Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Imagine that Ford only allows maintenance at company owned stores, because they don't sell replacement parts to dealers, then they charge $500 for a fan belt, etc.

Except that if I knew that was their way of business I would simply avoid buying their products.

Isn't this a case where the free market actually would account for that scenario? It's not like they have a car monopoly.

agreed. i'm just describing the ostensible reason for the law...

Image that the Ford dealership was the only dealership within an hour's drive of your house (not an uncommon situation when these laws were enacted).

People would probably wise up and buy toyota, nissan, gm, etc. There is more than one car maker.

That, of course, implies a world with no collusion.

Wait, how is this different from any consumer device that has a warranty?

edit: e.g. let's say my apple laptop breaks, even if I could fix it or get it fixed by a third party for cheap, I have to take it to the apple store to not risk losing my warranty completely.

Well, many states have laws specifically for that: a car manufacturer's warranty cannot be cancelled just because the owner or someone the owner paid worked on the car.

The manufacturer's warranty can only be voided if the manufacturer can prove that the warranty claim arose directly due to the owner (or someone they paid). So if the owner changes their own oil and the rear bumper falls off? Warranty.

Then no one will buy a Ford.

Could they not already sell their fan belt to dealers for 500$ if they wanted to?

They don't make their own fan belts. The dealer would simply switch to another brand. They are standardized, after all.

That's exactly what Nikon does.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact