7 ms·

Vendors do not have to support their product indefinitely. They have to design their products in a way that they do not become useless after support ends. E.g.

Vendors do not have to support their product indefinitely. They have to design their products in a way that they do not become useless after support ends. E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.

vv_ 23d ago
> E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software. If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
- arlcode 23d ago
  It would open up a tertiary market for smaller companies to do that (maybe even sell into a different market). Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
  - vv_ 23d ago
    I'm sorry, instead of: > it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers I should have phrased it as: > it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company. You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so. So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers. For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.
    - ethbr1 23d ago
      Imho, the problem the EU is trying to solve isn't necessarily utility to the original buyer. It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit. Anything that makes a significant portion of that stream reusable by anyone is a win. If that's someone buying e-waste, unlocking devices, flashing linux, and then reselling it to whomever then that's still a win.
      - vv_ 23d ago
        > It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit. From my point of view, the proposals suggested here, although difficult to discuss in detail because of how abstract they are, would not solve this issue in any meaningful way. By "meaningful" I mean that the cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation ratio would be rather poor. IMO, the core issue with e-waste isn't necessarily bad practices by manufacturers, but rather consumer behavior. People often throw away 2–3-year-old phones that are still fully supported by the manufacturer. For example, with the exception of the phone I broke, I usually replace my phone every 5–6 years. Within that timeframe, I have the battery replaced by the manufacturer at least once, and the phone continues to work just fine. This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods that are often replaced simply because newer models are available, rather than because the old ones are no longer functional. This is ultimately a broader issue of consumer culture and our tendency to replace things rather than repair or continue using them. I don't agree that this is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.
        ethbr1 23d ago
        > This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods This deserves a 'in the first world' caveat. Most waste streams terminate in the not-first world. There's a reason there are so many photos of African and SE Asian markets full of a hodgepodge of mobile device and English-printed t-shirts. Which is to say, increasing repairability shouldn't just be measured by how likely the first world is to use it, but also to how useful it would be to downstream consumers. To your list, there is a critical caveat to my caveat though: weight and volume. Things like appliances (small motor, big bulky box) and furniture (bulky) are exceptions to the above, given their difficulty to efficiency ship en masse. > I don't agree [consumer tendency to replace over repair] is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead. It's a gradient, like all things. Repair has difficulty and cost. Policies (like this one) could be enacted which decrease that difficulty and cost. Are they worth it? > cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation Which gets to the measuring. My suspicion is that most HN commenters (myself included) are weighing from placing a high value on 'owning your own tools' which may not generalize to the populace. But even so, I think it's a valid question of whether society would be 'better' if people had more ownership of their devices. Versus the current outsourcing to the mercy of Google / Huawei / Samsung / Vivo / Xioami / Apple.

vv_ 23d ago

> E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software. If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.

arlcode 23d ago
It would open up a tertiary market for smaller companies to do that (maybe even sell into a different market). Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
- vv_ 23d ago
  I'm sorry, instead of: > it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers I should have phrased it as: > it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company. You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so. So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers. For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.
  - ethbr1 23d ago
    Imho, the problem the EU is trying to solve isn't necessarily utility to the original buyer. It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit. Anything that makes a significant portion of that stream reusable by anyone is a win. If that's someone buying e-waste, unlocking devices, flashing linux, and then reselling it to whomever then that's still a win.
    - vv_ 23d ago
      > It's the large stream of perfectly usable e-waste modern practices emit. From my point of view, the proposals suggested here, although difficult to discuss in detail because of how abstract they are, would not solve this issue in any meaningful way. By "meaningful" I mean that the cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation ratio would be rather poor. IMO, the core issue with e-waste isn't necessarily bad practices by manufacturers, but rather consumer behavior. People often throw away 2–3-year-old phones that are still fully supported by the manufacturer. For example, with the exception of the phone I broke, I usually replace my phone every 5–6 years. Within that timeframe, I have the battery replaced by the manufacturer at least once, and the phone continues to work just fine. This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods that are often replaced simply because newer models are available, rather than because the old ones are no longer functional. This is ultimately a broader issue of consumer culture and our tendency to replace things rather than repair or continue using them. I don't agree that this is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.
      - ethbr1 23d ago
        > This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goods This deserves a 'in the first world' caveat. Most waste streams terminate in the not-first world. There's a reason there are so many photos of African and SE Asian markets full of a hodgepodge of mobile device and English-printed t-shirts. Which is to say, increasing repairability shouldn't just be measured by how likely the first world is to use it, but also to how useful it would be to downstream consumers. To your list, there is a critical caveat to my caveat though: weight and volume. Things like appliances (small motor, big bulky box) and furniture (bulky) are exceptions to the above, given their difficulty to efficiency ship en masse. > I don't agree [consumer tendency to replace over repair] is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead. It's a gradient, like all things. Repair has difficulty and cost. Policies (like this one) could be enacted which decrease that difficulty and cost. Are they worth it? > cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation Which gets to the measuring. My suspicion is that most HN commenters (myself included) are weighing from placing a high value on 'owning your own tools' which may not generalize to the populace. But even so, I think it's a valid question of whether society would be 'better' if people had more ownership of their devices. Versus the current outsourcing to the mercy of Google / Huawei / Samsung / Vivo / Xioami / Apple.