
France wants companies to make appliances that last longer - ciscoriordan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-wants-companies-to-make-appliances-that-last-longer/2015/03/02/b39b326e-c0fa-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html
======
rodgerd
The title of the article seems... misleading. It implies the French government
is forcing companies to manufacture products in a particular way, when what
they are doing is forcing manufacturers to disclose to customer they planned
lifespan of a product.

Which, by the way, seems like an excellent proposition. As a (potential)
customer I can factor in lifespan with features and price for things I buy and
make a better-informed decision about which best meets my needs. Anything that
gives customers more accurate information should lead to better-functioning
markets.

~~~
bigbugbag
> The title of the article seems... misleading.

The content too…

> (...) what they are doing is forcing manufacturers to disclose to customer
> they planned lifespan of a product.

This part was removed from the law mid-february by the senate as reported by
numerama[1] on feb 17th.

What the law says is that deliberately limiting a product expected life during
the design process is punishable by law with a maximum sentence of 2 years if
prison and 300k € fine. Everybody understands that this is mostly for show as
it is hardly enforceable.

[1]: [http://www.numerama.com/magazine/32252-le-delit-d-
obsolescen...](http://www.numerama.com/magazine/32252-le-delit-d-obsolescence-
programmee-adopte-au-senat.html)

~~~
Iv
That's actually an excellent first step. It makes it clear that such a
practice is not just cynical marketing but actually fraud. It will clear
things a bit for people who ask designs that break after a set time. It will
allow engineers and designers to refuse such tasks as illegal.

------
Htsthbjig
I disagree with the common belief of planned obsolescence.

In the industry the cheapest thing to make is plastic injection molding. By
far. Like 50 to 100 times cheaper than the alternatives at scale.

Melting plastic at 200 Celsius is so much easier than melting metal at over
700 Celsius(over 1000 for steels) with all the contractions and problems this
creates.

Any manufacturer could use metal in their products or create a plastic version
at half(or 1/3) the price.

Most people just buy the cheaper alternative. Then they rant about planned
obsolescence when the thing breaks soon(but over the warranty period).

But the reality is that thanks to plastic molding we get incredible cheap
products, like a USD60 vacuum cleaner, when in the past it was more like today
USD1000 for one when it was made with metal parts that lasted decades.

We want it all, cheaper and better. But having all is not possible(yet).

~~~
jcbrand
While I agree with a lot of what you say, planned obsolescence does exist and
IS a factor in many products breaking soon.

You might want to watch "The light bulb conspiracy":
[http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-
conspiracy](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy)

------
refurb
Companies build the type of products people want. Right now people want cheap
products for the most part. For those that don't certain brands exist that
have very long or lifetime warranties.

~~~
analog31
Perhaps an issue is that people have expected that products will last beyond
their warranties. The French proposal would seem to clarify the difference
between a warranty and an expected lifetime, if there is indeed such a
difference.

My family lives in a house that was pretty much empty of appliances when we
bought it, ~ 12 years ago. I'm extremely lucky to be handy at repairing things
(thanks to my parents), but appalled that I've had to repair virtually every
appliance...

Clothes dryer, three times (heat sensor, timer switch, motor)

Deep freeze (starter circuit assembly)

Microwave (replaced)

Toaster (replaced)

Fridge (repaired once, then replaced)

Cooking range (repaired one of the stove burners)

Dishwasher (repaired twice, then replaced due to rusted racks)

On the bright side, I've been able to find extensive repair info and spare
parts online.

~~~
Paperweight
I think that there is a huge untapped market for selling easily repairable
appliances to DIYers.

~~~
draven
And go back to what has been the norm in the 50s. I have a few books from my
grand father, by Eugène Aisberg: "La radio, mais c'est très simple", and the
equivalent one for analog televisions. They explain the basic working
principles of (analog, tube-based) radios ans TVs and how to repair them. The
hardware was simpler and easier to fix back then.

~~~
kagamine
And cars. Let's not forget about fault finding a car requires a considerable
investment in diagnostics gear.

~~~
draven
Motorcycles still win in that department, even if modern sportbikes are
getting more and more electronic helpers.

~~~
Paperweight
Electronic helpers are fine, as long as you can easily replace them.

------
NeutronBoy
In Australia, while manufacturers don't have to label their products with the
expected lifespan, under consumer law they are obliged to honor warranties for
the 'reasonable life span' of a given product.

This mean that if your $1k iPhone or $3k television break outside their
warranty period but still inside what a reasonable person expect it to work
(say 3, maybe 4 years for an undamaged iPhone, or 5-6 years for a brand name
LCD TV), then you are entitled to repairs or replacement, regardless of the
stated warranty period of the manufacturer.

~~~
yitchelle
Interesting that this is left open ended like this. The term "reasonable"
means different things to different people. What is the point of having a
defined warranty period?

~~~
bhayden
I assume the point is not having to sue to fix your iPhone.

------
mc32
While on the surface this might sound good by evoking ideas of more
sustainability and less and lower velocity of consumerism, we need to consider
the goods in question.

For example, let's take a washing machine from 20 years ago and compare the
efficiency of a modern washing machine -and subtract the added manufacturing
input into the new machine. Or incandescent bulbs and LED lights. Or for that
matter older cars and modern cars. I hope they take those things into account.
Just because something will last long doesn't mean it's best in the long run.

Still, it's not a bad idea to consider. And then we could at least know how
often we might have to buy phones ---but then someone will redefine what a
functional mobile phone is "it can make a regular voice call and the battery
will last 10 minutes by the 3rd year." The other measure, how long will it
keep the same level of utility as it was when it was new? That'd be trickier.

~~~
blumkvist
You don't compare in the same dimension. Newer washing machine might be more
water and energy efficient than a 20-year-old one. But why do you think this
affects its durability? Are you arguing that Samsung can't build efficient
washing machines that are also durable?

------
swatow
I doubt planned obsolescence is common. Think about the reaction of the
consumer to something breaking down. Do they go "that was a great product,
pity it broke, better buy the new version" or do they say "that was a shit
product, I'm getting a different brand". And what about people figuring out
which products break early from Amazon reviews?

I think this law is probably heavy handed and unnecessary. Especially in an
age where most people spend their money on items like phones and laptops,
which are reparable and become obsolete very fast anyway.

~~~
molyss
I feel like planned obsolescence is much more common that we initially think.
For example, on the phone market, battery lasts on day out of the box. If we
consider the battery losing .05% of its total charge after each
charge/decharge cycle, after 2 years of constant use, it already lost 30% of
its total charge. Yet, despite everyone being annoyed with having to charge
their phones at least everyday, apple, samsung and others keep making phones
that last a single day on a charge. They make their phones bigger, bulkier,
faster, but nothing on the battery side (I think there was an article linked
here where the author claimed he cracked the apple battery equation and his
thought was "they make it last a day, not more not less)". And we can add to
that prohibitive repair price and refusal to support older platforms, even
though it's often just a cross compilation away.

I get it that it's probably better for any company out there to sell new
devices rather than support old ones for free. It just that the "I doubt
planned obsolescence is common" strikes me as a bit naive

~~~
swatow
Everything is a tradeoff with phones. There is a tradeoff between phone size,
battery life, and processor power. One day is a natural sweet spot since
people charge their phones at night. Sure, this will result in a less-than-
one-day battery life over time But people might have been happy to replace
their phone anyway for other reasons.

Supporting old platforms is not _just cross compilation_ , or at least the
cross compilation involved is highly non-trivial.

I would say that excessive cynicism is as bad a bias as naivety. Everything
you describe is actually consistent with perfectly informed consumers and
profit maximizing companies. You are just not looking for explanations along
these lines.

