112
We used to have TV repairmen who would come if dad couldn't fix it with the tube from the grocery store kiosk. Weird. (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I think it's both chicken and egg. It's more expensive to repair relative to replace now, so often it's more economical to replace. This leads to less repair knowledge and services, so increases cost, making replacement easier etc. Many times are more complex and so what used to be repaired with simple tools and know how, now requires specialized tools and proprietary replacement parts. Supply chains being just-in-time for production means many parts are not stocked for repair, which also slows everything down too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Design problem, you can modularize these things so they're easy to repair, consider your average desktop PC. Indeed that's what your 'proprietary replacement parts' are, backed up by DMCA (and world wide equivalents forced by US trade agreements) making reverse engineering them a felony. Problem is there's no financial incentive compared to getting you to buy another one soon, nor is there competition on this front. Hmm, perhaps a (legal) regulation problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Modular is better for repair, but not cheapest to produce or space saving. So, people naturally choose the cheaper, more compact design.

    The whole idea of copyright was to prevent people profiting from your design innovations. If the only purpose your design causes is preventing competition, then it should lose protection in my view.

    So, for instance making printer ink incompatible with copy protection serves no benefit to the owner. So it should lose protection. There needs to be a balance to protect creatives, but in the rapidly changing age, the time and scope should be dramatically reduced. No technical innovations from 10 years ago need to be protected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    there's a million better alternatives to the current shitass IP/patent/trademark system but until the US empire finally finishes falling none will come about

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    While I'm not optimistic, there does seem to be a movement away from protecting US IP since the trump tariffs broke the compact. Lots of media on here about people and companies and government seeking digital sovereignty/independence.

    So it could chip away gradually.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent