General > General Technical Chat
Right to repair, my problem with it
TerraHertz:
Progress towards victory.
I take a much more extreme view. That the root of the problem is planned obsolescence. Unrepairable devices are just a symptom of the mentality (and resulting economic structures) that material goods should only last a relatively short time, then be replaced. Whether for 'style churn' or because they broke and can't be fixed. This has to stop. It is a much more important issue than delusional crusades like 'carbon net zero' and so on.
A couple of specific things I'd like to see:
* Tech and scientific instrumentation manufacturers once again providing full service manuals (including theory of operation, schematics, service and calibration proceedures) with every instrument they sell. Required to, by law. As good as the old Tek and HP manuals.
* Such service information should be built into the actual equipment, in electronic form, accessible via a standard interface. Digital memory is cheap and uses insignificant amounts of materials. And in this case it should use permanent memory, not any stored-charge chip that is going to fade to garbage in 10 or 20 years.
langwadt:
when people mention "planned obsolescence" it is mostly nonsense. If people replace stuff every couple of years because they want something new, there is absolutely no reason to spend money and effort on making it last 20 years. All you accomplish is being more expensive and not selling anything
TimFox:
“Planned obsolescence” was a strategy adopted by the American car-making oligopoly after the War. By 1955, the average length of car ownership had fallen to two years from five years in 1934, as reported by GM.
bdunham7:
--- Quote from: TimFox on July 22, 2021, 04:31:10 pm ---“Planned obsolescence” was a strategy adopted by the American car-making oligopoly after the War. By 1955, the average length of car ownership had fallen to two years from five years in 1934, as reported by GM.
--- End quote ---
Average length of new car ownership, perhaps? Those 2-year old cars weren't scrapped and their trade-in value was a major driver of sales. There's a difference between obsolescence caused by the introduction of new and better products versus that caused by cheap, unsupported crap breaking in ways that can't be fixed.
As for what constitutes 'obsolete', it depends on the product. Often high-quality products that lasts longer also perform better, such as appliances and cars. My 'old' cars are comfortable and reliable and I can live without bluetooth or navigation. My old garage fridge can't browse the web or text me when my milk has expired, but it cools and freezes very efficiently. I'd be very unhappy if I had to scrap either over the unavailability of some small part. OTOH, hardly anyone wants their old bag or brick phone back.
TimFox:
Exactly. GM wanted each consumer to purchase a new car every two years so they could produce new cars accordingly. Eventually, the used cars purchased by later owners would be recycled at scrap yards as the money continued to flow. GM’s share of the money was mainly at the sale of new cars.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version