by ciscoriordan on 3/3/15, 2:59 AM with 61 comments
by rodgerd on 3/3/15, 3:52 AM
Which, by the way, seems like an excellent proposition. As a (potential) customer I can factor in lifespan with features and price for things I buy and make a better-informed decision about which best meets my needs. Anything that gives customers more accurate information should lead to better-functioning markets.
by Htsthbjig on 3/3/15, 9:04 AM
In the industry the cheapest thing to make is plastic injection molding. By far. Like 50 to 100 times cheaper than the alternatives at scale.
Melting plastic at 200 Celsius is so much easier than melting metal at over 700 Celsius(over 1000 for steels) with all the contractions and problems this creates.
Any manufacturer could use metal in their products or create a plastic version at half(or 1/3) the price.
Most people just buy the cheaper alternative. Then they rant about planned obsolescence when the thing breaks soon(but over the warranty period).
But the reality is that thanks to plastic molding we get incredible cheap products, like a USD60 vacuum cleaner, when in the past it was more like today USD1000 for one when it was made with metal parts that lasted decades.
We want it all, cheaper and better. But having all is not possible(yet).
by refurb on 3/3/15, 4:03 AM
by NeutronBoy on 3/3/15, 4:43 AM
This mean that if your $1k iPhone or $3k television break outside their warranty period but still inside what a reasonable person expect it to work (say 3, maybe 4 years for an undamaged iPhone, or 5-6 years for a brand name LCD TV), then you are entitled to repairs or replacement, regardless of the stated warranty period of the manufacturer.
by mc32 on 3/3/15, 5:52 AM
For example, let's take a washing machine from 20 years ago and compare the efficiency of a modern washing machine -and subtract the added manufacturing input into the new machine. Or incandescent bulbs and LED lights. Or for that matter older cars and modern cars. I hope they take those things into account. Just because something will last long doesn't mean it's best in the long run.
Still, it's not a bad idea to consider. And then we could at least know how often we might have to buy phones ---but then someone will redefine what a functional mobile phone is "it can make a regular voice call and the battery will last 10 minutes by the 3rd year." The other measure, how long will it keep the same level of utility as it was when it was new? That'd be trickier.
by swatow on 3/3/15, 6:19 AM
I think this law is probably heavy handed and unnecessary. Especially in an age where most people spend their money on items like phones and laptops, which are reparable and become obsolete very fast anyway.
by KJasper on 3/3/15, 8:10 AM
by aaronchall on 3/4/15, 2:28 AM
I liked the idea of telling consumers the expected life of a product. But they're actually not doing that. Instead, they're going to threaten people with jail time and companies with huge fines. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
But when you're making a product, you plan its construction around its life-expectancy. You don't make a doohicky with a sprocket that lasts 30 years when the other parts of the doohicky will only last 3 years. Instead, you get the sprocket made more cheaply with a life expectancy of 3 years, and your savings helps you compete with other doohicky manufacturers for the business of consumers.
It seems to me that France doesn't understand the economics of manufacturing. This seems to be another brain-dead decision by socialists that will cost jobs and raise the risks (and thus the costs) of doing business in the country. They'll have to pay those engineers and managers who make these design decisions even more to take on those risks. Marginal manufacturers will just get out, and jobs will be lost. Like they can afford it. http://www.france24.com/en/20150127-france-unemployment-hits...
by sitharus on 3/3/15, 5:44 AM
It works pretty well. Of course the retailers like to avoid their obligations and people chime up with the "that's why prices are high" argument. If you're located at the bottom of the world everything's expensive anyway!
by bobofettfett on 3/3/15, 7:12 AM
E.g. take Bosch/Siemens and Miele. Miele stuff really lasts forever but costs 2x that of Bosch/Siemens household stuff.
If I could afford it, I'd buy Miele.
by crousto on 3/3/15, 10:26 AM
by yourapostasy on 3/3/15, 11:24 AM
This confluence of factors could potentially open up an interesting and highly profitable business niche for a manufacturer that focuses on modular, repairable, maybe-hackable appliances.
Instead of promoting a consumption model where entire units are tossed out at the "end" of a "lifecycle", I can now concede a manufacturer could thrive on a far leaner capital profile than current industry participants where I wouldn't have thought it possible only 10 years ago, by focusing on the logistical tail of constantly repairing and improving "old" models, as opposed to concentrating on the new product manufacturing end.
This is also beneficial on the embedded energy cost and resource utilization efficiencies levels, which becomes extremely important as we scale up the population that participates in higher socioeconomic levels.
Human form factor-dependent design points can probably stay relatively static to benefit families in lower socioeconomic strata. For example, washing machines have not really changed their basic form factor in about a century. I'd rather sell a patching kit designed for my older tubs (a common failure mode) to those families today, enticing them to grab a used older model of mine than hope to capture them as customers ten years from now when they can maybe afford a new unit from me; it pulls in future sales without destabilizing debt schemes. Or if they can afford a little more, I can sell them a retrofit kit that supplies a newer future cleaning technology (like ultrasonic?) that fits older models. If they care about aesthetics, I sell them paint that exactly matches what they have on the old model.
All this while, I not only keep my units out of the landfill, but in the hands of more customers earlier than I normally could acquire them and out of the hands of my competitors in an inexpensive marketing/sales denial of service attack on that competition (and indeed, my customers are paying for that attack instead of me having to heavily spend on marketing to them). On top of this, my manufacturing costs shift increasingly out of the predations of the unpredictable turns and gyres of the commodities markets, and towards design (especially software) and small parts manufacturing. These can have higher margins than the whole units, and might be a lot cheaper than even JIT inventory to "stock" in the future, with local 3D-printing-style distribution centers for those parts that can be on-demand manufactured practically at point of sale. As the global population level stabilizes as currently expected, I'd already be positioned to sell into an economic environment where brand-new product purchases are made with increasingly razor-thin margins.
For those oldest models that fall below a logistical tail cutoff, I could release CAD/CAM and other design files to let hackers do what they will with those models, with the intent to temporarily boost those models popularity and continue to stymie competitors' entrance with customers of those models. When the cost of labor is low enough, making repairing and reconditioning possible can potentially be very remunerative for manufacturers who do not build around a business model of continuous, growing new unit sales (which in turn is predicated upon a continuous, growing population).
by rurounijones on 3/3/15, 7:11 AM
by double0jimb0 on 3/3/15, 4:26 AM
Take the car industry for example. Quality control variance prior to the 90s (ballpark) was a huge issue, this a result from automakers just being cheap and but also the lack of modern statistical-based end of life testing/analysis. The gov't did have to step in: Lemon Laws. But a couple of automakers responded, produced cars that didn't fall apart, people then voted with their do!lars, and made Toyota and Honda the power houses they are today. Nowdays, 100,000 mile warranty are almost standard, and just about every make of car is reliable.
Now, compare to the appliance industry. A couple thoughts: why aren't their "10 year warranties" on appliances? It's clearly something one would think consumers value, there should be a mfg taking advantage. Instead I only see appliances sold by "authorized retailers", who then try to sell you some b.s. 3rd party warranty.
This shows the entire retail/distribution chain is in on the racket. So fixing the problem will come from a market player solving this problem to deliver more of what the customer wants. Imposing additional reporting requirements on the manufacturers will just result in a 'wahhh, wahhh' our costs went up, we have to pass it on to the customer. So now everyone's appliances are more expensive, and manfucturers and retail partners continue with status quo.