EU brings in 'right to repair' rules for appliances
bbc.com
bbc.com
I've been trying to wrap my head about whether that's different than the negative response about any regulation in general (including the US one), and I feel like it is more negative; as for why, I would only be speculating.
But when politics drives and runs with left/right mentality, they end up disenfranchising common sense more often than not and you end up politically with a seesaw effect - you get a controlling party that is one way, then after a while you end up with a party the other way to restore balance.
This is one of those wonderful moments in which the result is common sense on so many levels that we should (sure many do) see it for what it is - something wonderful.
But everybody has a bad day, political things of any form can bring out the worst in all of us, but decorum upon this forum, does a better job than most in regulating those aspects. For that, let us be thankful as I can only imagine the Twitter flavours of this very subject being played out and shudder.
But credit when it is due - thank you EU for this.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. We're(1) a bunch of programmers. We are very sensitive to unintended consequences in complex systems. I think we just tend to be a little more careful with feel-good regulations that might produce these, along with being more evidence based in judging success.
(1) With all of the usual caveats about the monolithic "us".
The choice of which of these matters decides the politics.
That's like free printers with expensive ink cartridges.
But apparently I'm wrong?
But maybe that's also what it feels like to become as relevant int he tech world as the US. There is no shortage of US-bashing in international tech discussions. As long as it stays good spirited, I don't mind.
"Very conservative views" on gender equality would ask for a niqab, female education ban and a mandatory dowry. I doubt you'll find here a lot of people sharing these views.
ultra progressives tend to believe the Government is the only force who can safeguard workers. Many other forms of liberal believe that while the Government has a role to play in setting boundaries for capitalism and engaging in non-capitalist activity (welfare, public education, etc) that it does not always act in the interest of the people.
This is likely part of what you see as "HN being conservative on gender equality" (paraphrasing). Most HNers seem to hold belief in equality of opportunity (classical liberal) vs equality of outcome (ultra progressive). In other words, the debate can be seen as whether it's necessary to have 50% of a given field be women and 50% be men, or simply for there to be an absence of a gender based discrimination. (And ultra progressives would likely respond that anything can be gender based discrimination, whereas a classic liberal would be looking for intent)
(Leaving my attempts at a neutral point of view and going into my own beliefs) One of the flaws in ultra progressiveism is that it's reductionist (a person is defined as a mix of attributes such as political affiliation, gender or lack thereof, social class, etc) which encourages an "us vs them" mentality. The issue ultra progressives face is that "us" is becoming an ever shrinking circle which now excludes most of their other liberal allies.
My impression is that workers are pretty much the only disadvantaged group that ultra progressives do not care about. Apart from that, you're on point.
I believed that once, but companies show over and over again that the lack of regulation comes at a greater cost than their gains, and the gains for the society - and I, as a tax payer, am not willing to see the shit I help to pay for getting abused.
For example, Peter Thiel idea for the monopoly argument makes sense, but he doesn't account for (or doesn't want to): government pressure and greed.
The idea that the monopoly is the dream for tech development keeps showing it's no dream at all in the end, it's a nightmare with massive costs: mental health, international policy, environment, cultural, etc.
it's the audience of the website. Even though most people here seem to fall into the American liberal camp due to the fact that it's a tech site there's a strong "regulation=bad" undercurrent in the posting that's also been prevalent in the industry, in particular in SV for the last few decades.
Was anyone arguing that we oppose the EU because we don't trust the US? I don't understand how this statement ties into the comments that precede it.
I'm a big fan of regulation to maintain good markets / good practices.
I'm very sympathetic to the spirit of a lot of EU policies, but the actual laws seem a lot like "old man who doesn't understand internet writes law" and at best whiff entirely at the point.
Example, I think it is terribly misguided to think people care / read cookie banners and they're not helping / educating anyone.
I don't doubt there are a lot of conservative POVs regarding regulation on HN, but I propose that just as often folks are running into a sort of "narcissism of small differences" where I share a lot of the values those laws have .... but man it irks me to see them swing and miss so badly.
But there have also been other events and developments that did (and do) help / educate people, and now the cookie banners help those people realise how utterly widespread the problem actually is.
It's slow, but awareness is growing, and even the ridiculous cookie banners play some part in it. Also, being ridiculous on the internet is not a failure state, there's quite a tradition of it.
My understanding still is that cookie banners are a huge waste of time.
The GDPR doesn't say: "If you post an obnoxious banner on your site you are allowed to continue as before".
AFAIK, and no one here has proven me wrong so far it says something like:
- there needs to be a clear reason for why the customers data should stay with you or your partners
- except for health care, jail etc there needs to be clear voluntary opt in
They are already fining companies and I guess the reason not everyone is feeling it yet is because the wheels of justice grinds slowly.
Edit: that said, I see why it might look different as some companies are quite brazen in their noncompliance.
> The GDPR doesn't say: "If you post an obnoxious banner on your site you are allowed to continue as before".
The cookie banners have nothing to do with GDPR. That stems from Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX...
The old cookie banners where more static I think, only pointing out that they were using cookies instead of giving you any option at all.
Voluntary opt in can work together with targeted ads:
- the customer can opt in to receive more relevant ads (hopefully). A note on the page with an explanation and a way to actively choose targeted would probably be OK with me and I guess some people would choose it.
- or the customer ignores the notice and get general or hopefully contextual ads
The current in-your-face-and-defaults-to-track-if-you-follow -the-defaults system however is not voluntary and not opt in IMO.
But I have yet to see a person demanding less regulation for something who didn't change their mind when faced with a problem with that something which could have been solved by (some) regulation.
In the same time there are lots of weird regulations, for example in some US states you need to have a training and a professional license to be a florist. In my country I had to take a 1.5 year training for something that can be learned in 3 weeks; I also had to take 9 exams every 2 years just to extend my pilot license, something that does not happen in other EU countries. Or taking a training (classroom and flight time) to be allowed to fly with a passenger in a 2 seater plane, and only if you have at least 150 hours a Pilot In Command. There is nothing like this anywhere else, it's just typical stupid regulation.
Another weird regulation is flying in Bulgarian airspace, where the class G (free airspace below flight level 105) is anything but free.
But let's see how it pans out. A good step in the right direction, not the goal everybody wants, but a good first step at least.
The big thing that sticks out for me is mobile phones: before EU regs, every manufacturer and phone variant had a different charging cable and roaming charges were insane.
Likewise, for all the hate it got here, GDPR has been amazing from my perspective. It was rare before to have a website that actually let you delete anything, it was just "deactivate your account" where they kept all your data. Now most sites offer true deletion.
Meanwhile, the public got sold on Brexit with a consistent diet of rubbish articles from the Mail and friends about bent bananas being banned.
- EU phone roaming makes travel much less stressful, independent of the cost factor, which at $0 is also great.
- EU immigration rules for 3rd country partners means it only requires about 3 or 4 hours work and 51 euros in total and only proof of 6 months co-habitation.
- EU mandated ESC and TPMS in cars means my bottom of the range Kia Rio had two really valuable features while maintaining a really low price.
On the other hand:
- I can't get a mortgage because my income is not denominated in euros because others have been burnt by cross currency loans
You gain real benefits but lose flexibility.
this isn't the correct thread to discuss this but i'll bite - it isn't that others were burnt, it's that the banks were stupid enough to actually loan out as much money in a currency that people hadn't had income in and when the inevitable came, it was the banks that had bigger problems. i don't want the bank to lose my money if you and a few thousand others suddenly default on their mortgage at the same time.
The EU only steps in when corporations have already failed to regulate themselves.
Market can bring prices down if competing corporations in the same sector don't agree to set prices for the same range of services of products. That's it.
Self-regulation is conservative non-sense.
In the UK, it's hard to spend more than £20/month (for sim only at least)
Mint [1], is $20/mo for unlimited data (throttled after 8GB), using the T-Mobile network. You get a discount for committing to a time period such as 1 year.
Visible [2] is $40/mo for "unlimited everything" (data, calls, text). This is Verizon's low-cost product on their own network.
Simple [3] is $40/mo for 15 GB, also using T-Mobile. You're throttled to 2G after that, though.
These are MVNOs, which are resellers that don't own their own networks. Traffic is deprioritized compared to the parent network's "native" customers. In practice, you might not notice at all, depending on how you use it. Deprioritization really only happens during congestion. During rush hour on the NYC subway might be a time you'd be affected, for example.
Partly that could be explained by lower population density.
Also services like Visible started to appear. They offer unlimited talk and data for $40.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johns...
Recent examples: it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters. In the Netherlands, 80% of firefighers are volunteers. The current system works very well, and this is new regulation is likely to cause massive problems. It will be impossible the maintain current quality, because it is impossible to maintain a huge paid workforce just for occasional large incidents. For example, in a recent large fire there were over a hundred firefighters active, most of them volunteers. Moreover many volunteers do it for fun, or to contribute something to society, and do not want to be a paid firefighter, or would not be able to because of their main job. Thanks, EU.
Another one: EU wants to register every single chicken. Not just commercial chicken farms, every single chicken would have to be registered, even for hobbyists having a few chickens running around in their back yard.
Read the replies to your original post, there was no new regulation, whatever you read in the news was made up. In the british press there is a constant stream of fabricated stories about EU "regulations" that take a cursory google to disprove.
There are different blockers in the system so that a (slim) majority can't simply overrule a minority.
It is also clear that no "regultation" is being planned.
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-00020...
Most of that tends to be misinformation.
For example:
> it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters
Nope. Not even close. A firefighter in Belgium sued because he said that on-call time is work, and the court decided in his favour. This caused concern that generalising this could cause problems. However, the EU was aware of these concerns and apparently this case cannot be generalised in this way:
https://www.ctif.org/news/die-eu-arbeitszeitrichtlinie-infor...
I don't know how it works in Belgium, but in Germany, the voluntary firefighters (which is almost all of them), simply continue to be paid by their main employers when active. The employer can then recover this from the responsible government organisation.
For this, the application of the working time directive changes...nothing. Also for standby times during working hours, for which the employee is working for his main employer, so again no change. I am guessing (but not sure) that the issue is on-call time when the employee is not working for his main employer.
People have raised concerns that this might have the potential to negatively affect volunteer firefighting. But as far as I know, nothing has actually happened, and apparently nothing will.
So as so often, almost complete misinformation:
1. The EU will not make it "illegal" to have volunteer firefighters.
2. It was actually a lawsuit, not a regulation.
3. It was about working time, not about making volunteer firefighters illegal.
4. So at most it would have been an unintended consequence of a good and necessary regulation.
5. However, these unintended consequences were only imaginary, they never happened.
6. The EU bodies were fully aware of the importance of volunteer firefighters.
7. Had there been unintended consequences, they would have mostly been of the formal variety that affect local authorities.
> every single chicken [..] registered, even for hobbyists having a few chickens
Also nope, only if you have 50 chickens or more.
https://www.tsk-bw.de/Melde_Beitragspflicht/Wer_muss_melden....
As for the chickens: you are linking to what look like current regulations in Germany. At issue is the Animal Health Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:201...) which will be in effect from 21 April 2021.
There is a statement that there should be exceptions for pet animals, but these exceptions did not make it into the regulation for chickens. The Netherlands argued for this but did not find support, and is currently trying to arrange for exceptions. It is not fake news.
If for some reason you believe "obligation of operators to register establishments" would apply to individual pet owners (I don't believe it does, as earlier in the document "pet keepers" are separate from "operators") - there's a clause to allow exceptions: "Member States may exempt from the registration requirement certain categories of establishments posing an insignificant risk"
The only thing in the entire document that applies to "pet keepers" is ... [to] be responsible for:
(i) the health of kept animals;
(ii) prudent and responsible use of veterinary medicines, without prejudice to the role and responsibility of veterinarians,
(iii) minimising the risk of the spread of diseases;
(iv) good animal husbandry;
There are some further restrictions to do with moving pet animals between member states
OK, so what's the problem? After all, this won't come into effect until about a year and a half from now and it seems that there is agreement that there should be exceptions.
Given that, what makes you certain that there won't be exceptions?
> is currently trying to arrange for exceptions
You seem to be certain that this will not succeed. Why?
> It is not fake news.
Hmm...it's not in effect, there seems to be some agreement that there should be exceptions and exceptions are being worked on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2. I was mainly talking about about (the effect of) overregulation in general, I did not say there is a specific regulation re volunteer firefighters. But if the implied problems become reality, it would be because of interpretation of laws and regulations.
Yes, there was a lawsuit in Belgium. And no, that's not the main issue that was reported here. Lawyers conducted a study of the practice of Dutch firefighting on behalve of the Ministry of Justice and Security, and concluded that the way our system is set up contradicts EU law. The main issue is that volunteer firefighters do almost exactly the same work as paid firefighers.
3. That's point 1.
4. This is exactly my more general concern about the EU: unintended consequences are inevitable when you are centralizing laws and regulations to the most detailed levels for over two dozen countries with very different contexts. There are plenty of EU laws and regulations for which I think the intent is very sensible, but where implementation can be problematic, or problematic for specific subsets of the regulation, or specific countries/regions.
5. I never said they happened, I said "will". Perhaps I should have said "may" since the problem might still be addressed somehow. But even if it is adressed, in the case of the Netherlands a massive change would be necessary. According to lawyers and law professors who have studied the problem in the Dutch context.
So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
And that would have been still wrong, though with less hyperbole.
> So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
From: there was an isolated case that, had it been generalisable, had the potential for making some aspects of voluntary fire brigades trickier if not addressed, but that actually wasn't generalisable and there was actually no problem at all to "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters" is not "somewhat imprecise", it is complete misinformation.
Pretty much the definition of misinformation, in fact.
Because this is exactly how a lot of the misinformation regarding the EU works: you take something highly technical, localised and actually benign, then take 2nd hand reports of people who misunderstood the implications/consequences, take those misunderstandings as fact, extrapolate from them and then ratchet up the hyperbole to 11.
And no, the fact that lawyers did a study doesn't really change any of this. The EU is a political body, and the largest member states have large or almost exclusively voluntary fire-departments. So even if the interpretation were correct, which from all I have seen it is absolutely not, it would simply (a) not be applied and/or (b) changed.
In particular: the working time directive is, as the name says, a directive. This means it just specifies some goal(s) to accomplish, and it is up to the member states to implement national legislation to accomplish those goals. So if they need to carve out exceptions for volunteer fire departments, they can do that.
So yes: "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters" is just wrong and not just a slight imprecision, but pure misinformation.
On the other hand, one thing the EU is genuinely bad at is the "small operator" exemptions which UK law is generally good at. They very rarely exist in EU law.
(General principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence)
>Current regulations are seen to be outdated, with more than 55% of washing machines sold in the EU ranked A+++ on the label.
In addition, many people hate highly-energy-efficient washing machines, as the washing cycles takes hours... efficient in energy, but inefficient in human life.
That's literally the reason for governments to regulate this kind of thing, though. When everyone looks at things through the lens of their own personal life... what's the big deal? Just one person using more energy. But when every person does it, it is a big deal. So government acts to force a level playing field for all. Everyone ignores the cumulative good and instead focuses on the inconvenience to their personal life.
That's obviously the wrong solution. The correct solution is to price things correctly. If energy is precious, increase energy prices. Some people will choose to fly, others will choose to have faster washing cycles...
And all will damage the climate? "Increase energy prices" just means that rich people will be able to continue to engage in undesirable behaviour while the poor will not. Why is that a desirable income? Why should a poor person have to pay more to heat their home in winter so that a rich person can wash their clothes more quickly? Not all energy use is equal.
So let's price healthcare the right price for those who value good healthcare, like in the US, where the average Joe avoid going to the doctor, even when he is insured, or go bankrupt when he have to go to ER for a simple broken leg or die from diabetes because he can't pay the monthly 1300$ for medication and save on insuline shots.
Sure "Price Regulation" seems to be the solution.
Actually this can be a feature. Often enough I fill the machine in the morning, set it up to start in 3 or 4 or even 6 hours, go to work and when I come home the machine has just finished and I'm ready to put the clothes up for drying.
It's more a question of planning than anything else.
That's a kind of feature that I didn't know I wanted before I had it.
My baking oven has something like this, too. I still wonder how that is supposed to work, though: I have to dial in temperature etc. before, then set it to finish at a specific time. Seems impractical for rolls oder pizza, but maybe I'm missing something on that feature.
I don't know how common this is, but I've been taught to use dishwasher and washing machine only when I'm home myself.
My guess is they probably ran a study and found that the majority of people were better steered towards energy efficient appliances by a big A or A+ rating than they would have been by comparing kWh.
Energy ratings for washing machines are kind of stupid in the first place since they depend so strongly on how you use the machine and the efficiency of your hot water supply. The electricity used on the motor is fairly negligible.
Regrading every year seems to be about the same as what I propose. I guess the actual numbers used for the current rating are based on actual efficiencies of the models on the market when the regulation was introduced.
Want to make a startup whose business model relies on the impossibility to repair? Have found a loophole that makes it possible? Well investors may evaluate the risk this loophole gets fixed and will not see the plan as particularly safe.
It is not just about changing the rules, it is about changing the ethics around them.
This is a good thing, and however you wish to view things - this is what is right, fair and it's core is to bring fairness to consumers - even if they don't want to liveridge this avenue now open too them. At least they have the choice and it is their choice.
So Bravo for this, it is something that needs to be done globally. The whole artificially obsoleting consumer products has and will be a serious concern as it drives waste, and waste is and never has been, good for the environment upon any level, whatever your perspective is upon that matter.
Let us not forget, many initiatives get driven by standards from one area and they can and do transpose upon other area in the end for the better of everybody. Let's see this for what it is - something wonderful and long overdue.
I will also add, a few decades back, self repair was far more accessible and less needed as appliances lasted, you could get spares, get them fixed. Yet the market and drive towards mass consumerism and product churn has created a monster, one in which we are going to be paying for as all that environmental credit debt we have built up, well, nature's debt collectors are a calling.
Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. That's why manufacturers build the way they do (if you want quality over 20 years you're already free to buy a Miele)
It is rare for an appliance to break down when just out of warranty, and in any case it is not possible to completely avoid.
I am glad that the new rules do not go farther then they do because I don't think there is an issue that warrant drastic action and widespread price increases.
There are plenty of ways to source spare parts and individuals are simply not able to repair themselves in most cases (and let's not forget health & Safety regulations).
Edit: Thank you guys for killing off any discussion...
Europe is very densely populated and well developed with much less developed neighbours which makes Europe very suspectable to environmental issues. If something bad happens in or nearby the continent, people in Paris or Rome can feel it through rent increase, a saturation of health services, an influx of people who somehow should be dealt with. If bombs go off in Syria things happen in Hungary. The place is very interconnected.
EU has to deal with the protection of the environment just like any other issue that can cause large migrant movemenets. Throwing away things when you don't have to, inefficient appliances etc. are all stuff that must be addressed to preserve the peace in the continent. Europe's contemporary way of life is quite fragile.
Three years ago the main bearing in my washing machine broke down. Found a detailed video on Youtube for repairing the exact same machine, started disassembly. 45 minutes in, I discovered that in my machine that was a couple years newer than the tutorial, Bosch had plastic welded shut the drum, so you had to replace the entire thing. Replacement part cost went from $20 to $180 IIRC.
Adding insult to injury, the flange in question had the bolt holes and locating features for the gasket still present.
> the flange in question had the bolt holes and locating features for the gasket still present.
That sounds like classic cost-savings methodology. They found a cheaper way to attach two parts while keeping the same tooling and reducing parts-count.
What would have been suspicious is if they had kept the expensive features and welded it shut.
Cheap is often not maintainable as a side-effect. That doesn't mean it was the primary goal.
Often, making things easy to fully take apart increases manufacturing costs. So there needs to be a trade off.
Because of competition on prices, prices points, the fact the break downs are relatively rare. the priority is often to squeeze manufacturing costs.
The question is that of marketing.
Can we make a marketing page that shows an easy to repair washing machine - and shows us that over 10 years, if we do the repairs ourselves - we'll save some money ? And the hassle of replacing to a new machine often ?
At least some segment of the population, the DIY'ers may buy such machines.
The Youtube videos were a great help, but even though the part I needed was available, all the steps along the way to getting the part and fixing the machine made it clear that this was not a process aimed at consumers with the ability to repair such a machine. The manufacturer chose representatives in each country it sold machines in were you had to buy the part (at €100 with shipping not cheap, but acceptable), but the serial numbers never really matched exactly, and the model I had always had one extra letter left unexplained, making buying the part a gamble.
The part fitted and the repair did work perfectly, even though I had to order the stainless bolts I needed to replace the worn originals from somewhere else (a web shop with a sensible interface).
This device was seemingly designed to be repaired (or at least not prevent it), but documentation and lack of sensible part numbers made it harder then it needed to be. Interesting experience though, it feels good to extend the life of the machine by a few years this way.
The consumer cannot easily distinguish between $400(dies after 10 years) and $300 (dies after 4).
For example, these are washers made to last and be fixable:
https://speedqueen.com/products/home-products/front-load-was...
Further complicated because whilst there are companies that build reputations on quality, that reputation can stick around long after the quality has gone down, so there's a constant temptation to cheap out for short term profits.
I suppose the classic example of this is Mercedes Benz in the 90s.
I can't classify pricing with 9s to be a "trick". No one is being tricked, the price is right there.
In Germany, legislation has been proposed that manufacturers must label the expected lifetime. I am opposed to this as it may lead to stuff breaking down shortly thereafter. On the other side I would be fond of two things: All parts must be serviceable and a minimum period of spare part availability.
Everything is already value engineered, designed for a specified lifetime, that's how we get those low prices and low material use. Labeling would just make it explicit. I work in an oil pipeline design group and even these things have expected lifetimes (30 years). So even megaprojects like bridges, skyscrappers, aircraft carriers, everything designed has an expected lifetime.
Companies have to sell and they have to survive. Thus they have to build products that people will buy and make a profit out of it.
Did you contact Miele about your just out of warranty breakage? Their reaction to that would be interesting.
But for Miele prices I don't want to be at their mercy. I want a lasting product. When waiting for the repair I looked around. Many competitors have similar offerings (functionality) with a 5 year warranty at 2/3 of the price point (or even less).
That's good? As far as it goes, it's a good smell at least.
I'm not of a view that a warranty guarantees no faults. To my mind it is the manufacturer saying they will stand by their product for the warranty period, that they expect no faults, and putting their money on the line to prove it. So I'm not particularly in favour of castigating companies for any unreliability, if they handle it correctly.
Having said all this, I did just check what Miele's warranty is, I was expecting 5+ years, but it's only 2 years, so your point about competitors is a good one.
I suppose it highlights a good point about what we as consumers should do. Should we go with Miele that everyone knows is good quality, but only offers a 2 year warranty. Or should we go with the competitor with the 5 year warranty? I suspect most of us would take the first option, when we should really be taking the 2nd.
But there is not the consumer alone. The world, other people, the earth wants lasting appliances.
Where are the end to end stats that show that this is better than recycling an old appliance to replace it with a new one that is more energy and water efficient?
Where are the actual stats that show that breaking down just out of warranty with no parts available is a real issue?
Also, there are no "other people" we all are consumers of these appliances.
Fridges and Freezers are the only appliances I'm aware of where it works out like that though.
Edit: Here's a case study for those that don't believe me.
http://www.t2c.org.uk/chilling/new-case-study-of-20-yr-old-f...
I don't necessarily agree with downvoting your post, but your argument _is_ poorly constructed. It seems to come from a place of reflexively opposing regulation, rather than thinking about whether this makes sense. In other words, I think people downvote because it doesn't seem to be in good faith, but ideologically driven.
My argument isn't poorly constructed, I commented to promote discussion not to be lynched. You are trying to second guess what I wrote too much. It seems very common here for people to try to see implied meaning everywhere instead of reading what is actually written.
The sad reality is that it is not possible to think critically and to dissent on many topics these days. It is already decided what the correct opinion is, facts are irrelevant. Look at my comments in this thread: There are no reasoned replies to any of them...
If that is what you meant to write then your argument was indeed _very_ poorly constructed. It's certainly more flimsy than many replies you received.
You literally said "Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think"
I don't think the customers are a big force here, from my experience is the same part that breaks first but is there a strong enough incentive for the producer to investigate the issue and make that part stronger? If the customer will buy a new product or a new part that is extremely expensive then the producer is encouraged to engineer that part to break exactly when the warranty is over.
I have a question, maybe someone here knows the answer, why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new, As an example I use same keyboard model and each time I buy a replacement it has changed a bit in design and internals, making them almost incompatible for salvaging components from one and fixing other)
Of course they are. Customers are not stupid, they know what they are doing. They know that a cheap appliance will last long enough and that "in 10 years I'll want to buy a new one anyway".
> why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new
Because that's what sells. You need 'new' to convince people to buy it, certainly to buy it at the same price it was last year.
I like the microsoft natural 2000 keyboard, it has a soft rest place that it scratches and in max 2 years it gets destroyed and the cable where it enters the case gets bent and used. So I now have 3 or 4 models that I bought over the years, there is no actual improvement, all the complaints in the reviews like noisy space bar were not addressed, just some small visual changes. So I am wondering why they did a new design,it probably costs a lot, did they found a way to gut 1$ worth of plastic?
If we think at the environment and not at profits for the keyboard case there are 2 imediate things you could do:
- sell the soft rest parts, there are easy to change if compatibility is not broken (i done it myself no special tools were needed but I transplanted them from a different one)
- make the cable easy to replace (like you have with HDMI screens) so if I destroy the cable I can buy and just replace it rather then open the keyboard and find a different keyboard and grab the cable from that.
IF the above would be costly to implement then maybe they can address the problem and make an improved design.
Other example, I have a water pump, it has inside it a plastic/rubber balloon thing. This balloon will break every few months. I am wondering that they could make it 2 times more expensive and last 2 times more and it would be great because of the time and comfort lost when you have to replace it. But my waster time and confort plust he fact the old plastic thing goes into garbage is not factored in the producer calculations. So after this thing broke for the n-the time on me I would pay 10 times more and have it last 10 times more, I don't want cheap and bad but I do not have a choice.
I admit there is a small chance that it is impossible to make this component stronger but this change is extremely small, probably the current one is the perfect balance for the producers and is at the threshold where the users won't give up and buy a new pump(you have no idea if a different model does not have same issue)
I want to buy Miele, or any other quality brand, but if anything breaks (which we know will happen), the service technician has a two hours drive to get to my place, which I have to pay. IOW, the top quality brands mostly offer service in densely populated areas (and it makes businesses sense for them)...
The UK had a catastrophic fire potentially caused by a cheap fridge freezer.
White goods cause a few house fires.
This page says 5 a day: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media-centre/press-...
This page says 60 per week: https://news.sky.com/story/eight-house-fires-a-week-caused-b...
We need white goods to be safer, and people don't chose safer, they choose cheaper, so we need regulations.
What does annoy me though is that you have to pay a premium for appliances which are ‘built in’ over the equivalent model which is not built in, despite the built in version being less complicated (no door handles, for example).
This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The right to repair is not only about quality, price or durability. It is also a philosophical and strategic standpoint?
Many consumers are smart enough to understand that 'cheap' is a property calculated over the lifetime of the product.
As usually, when politicians think they can do business better than the businesses themselves, this will probably be a net waste.
So yeah, politicians try to defend the general interest best they can. Sometimes they make mistakes of course.
Countries with strong regulations can thrive. I live in France. People like to bash on our social system and on our strong regulations, but we are still one of the worlds greatest economic powers. Same goes with Germany.
Except that's not how it happened, at least in England and the US in the 19th century.
That's not true. All it needs is for one business among hundreds to require working 90 hours a week. Then all employees would want to work 90 hours a week instead of 100 hours. Then automatically lots of people would want to work in this company instead of all the others.
The other companies in order to keep workers in their companies would also want to lower the bar to 90 hours. And if everyone would require 90 hours a week, then when 1 company would lower the bar to 80 hours a week... etc.
For everyone else, though, this works the other way too. All you need is for one person who's facing foreclosure to put in 110 hour weeks before it becomes the norm.
Hell, how many people here are on Slack at the weekend because their colleagues are and they fear looking lazy, and not because they're "passionate" (or whatever BS word we're using to describe abuse)
By introducing more and more regulations, it's more complicated to run the business. Less people are creating businesses, because it's so complicated to run it, and regulations change from year to year. So, the only real beneficiary of regulations are businesses established 100 years ago, where there were not much regulations, and they had their 'hothouse' conditions allowing them to grow without much competition.
In my country in small towns there are i.e. 3 companies to choose from when a person is trying to find a low-tech job. The owner of the first company is a good buddy with the mayor, the second company has a big legal department and is able to pull lots of million of PLNs from EU's dotations, and the third one will probably end their life in few next years, because it's too hard to compete with the previous two. So, in this context, it is possible that the previous 2 will just raise the work time bar and nobody will shed a tear about anyone.
What you describe works if companies struggle to hire people and need to compete with each-other for workforce. Nowadays in many sectors throughout the world (and often for less educated workforce) it's the other way around: there are more people looking for a job than there are vacancies.
Clearly in this situation it works the other way around: the worker who's ready to work longer for cheaper will be hired over the others. Then it's a race to the bottom.
Did I get this right?
How exactly can the market be doing good work here? And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car?
The problem here is that people don't really want these devices. Maybe they think they want them, but in reality the effort to have them repaired would be too much to them. As others have pointed out, wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
Except when no one provides such products, or the only ones fitting that goal require very large sacrifices elsewhere.
Look at mobile phones and tablets before the EU rules. Finding one that charged off a standard USB socket was near impossible.
Again with mobile phones, since there is no right to actually own and control your device, finding a phone that allows you to root it constrains your choices in just about every other way, including ways that have nothing to do with being able to root the phone, such as being a second class citizen from your carriers point of view (e.g. Verizon refused to enable international calling for my phone because it wasn't an "approved", aka Verizon branded, phone.)
So, right to repair regulations mean that I wouldn't have to decide between being environmentally conscious (if that open is even available) and having a product that works.
> wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
I can and do perform many repairs myself when the device allows a repair to be done (even sometimes when it doesn't).
You have things like fairphone where you can exchange and upgrade parts. In general, the magic of capitalism is that if people want something, somebody will eventually make it.
I also wonder how much of companies trying to prevent repairs is actually BECAUSE of regulations. Like they could be liable if something goes wrong. What if somebody tries to repair a phone, does it wrong, and the battery explodes. Who would be liable?
Your final point, with you being able to do a lot of repairs: you are not normal in that respect. Most people could not do that.
And even the hourly rate of most people would probably make it ineffective for them to do it, even if they could.
Since it is inefficient, I question the assumption that repairs are automatically good for the environment. Maybe buying a newer, more energy efficient machine every couple of years is better in some cases, especially if the old machine is recycled properly.
I would be much more in favor of regulations with respect to recycling. This "repairing is better" is mostly ideology and virtue signalling.
Citation needed. People keep trotting this out as if it's some kind of accepted truth, and it just isn't.
As usually, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
I think what the EU is trying to do is to force both companies and consumers to think about the consequences of mindless mass consumption and obsolescence. Beyond petty laws and regulations, the EU sometimes does have a noble fundamental concept behind their policies; it remains to be seen if the resulting policies are effective in practice.
the word you're looking for is "populist" - i.e.,"we care, but we don't care enough to start looking bad".
It's a good step, but not great. Greater urgency is needed at this time.
We have regulation that makes machines safer. This is regulation that makes machines safer for the environment. If the regulation turns out to be counterproductive it can be adapted later...
Experts are not better than business leaders at running businesses.
I had from the same company several appliances. The fridge is about 20 years old and still running. The washing machine broke after 15 years and I had to replace it due to lack of spare parts. The new washing machine is 5 years old, full of rust and I already replaced the main motor, that costed 1/3 of the full price of the machine. The technician that replaced it told me it is routine now to replace the Chinese motors after 3 to 5 years, a very high number of these washing machines break now in the first 5 years, but after the 2 years of warranty. They are a multi-brand service, when I asked what brand he recommends he said he cannot recommend one as they all have problems lately.
See for example: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-...
Retailers try very hard to pretend that the law doesn't exist and that their obligation to you ends after a two year warranty period. This is false.
[1] Market expectation is adjusted according to the advertised price. For example if you buy a pair of shoes for £5, then you cannot expect it to last six years, of course. If a sale advertises an original and a discounted price, then it is the advertised original price that matters.
In the US, kitchens normally have a very standardized space for the stove/oven. It's a particular width (I don't know it offhand), and if it's outfitted for electric, it has a standardized 240V outlet. You can't just put anything there: it has to be the correct width and height, and have the correct power cord. There are fancier kitchens with separate ovens and ranges, but you can't just put those units into an existing kitchen; you'd have to redo all the cabinetry, which is very expensive.
Also, commercial kitchens generally use gas ovens/ranges. Not all residences have this available, in fact many just don't. If your area doesn't have natgas, then you have to have propane installed, and that's expensive to do, and may not be allowed where you live.
That's just a result of high labour cost in western countries though. Parts for appliances are usually pretty cheap, it's getting a specialist to come out that costs an arm and a leg. A heating element for an oven will be like £40, but good luck finding someone to come out and fit it for less than £80-100. Considering you can buy a brand new oven for as little as £200(with free delivery) the option to replace something instead of repairing it is unsurprisingly tempting. The further East you go the cheaper the labour gets, so it's normal that a repair that's completely unreasonable in the UK is actually pretty reasonable in Poland or Slovakia - the same part fitting would cost you maybe 50-100PLN(£10-20)? So actually the parts are almost always more expansive than labour.
I'm guessing it could have been repaired (gas leak?), but the absolute minimum for a tech to come out and try to fix it would have been 150-200 EUR (driving + 1 hour labor), plus parts/gas.
Part of the problem with repairs is that you often don't know what the final price will be. Sure you might get a quote based on a most likely scenario, but if that isn't the problem you just wasted all that money. And due to cost of labor, spending a lot of time troubleshooting isn't viable either.
We just got a new fridge instead, 400 EUR delivered at the door.
Source: two close friends of mine sold their HiAces.
It's the reason #16238 for instituting a carbon tax, and all those reasons are essentially the same: internalizing externalities. If, after accounting for full environmental impact, it turns out that replacing is still cheaper than repairing, then all is fine because the price correctly signals that it is better. In reality though, I'd expect that under carbon taxing, repair would be the better choice.
If it can be made simple[1] and affordable - it becomes a nice home project.
[1]How easy it's to repair a broken drain pump in a washing machine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-arx3FKRo
I'm just trying to point out that it's not some grand conspiracy to stop people from repairing stuff - here in the West labour is just very very expensive(which means our wages are also very high, so it's hard to complain). In countries where labour is cheap the same repair suddenly makes sense.
Don't worry, that will change next month
I found somebody on ebay that repairs the boards for 35 (same developed country), popped the hood, took the cables off and sent the small plastic enclosing by post. They probably just replaced a capacitor or so, sent it back to me and voila.
So I don't think the legislation is perfect, but I'm happy there's some movement in the right direction. I think it's obscene to throw away the whole thing because of a tiny repair. Everything still depends on having people skilled to do repairs, but that's maybe also part of the problem. Why is a repair person's job these days to take a manufacturer's part in a plastic enclosing and connect the cables? I can do that myself. If it was some advanced technology fine, but it isn't for a lot of things.
The guy on Ebay is someone with electronics skills who discovered that that particular machine had a very common problem with that board, and offered a service to fix that one thing.
It's too bad that can't be done more. It is done some: smartphone makers frequently will repair their devices, usually by having you ship the phone to a repair center. But an appliance is harder since you still have to have the on-site technician take the machine apart and get the board out for shipping, since you can't rely on consumers to do that. It's too bad consumers aren't smart enough to use a screwdriver and take simple things apart, but that's just how it is.
