This is definitely an off-topic, but the problem with repairs is that no one really needs them and repair support is very expensive. People are used to simply change phones every two years and change cars every 3-4 years. This is a very different market from a few decades back.
When device turn-around is so fast, most devices won’t break until their “end-of-life” of 2-3-4 years. It is better to simply offer a buy back scheme and recycle components into new phones, cars, etc. This is what consumers want and this is what companies are doing. Basically companies are doing two things: production and recycling.
This is different from days long gone when people used to buy a radio and then use it for over a decade. The business model in such climate was: production and repair. Repair requires specialty tooling and spare components and you can earn money on them. But if majority of your customers never repair anything, investment into repair will be a huge waste.
So, companies don’t like Right To Repair because it’s expensive for them. If it’s expensive, there are only two solutions: increase the prices of goods (and no one likes that, not companies, not consumers) or stop recycling and force everyone to repair (which most consumers don’t want and is an additional stress for companies).
Consumer attitudes should change for repairs to become a good option. It’s like people crying about lack of headphone jacks on the internet. Reality though? 99% of billions of people give ZERO SHIT. If people really wanted headphone jacks, they would stop buying new phones en masse and jacks would be back in days.
And it’s the same about privacy, micro-transactions, etc. No one is forcing you to play a game with micro-transactions, but most people do AND, most importantly, USE these micro-transactions. If they wouldn’t there would be no crap in the games.
What kind of fantasy land do you live in that people replace their phone every two years and car every 3 years? You might as well lease a car if you are replacing it that fast.
This might be anecdotally true in your circle but if it was true for the market at large then every manufacturer wouldn’t be forecasting major downturns in smartphone sales and the used car market wouldn’t be so far upside down as there would be a glut of supply from people selling their used car every 3 years.
I think your points about privacy features, micro transactions, and headphone jacks are valid but I think it’s a stretch to apply that to cellphones and cars and say that companies are against right to repair because of consumer attitudes. My observation is that the companies (ie John Deere) that have opposed right to repair are about protecting revenue streams from part sales and franchising/licensing fees and decreasing support costs from having to service products with non-genuine parts.
This is definitely an off-topic, but the problem with repairs is that no one really needs them and repair support is very expensive. People are used to simply change phones every two years and change cars every 3-4 years. This is a very different market from a few decades back.
When device turn-around is so fast, most devices won’t break until their “end-of-life” of 2-3-4 years. It is better to simply offer a buy back scheme and recycle components into new phones, cars, etc. This is what consumers want and this is what companies are doing. Basically companies are doing two things: production and recycling.
This is different from days long gone when people used to buy a radio and then use it for over a decade. The business model in such climate was: production and repair. Repair requires specialty tooling and spare components and you can earn money on them. But if majority of your customers never repair anything, investment into repair will be a huge waste.
So, companies don’t like Right To Repair because it’s expensive for them. If it’s expensive, there are only two solutions: increase the prices of goods (and no one likes that, not companies, not consumers) or stop recycling and force everyone to repair (which most consumers don’t want and is an additional stress for companies).
Consumer attitudes should change for repairs to become a good option. It’s like people crying about lack of headphone jacks on the internet. Reality though? 99% of billions of people give ZERO SHIT. If people really wanted headphone jacks, they would stop buying new phones en masse and jacks would be back in days.
And it’s the same about privacy, micro-transactions, etc. No one is forcing you to play a game with micro-transactions, but most people do AND, most importantly, USE these micro-transactions. If they wouldn’t there would be no crap in the games.
Man, how that koolaid taste to ya?
Not sure what you mean… Unless you’re telling me that you’re living under a rock.
What kind of fantasy land do you live in that people replace their phone every two years and car every 3 years? You might as well lease a car if you are replacing it that fast.
This might be anecdotally true in your circle but if it was true for the market at large then every manufacturer wouldn’t be forecasting major downturns in smartphone sales and the used car market wouldn’t be so far upside down as there would be a glut of supply from people selling their used car every 3 years.
I think your points about privacy features, micro transactions, and headphone jacks are valid but I think it’s a stretch to apply that to cellphones and cars and say that companies are against right to repair because of consumer attitudes. My observation is that the companies (ie John Deere) that have opposed right to repair are about protecting revenue streams from part sales and franchising/licensing fees and decreasing support costs from having to service products with non-genuine parts.