger,
shittier version of their products just for the EU market, and EU citizens
would be forbidden from purchasing the good versions of things. I sense a
massive wave of parallel imports coming…

~~~
jacquesm
If the price of progress is that we can no longer repair or recycle stuff then
it isn't really progress but a mortgage on the future of our children.

~~~
mikl
Repairing and recycling are very different discussions. To my knowledge,
recycling eletronics is no more a problem than it’s always been. Companies
like Apple have pretty impressive recycling efforts.

And repairability? I don’t see the problem. If my iPhone breaks, I can go
visit the Apple store, and they’ll take care of it. Having third-party repair
services for some so tiny and complex is just a recipe for warranty problems
and headaches.

~~~
jacquesm
> Repairing and recycling are very different discussions.

They're part of the higher level discussion, and recycling should be placed
there where repair is no longer feasible (in the context of
appliances/machinery).

~~~
TeMPOraL
Exactly. I would be much more in favour of the (what I call) throwaway economy
- because it really _is_ convenient - if I could trust that the stuff I
discard is being recycled into new products in an efficient way. As it is,
we're still mining raw resources to manufacture new stuff, and the old stuff
decomposes itself to uselessness (or poisons the Earth).

------
jokoon
This would be a true gesture for the environment...

------
JoeAltmaier
Devices are going to last all sorts of times - from a few months to years.
Depending on what you pay for it.

To legislate that no cheaper versions of things should be available, even
making them illegal, seems blind to the issues of those of limited means. It
seems like a society pawn saying "I always buy Gucci; I mean why do they even
make other brands? Har har!"

Demanding a warranty for instance would be a softer approach. But to make
cheap, low-lifetime options actually illegal shows some fundamental
misconception about how a free market works.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'm not so sure. You know the saying, "I'm too poor to buy cheap". Cheap crap
often ends up being bought again and again, because it breaks so often.

I'm not convinced that raising the minimum quality floor would increase prices
or make cheap products disappear. I give two reasons for that: one,
manufacturing costs are usually only a fraction of the sticker price, and two,
supply and demand - people of limited means are a market too, they have _some_
money and want to buy stuff.

My biggest worry here is that companies could respond by changing their
business model from selling stuff to "hardware as a service" \- i.e. since
crappy products are disallowed, we'll make only premium products, but we'll
only rent them out.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
All true. But what's wrong with renting? Who needs to own a toaster? Why?

I've long imagined a lifestyle-as-a-service business. Imagine pledging some
(large?) fraction of your income for inclusion in an association that provides
housing, transportation, appliances, food choices, vacation rentals etc as a
service. A sort of concierge life. Just join and move in!

~~~
TeMPOraL
I feel this would work only for people who live the exactly average lives. You
know, "people made out of ticky tacky, who all look just the same"[0]. The
moment you want to make something outside of the catalogue, or outside of the
standard schedule, you'll be hitting the limits of service model.

That said, I find myself wishing for some of my life to be turned into a
service. I'd gladly give away a large fraction of my income in order not to
have to bother with most house appliances, food, shopping and clothing. But I
suspect different people would prefer a different set of services. The risk is
that, as everything becomes a service, there will be _no_ products at all, and
you either take a service or live (die?) without it.

[0] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
All in the design. Don't like your service? Join another. Not a big deal to
move - no belongings, just show up at another complex tomorrow night!

And options have to be a big part of it. Sign up for the pub-crawl package, or
the comicon package, or join the swinger subgroup or whatever. Upgrade your
appliance package, get a good kitchen or no kitchen at all. Need garage space
- choose from the brochure from basic oil change to grease rack.

Cute vid by the way. But I always was suspicious of that song - calling a
house 'ticky tacky' is bourgeois talk (oh look they can't even afford the
best) which is at odds with the message.