They are don't like that unqualified people play with gas or electricity, so they certainly don't try to make it easy for people to be able to repair themselves.
If a new (whole) car(tv,washing machine,...) costs 20k (...) ($,€,..doesn't matter), and you want to replace some parts, the cost of just a few parts quickly becomes higher than a whole new unit. In a modern car, just replacing a few parts costs more than a whole car (both front lights ~1k(eur), rear ones 500eur, ac compressor 500eur(+), radio/navigation unit 1k, foldable mirrors 500eur, 'smart' rearview mirror up to 1k, etc...).
If the sum of costs of all parts to assemble a car is above 2x the price of the car, someone is getting ripped off, and we all know who that is.
Same with laptops... lcd assembly on a shitty 600eur laptop was quoted as 400eur+tax here (luckily ebay exists) - and that's without labour.
Of course, even these can be pretty high, depending on the part in question. A lot of the parts you listed are things that should not ever be replaced, unless you have a wreck. If that happens, then part cost shouldn't be your concern, because insurance is covering it (hopefully, the other party's insurance).
And finally, the used parts market is alive and well. Any of those parts can be easily found on Ebay for a fraction of the new OEM price.
And on top of that, many of those parts have Chinese-made aftermarket replacements, which cost much less, and may be acceptable quality.
As for the "smart" rearview mirror (I think you're talking about auto-dimming mirrors here), my Mazda came with one from the factory, but buying it afterwards costs about $300, certainly not 1k.
Generally speaking, if the car is fairly new, you shouldn't be replacing parts like that except through insurance. If the car is old and you're trying to restore it, you should be looking for used parts. And if you have a new car and you're trying to add all the nice options to make it like the top-end trim model, then you're doing it wrong: you need to get the car from the factory with the options you want instead of trying to add them later, because that never makes any economic sense.
Not really. The business models are way different and have different costs.
You're paying for someone to store that part, ship it in low volume to and from a parts warehouse, market to you, tie up capital in it, and gamble on the possibility that you'd want to buy it before those models go obsolete.
If you buy 500,000 units via container ship from the factory you could get them for way cheaper too.
If you want some actual values, many of these companies are public and file financial reports:
https://www.electroluxgroup.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
Electrolux cited a 4.3% operating margin in their latest report.
But I think mandating that replaceable parts have to be standardized, would make it so that multiple manufacturers would be using compatible parts.
As a consumer/repairman you'd be able to choose which one to buy from.
This would introduce competition that would put the pressure on the price.
There would possibly be even less waste because standard parts could be more easilly reused with any fitting brand/manufacturer of the product.
Buying a car based on repair-ability and cost/availability of spare parts is a concern for many of us.
I think we’re going to see radical changes once that happen though, as we’re generations that haven’t seen the benefits of capitalist freedom, but instead have lived in constant worry of pretty much everything from finding a job and keeping it, an ever increasing retirement age even though some companies don’t hire people older than 35, a destroyed environment, impossible home prices and so on.
Maybe I’m just living in a bubble, but I know no one my age or below who aren’t looking for change because the general consensus is that our current system is broken.
Be interesting to compare the change of vote as millenials grow into their 40s with the change of vote as hippies grew into their 40s.
Remember the era of woodstock are now those 70 year olds voting for brexit and trump and burn the foreigners. Will today's Extinction Rebellion, or Occupy Wall Street from 10 years ago, change at the same level?
I understand what you mean here but I think even back in the days when woodstock happened, the hippies were a minority even among their age group.
That 400 euro price to repair a laptop might accurately reflect the labour and other costs. Repairing something is much less amenable to automation than mass-producing it in the first place (especially since the latter can be done in a low-cost country).
Honestly, that's the one aspect of the Kenmore stuff that really impressed me. There was lots of good information out there on what parts to buy and how to do the fix.
Imo, through-hole are worse, harder to remove than SMD if you have hot air.
(edit) What is actually necessary for electronics - "schematics" and datasheets. It's quite hard and time consuming to trace stuff, esp. on multilayered PCB. Lack of datasheet is even harder to overcome in many cases.
Give me straight, well designed and BGA-less SMD any day. Also Metcal user here.
Surface-mount stuff is much, much easier to work with. The catch is that you need a hot-air rework station, but you can get a very decent Chinese-made one for less than $200. With one of these, you can easily replace SOIC/SOJ type ICs. The ones with 0.5mm lead spacing are very easy to work with; you can use some tweezers and a hot-air station to replace these chips easily, and just assembling a PCB with them is easy with a regular iron with a fine tip.
That beeing said, SMD is different. It is like — well — learning soldering once again from the start. The only thing really harder is seeing the parts.
Get a 5X binocular microscope. You can get a budget model for about $200.
This regulation is part of the EU Ecodesign Directive. In fact, repairability was studied in the 2016-2019 working plan - so for 3-4 years. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-19-1596_en.htm
>>introduced for refrigerating appliances, household dishwashers, household washing machines and household washer-dryers, electronic displays and refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function.
Some more facts here: https://eeb.org/europe-paves-way-for-right-to-repair/ >> - The proportion of defective devices being replaced by consumers grew from 3.5% in 2004 to 8.3% in 2012 (source)
- This may be costing German consumers €110 a month per person (source)
- A long-lasting washing machine will generate over 20 years 1.1 tonnes less CO2 than a short-lived model. This analysis takes into account manufacturing, distribution, use and end-of-life treatment (source)
- Electronic waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the world (source)
- Only 35% of electronic waste in the EU is collected and treated properly (source)
- Illegal flows within the EU are estimated at 4.65 million tonnes in 2012 (source)
When I was a teenager my dad got me to replace one of the old rotary switches on a washing machine with a second hand spare he got, if I recall correctly there were 30+ wires and I had to label them all, it worked and I was so satisfied. Now it would be a new PCB and would be difficult to source.
Definitely think there would be a market even if the initial cost was higher.
As non-profesional I managed to replace dishwasher door springs or washing mashine carbon brushes. It needed some time and research - thanks goodness we have youtube and hobbists forums. At the end the family acclaim is priceless.
Unfortunatelly it is harder to fix some brands from S.Korea or China - no parts on the market, hard to open, fragile plastic, glue instead of screws, rare short lived model lines. My fridge's broken control panel costs about 1/5 of new fridge, plus I am not sure I will manage to assemble it back. This ruling definitely is going to raise a bar for imported products.
The popularity of old 2nd hand mercs in Africa is a direct result of them being fairly easy to fix overengineered gear. No need for a laptop to diagnose it.
So in a way I'm hopeful this will reduce waste indirectly
Labor is cheap relative to the materials in the 3rd world so they run things as long as they can get parts. What they actually use has more to do with how the second hand car market in the first world works than anything else. For vehicles to be prolific in the 3rd world they need to enter the dealer auction system en-masse at a young age but not young enough to be re-sold as certified pre-owned where they are then bought by exporters/importers. These preconditions basically mean they are bought en-masse by people (or companies) who will drive them 5-10yr and then trade them in on a new one which basically means they are bought en-masse by decently well off people. The stuff that people stretch themselves to buy and then keep until it's totally clapped out (or sell private party to maximize value) never enters that workflow.
Don't think it's a function of that frankly.
I grew up in South Africa and the market down there is driven by a mentality you describe - cost consideration, pre-owned, access to parts, certifications etc. Stuff any westerner would be familiar with.
Head a bit further into ahem "proper" Africa and things changes very rapidly. e.g. My uncle living in Kenya reckoned that you could get a full transmission change done on the side of the road i.e. on gravel of the road shoulder (if it has one). That's where the old tank style mercs come into their own...anyone with mechanical aptitude and access to tools has a chance. Certified? Nobody fuckin cares - can you fix it in dust conditions with limited tools?
10 years is not long enough - big appliances can easily live much longer.
Appliance manufacturers should make it a _core_ business to provide repair services, not think of it as "environmental regulations".
Apple forces iPhone 5S and iPhone 6 owners to buy a new model even if they work fine after 6 years. Why couldn't a mobile phone work for 15years?
Just think of the US cars in Cuba, build in the 50s and still on the road. If I remember well, the amount of fossil fuel needed to build a car is more than it will use during it's lifetime on the road.
Changing to Less is more will require either
- a disaster (war, flooding, hunger) or
- long endurance and perseverance against old thinking by Greta Thunberg and the like.
I'm pretty sure Apple does no such thing. They stop updating product lines after a certain point, but they don't brick them or anything. In fact, you can find examples of people using original iPhones just to compare them to the modern phone amenities.
https://www.wsj.com/video/series/joanna-stern-personal-techn...
Really -- our expectations of what our mobile devices should be able to do have increased so much in the past 10 years that it's simply unrealistic to expect them to last 15 years or longer. _Maybe_ we're coming closer to a point where we can expect tech to be usable for longer due to our phones having processors that are nearly as capable as modern laptop processors.
Alas, this does not cover any electronics at all. It's extremely narrow:
>> introduced for refrigerating appliances, household dishwashers, household washing machines and household washer-dryers, electronic displays and refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function.
Vote with your wallet. If you want something that is repairable, buy it.
It's worse than any standard pollution offenses we have in place.
It's surprising we even let companies get away with these practices for this long. The practice is against consumer interests, socially irresponsible and utterly reprehensible as a business method.
If you still sit squarely on the side of the companies on this one, realise capitalisms current growth or bust model is entirely dependent on continual expenditure of Earth's resources.
Does anyone know if this holds true between continents such as Europe and America as well? IE: Because OEMs have right to repair laws in Europe they may just go ahead and furnish America with them as well so they dont have to maintain two separate product lines?
And on a side note: Funny how tractors and agricultural equipment were stricken from USA's right to repair and intellectual property laws.
I hope these right to repair laws are solid and also allow the manufacturing of third party parts. But what I would love to see is an upgrade system for older appliances. Like a program where you can buy newer more efficient parts for your appliances instead of buying a whole new one.
To be fair though, with modern houses being RCD protected it's very difficult for even dangerously-wired appliances to kill someone or cause a fire.
I can understand why manufacturers wouldn't like it, it isn't apparent to me that the doom and gloom would play out. The people that attempt these repairs are likely to be self selecting, and if we look at cars or PCs, are the tinkerer communities for those less safe than the general population? I feel you could make a case for the opposite. If you have no idea about cars, that rattle is a thing to be ignored, whereas a person in the know would realise that it's an impending failure of X.
Leading to the term 'Shucking', where people buy external drives just for the drive inside only to discard the rest.
In the comments from the above (you'll find similar in other comments, and on Reddit & YouTube). The Harddrive inside is a WD100EMAZ (WD Red 10TB), which currently retails for £318.68 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-10TB-3-5-SATA-5400rpm/dp/B07194...
It's even running the same firmware. It makes no sense, the only logic I see is that customers are willing to pay more for the 'enhanced features'. If you look into this, you'll find no manufacture states the read and write speeds of their USB drives, making it a little harder to compare, so there is a little luck of the draw in what you actually get. Seagate are similar: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/8thr34/seagate...
WD My Book 10TB USB 3.0 External - $185.99 (free shipping) https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16822234346
WD Red 10TB NAS Hard Disk Drive $283.98 (with $3.99 shipping) https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16822231546
So it's still ~$100 cheaper. Like I said before, this isn't the only example.
I also found this conversation while trying to find out kind of HDD it is:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/8ghb0o/wd_mybo...
When the LS 400 was disassembled for engineering analysis, Cadillac engineers concluded that the vehicle could not be built using existing GM methods
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LS#Industrial_signific...
Edit: see below. This is partially false. In the Netherlands this problem exists since they've implemented a broader warranty (2 years plus depreciation over expected lifetime) than the EU mandates. EU wide is just 2 years warranty and this law facilitates repairs afterwards.
This is EU bureaucrats at their worse.
Edit for spelling errors
There is a non-trivial risk associated with repairing appliances connected to the power mains - incl. electro-shock of the repair man... or the users.
Water damage, leaking, flooding for washing machines, dish washers and the like.
Even simple maintenance like dust cleaning would "void" the stickers.