------
KJasper
In the Netherlands we have a warranty system that works a bit like this.
Basically you have a warranty on your stuff as long as it's expected lifetime.
So for instance you claim your warranty on a dishwasher for at least 5 years
and on your MacBook you will probably get it for at least 3 years (of course
you can't claim such a long lifespan on your battery).

------
aaronchall
Personally, I like to buy assembled goods on sale from a manufacturer with a
decent reputation, and then I DIY replace parts from the cheapest supplier I
can find, since I'm typically out of warranty already anyways. I'll replace my
laptop fan as soon as my cheap thermal grease comes in. After that, if I feel
good about it, I'll upgrade the memory and hope to get another few years out
of it.

I liked the idea of telling consumers the expected life of a product. But
they're actually not doing that. Instead, they're going to threaten people
with jail time and companies with huge fines.
[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.numerama.com%2Fmagazine%2F32252-le-
delit-d-obsolescence-programmee-adopte-au-senat.html&edit-text=)

But when you're making a product, you plan its construction around its life-
expectancy. You don't make a doohicky with a sprocket that lasts 30 years when
the other parts of the doohicky will only last 3 years. Instead, you get the
sprocket made more cheaply with a life expectancy of 3 years, and your savings
helps you compete with other doohicky manufacturers for the business of
consumers.

It seems to me that France doesn't understand the economics of manufacturing.
This seems to be another brain-dead decision by socialists that will cost jobs
and raise the risks (and thus the costs) of doing business in the country.
They'll have to pay those engineers and managers who make these design
decisions even more to take on those risks. Marginal manufacturers will just
get out, and jobs will be lost. Like they can afford it.
[http://www.france24.com/en/20150127-france-unemployment-
hits...](http://www.france24.com/en/20150127-france-unemployment-hits-new-
record-high-december/)

------
sitharus
Here in New Zealand all goods sold to a consumer have to have a 'reasonable'
life-span, with repair or replacement at the merchant's expense. Reasonable
depends on the appliance and is determined by a magistrate. Things like
lengths of extended warranty offered can be used to determine that.

It works pretty well. Of course the retailers like to avoid their obligations
and people chime up with the "that's why prices are high" argument. If you're
located at the bottom of the world everything's expensive anyway!

~~~
kagamine
There is a law like that in most European countries afaik. In the UK it was
called (back when I did business law 20 years ago) "fit for purpose" which was
a vague description of 1. if it's a tumble dryer it should dry clothes without
ruining them 2. it should last as long as a tumble dryer is expected to last
(really up to whatever argument you can make in court should it get that far).
Of course the UK law might have changed a lot since I was a young
whippersnapper.

------
bobofettfett
This will make everything more expensive.

E.g. take Bosch/Siemens and Miele. Miele stuff really lasts forever but costs
2x that of Bosch/Siemens household stuff.

If I could afford it, I'd buy Miele.

~~~
unfunco
But how many times do you have to replace the Bosch and Siemens appliances? It
might be a bigger initial investment, but over a lifetime it will likely work
out cheaper.

~~~
spiritplumber
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they
managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus
allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an
affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then
leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those
were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so
thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the
feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could
afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry
in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would
have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have
wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

(Terry Pratchett, obviously)

------
crousto
I find it amusing that the photo at the top of the article shows a display
exclusively consisting of German and Swedish-branded vacuum cleaners.

------
yourapostasy
Overpopulation is not expected to be an ongoing issue in the upcoming century,
but there is general consensus that hundreds of millions if not billions of
people over that same time period are anticipated to enter current developed-
world working- and middle-class living standards. And under our current
understanding of household technology, that means a commensurate rise in
consumption of white appliances. This new group of entrants into the white
appliance markets are likely to have lower income profiles than their
developed-world counterparts, due to the deflationary bias of ongoing
globalization trends.

This confluence of factors could potentially open up an interesting and highly
profitable business niche for a manufacturer that focuses on modular,
repairable, maybe-hackable appliances.

Instead of promoting a consumption model where entire units are tossed out at
the "end" of a "lifecycle", I can now concede a manufacturer could thrive on a
far leaner capital profile than current industry participants where I wouldn't
have thought it possible only 10 years ago, by focusing on the logistical tail
of constantly repairing and improving "old" models, as opposed to
concentrating on the new product manufacturing end.

This is also beneficial on the embedded energy cost and resource utilization
efficiencies levels, which becomes extremely important as we scale up the
population that participates in higher socioeconomic levels.

Human form factor-dependent design points can probably stay relatively static
to benefit families in lower socioeconomic strata. For example, washing
machines have not really changed their basic form factor in about a century.
I'd rather sell a patching kit designed for my older tubs (a common failure
mode) to those families today, enticing them to grab a used older model of
mine than hope to capture them as customers ten years from now when they can
maybe afford a new unit from me; it pulls in future sales without
destabilizing debt schemes. Or if they can afford a little more, I can sell
them a retrofit kit that supplies a newer future cleaning technology (like
ultrasonic?) that fits older models. If they care about aesthetics, I sell
them paint that exactly matches what they have on the old model.

All this while, I not only keep my units out of the landfill, but in the hands
of more customers earlier than I normally could acquire them and out of the
hands of my competitors in an inexpensive marketing/sales denial of service
attack on that competition (and indeed, my customers are paying for that
attack instead of me having to heavily spend on marketing to them). On top of
this, my manufacturing costs shift increasingly out of the predations of the
unpredictable turns and gyres of the commodities markets, and towards design
(especially software) and small parts manufacturing. These can have higher
margins than the whole units, and might be a lot cheaper than even JIT
inventory to "stock" in the future, with local 3D-printing-style distribution
centers for those parts that can be on-demand manufactured practically at
point of sale. As the global population level stabilizes as currently
expected, I'd already be positioned to sell into an economic environment where
brand-new product purchases are made with increasingly razor-thin margins.

For those oldest models that fall below a logistical tail cutoff, I could
release CAD/CAM and other design files to let hackers do what they will with
those models, with the intent to temporarily boost those models popularity and
continue to stymie competitors' entrance with customers of those models. When
the cost of labor is low enough, making repairing and reconditioning possible
can potentially be very remunerative for manufacturers who do not build around
a business model of continuous, growing new unit sales (which in turn is
predicated upon a continuous, growing population).

------
rurounijones
Isn't this the task that warrenties are supposed to fulfil?

------
double0jimb0
While good intentioned, I think the customer actually loses.

Take the car industry for example. Quality control variance prior to the 90s
(ballpark) was a huge issue, this a result from automakers just being cheap
and but also the lack of modern statistical-based end of life
testing/analysis. The gov't did have to step in: Lemon Laws. But a couple of
automakers responded, produced cars that didn't fall apart, people then voted
with their do!lars, and made Toyota and Honda the power houses they are today.
Nowdays, 100,000 mile warranty are almost standard, and just about every make
of car is reliable.

Now, compare to the appliance industry. A couple thoughts: why aren't their
"10 year warranties" on appliances? It's clearly something one would think
consumers value, there should be a mfg taking advantage. Instead I only see
appliances sold by "authorized retailers", who then try to sell you some b.s.
3rd party warranty.

This shows the entire retail/distribution chain is in on the racket. So fixing
the problem will come from a market player solving this problem to deliver
more of what the customer wants. Imposing additional reporting requirements on
the manufacturers will just result in a 'wahhh, wahhh' our costs went up, we
have to pass it on to the customer. So now everyone's appliances are more
expensive, and manfucturers and retail partners continue with status quo.

~~~
imjustsaying
I would be interested to see a tracking of the change of new car prices during
that time. New car prices today are extraordinarily expensive, and from
anecdotal experience, most consumers will only buy new cars through a loan.
Surely, it wasn't always that way.

~~~
brandonmenc
GMAC was founded in 1919 - it has always been that way.

~~~
imjustsaying
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that.

