> You're going to get fewer, more expensive products.
That last much longer.
That last much longer.
People's needs for products change, and products themselves improve to gain features, become more energy efficient, etc.
I do not want to be running the air conditioner I had from thirty years ago. It used tons of energy, was noisy as hell, was ugly, didn't have a thermostat or timer or any other features we take for granted today.
Same thing in the way all my lamps have been replaced with LED's, televisions became HD and then large screen and then 4K, office chairs got better ergonomics, and so forth. Making a CD player that lasted 4 decades would have been a total waste of resources.
I honestly think we're at a pretty good balance point today. When something breaks, more often than not it's the case that the new version is a significant upgrade that was worth getting anyways.
Wouldn't you want to be in control of the decision? If your air conditioning cools you and you are okay with it's current efficiency, you should be able to repair it. It's not like corporations are building short lived products out of environmental concerns about efficiency. If you leave it in their hands, then the consumer loses control, and companies do the obvious.
It also reduces competition and innovation in my view. Why try hard to R&D products people want to upgrade to, when you can just wait for their unit to break and sell them a mediocre upgrade.
In the last 3 years, I’ve repaired 1 window AC (bad bearings on the motor shaft), 1 free-standing AC (bad bearings on the motor leading to motor failure), and 2 portable dehumidifiers (low refrigerant charge).
None were particularly difficult and I could source a used motor ($18.50 shipped from eBay), source the bearings by measurement (under $16 shipped for 8 bearings though I needed only 2), and R410a is a commodity ($300 for a 20# tank, used about 1.5 pounds total).
Would it be easier if Fuji and Samsung and LG and others ran a parts depot that I could buy from? Maybe, but I’m probably not going to buy new parts from them anyway.
I don't think manufacturers should have to offer support in perpetuity though so it becomes an interesting problem. Like samsung shouldn't need to stock the front face of a washing machine for 15 years. Perhaps a better approach is making items that aren't possible to stock long term be made out of repairable materials so at least it can be repaired by a repairman.
Repairmen are expensive now because the skillset disappeared, when everything became so cheap that it was easier to buy new. But I think we can and should bring local repair services back.
Perhaps requiring the manufacturers to provide either spare parts or if they are out of stock and no intent to sell them anymore, then requiring to provide STLs to 3D-print them could be a reasonable option. It still would be an order of magnitude (or two) more expensive compared to making the original parts (due to the immense economies of scale for plastic manufacturing), but it would still be cheaper than custom repairs locally.
The point is, I don't want the things I buy to be 1.5x or 2x the price to ensure greater repairability than they have now. That's the conversation we're having.
> It also reduces competition and innovation in my view. Why try hard to R&D products people want to upgrade to
All available evidence points to the contrary. That might be true if there were only one manufacturer of an item, but competition ensures a constant stream of R&D and improvements. Which is precisely why I don't want to use my AC from 30 years ago -- the improvements since then have been massive.
30 years for sure, that is a totally reasonable amount of time for an appliance to last. If it genuinely lasted that long I bet you actually did a few repairs in there too. Living the dream, actually even 10 years would be amazing. We could cherry pick examples of long lived products but the point for me is that people don't pay for longevity like you said, but we need it for other reasons. Reduce waste, improve consumer choice and power over their own objects.
In regards to efficiency, it's definitely more efficient not to produce a society worth of new appliances ever 5 years or so. Improved repairability aldo means improved recycling of the components too.
I still replace some older lamps with LEDs when they die. TVs just go on a rotation, replace your bedroom TV, make your grandmum happy, it is going to make someone else happy. People still look for quality CD players (especially AMP combis) in second hand shops around here.
Someone must be buying new devices so the second hand market can work. Without well working second hand market you need cheap china devices so people get access to technology. It's no problem for this approach if YOU want to buy new things.
Another example might be cars. Someone must have the need/enjoyment to drive a fully new car so I can buy that same car a year later at a much more reasonable price.
I just think we should be clear about what tradeoffs are being proposed. This isn't all fairy dust and magic, and the average person doesn't have the background to understand the impact of proposals like this.
yes agree - so there must be manufacturing standards and product testing. Similarly it is established law that some products are inherently unsafe. The law must always adapt to new techniques, materials and chains of distribution.
Adjacent to this issue is the broader issue that rampant capitalism encourages rampant buying of stuff - often stuff that we don't need, and surprisingly often stuff we don't even want. Think Gift Giving culture nowadays. With fewer things to purchase, more effort could go into the important purchases, I would think.