Let the market decide if repairability is desired or not. If customers really want it, certainly there will be companies offering it.
Much better to have millions voting with their money and purchases than a few bureaucrats deciding how they believe things should be.
> What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous dizz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.
-- Noam Chomsky
> The neoliberal era of the last generation is dedicated, in principle, to destroying the only means we have to defend ourselves from destruction. It's not called that, what it's called is shifting decision-making from public institutions, which at least in principle are under public influence, to private institutions which are immune from public control, in principle. That's called "shifting to the market", it's under the rhetoric of freedom, but it just means servitude. It means servitude to unaccountable private institutions.
The (not really) free market already decided that the rich should get richer that survival of the human species doesn't even compute as an agenda item. How inspiring, how wise.
And of course, people organizing themselves via government is just "a few bureacrats", but you asking if you're "the only one" to believe what you believe, or a company "deciding the strategy it prefers", that's different.
I heard about him in college via the "mathematical linguistics" stuff which was a pretty creative idea.
Like anyone else he also has defects, his more recent commentary on American politics is arguably worthless because he completely dismisses everyone to the right of him as "the most dangerous group on the planet."
He's probably the only major earnest anti-capitalist that still supports the right wing of the democratic party.
But yes, if you pin him as a "Democrat" you might get that impression, in reality he's so far left that the Joe Biden administration has classified his beliefs as subversive and dangerous.
The patent and trademark system needs work, but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
There's so many kinds and examples of egregious behaviors by patent holders that you have to wonder if we're just better off with starting from scratch and deal with the tradeoff that may come with it.
They are also regulations. You can't opt-out of the patent system.
> You can weigh the benefits or lack thereof and chooses to opt-in or opt-out.
What is your proposed mechanism to opt-out? Do you mean that an inventor can choose not to apply for a patent? If so, that's not an opt-out of the patent system. You are still subject to all other valid patents.
> Regulations are a government-created burden.
Including patent regulations. It seems you support the regulations that you consider "good" and call them incentives.
Environmental and consumer rights regulations are both regulations and incentives in exactly the way patents are. They are enforced by the state and incentivise certain behaviours.
> You can't opt out of a regulation.
True. As stated, you can't opt-out of patent regulations either.
I am not intimately familiar with the example you gave so I shall just take your word for it that it is a flaw in the system.
This baby is only protecting big corps now. Nothing can be done at the moment without violating some "rounded corners" patent. The only reason individuals can get away with it for a while is that it is not worth for patent holders chasing. As soon as they make some money the vultures come down.
2) They're only asking that companies not make it legally impossible or use software to prevent people from buying and replacing components. IMO the only reason you would do that is to force people to throw away broken devices.
It was a nightmare.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
You'd have to spend all your time advocating, evaluating, fighting for everything important in your life: the quality of your housing, the quality of your children's education, the quality of your car and your consumer goods, and so on.
Say the government started dictating minimum standards of feng shui, and costs went up because of it, and you couldn't have the house you wanted because it didn't match feng shui standards.
Wouldn't you say 'but I don't want feng shui - I don't care about feng shui'.
People could not have voted with their wallet because there was no alternative. We're approaching the same type of problem with tech giants. People just want to ensure that components can be replaced and that the tech giants aren't going out of their way to prevent that.
It's like if Apple grew because of government intervention. Oh wait...
People should be able to fix their car, appliances, watches, etc.
It's not just about personal computers.
Companies know they don't have to supply parts, schematics, and can even brick devices if a person tinkers with their product.
They are relying on those customers coming back for repair.
Do you like bringing your new car to the $290/hr. dealership mechanics, because the independant shop can't access to brain of the car?
If the supply of rare earth metals and other components needed to produce products is constrained or politically at risk, it makes sense for strategic intervention to try to ensure better longevity of products, to improve resilience. That's a government level risk in some ways, as countries are now highly dependent on technology.
Disruption to chip supply chains is already having an impact. If the financial incentives are to drive selling more chips to replace existing devices whose lifespan could be extended by repair, it's possible we reach a "local optima" free market solution that limits device lifespans, where a global optimum point exists with long lifespan devices that are easily repaired, and gives better "big scale" outcomes, but which might not yield the same cosy 24 month re-purchase cycles for mobile handsets etc.
On the other hand, consumers don't have the option right now to buy a repairable device, so they can't easily vote with their wallets and signal their demand for this. In an era of chip shortages, as a government I would want to ensure I was gearing up policy-wise for a period of reduced availability of supplies, prioritising the key demand that is nationally significant, rather than letting the free market determine they can make more profit from selling another range of new mobile phones at inflated high margins, since the last generation of handsets had an artificially suppressed lifespan.
Personally, I don't really believe "free markets" are inherently good and would prefer something like a "fair market" that helps ensure competition doesn't get easily shut out by big players and generally limits their ability to make people's lives worse for the sake of profit.
One by one, remove the replaceable battery, remove the 3.5mm, remove the microSD card slot (and neuter it software side so it's near useless), some will complain, but the majority will just adapt to it, buying new phones more often, wireless earbuds, more expensive phones with more storage. Just as the companies wanted.
Looking back, the majority will see all the things they lost but by then it's too late (or not, change can happen thanks to movements like RTR).
So, the free market works more like tyranny of the majority in practice.
At what point in a technology lifecycle does discontinuing support for that technology stop becoming “tyranny”?
What's in the best interest for consumers isn't always what's in the best interest for corporations. Hence why governments sometimes need to step in with legislation.
There is customers that really want it and there's companies that offer it.
The big issue is that reparability is an afterthought, you only consider it once you need it and at that point, it's already too late. It's also a rare event, thus again something easy to forget.
That's all forgetting the environment impact of replacing a whole unit instead of defective parts. We sadly are far from being able to make companies responsible for the waste their product cause. This would at least make sure less waste is going out.
The craziest is that many right to repair cause aren't about forcing companies to do anything, many are just to allow people to repair their device. You simply can't repair a John Deere tractor without a license, which is just absurd.
The free market is generally great but our biology has an exploit actively being exploited.
Sure there are lots of us that use logic and reason to make purchasing decisions... But there are many people who do not. Dancing cartoons of young skinny people on flashy backgrounds to music DOES get people to spend money.
I too got downvoted