build to break
jan janssens
Public
Seen by 315
So this is the short version of the story. I bought a television 3 years ago, flat screen and stuff, it cost me 499 euro. The damn thing broke. I went back to the shop were I bought it and they said (suprise suprise) that it couldn't be fixed and that the warrenty (2 years in belguim) is over so they couldn't send it back to the factory. Only thing for me left to do was to buy a new one.
Bad luck? Possibly. But doubtfull. I think you have all seen the documentary build to break and others like it, this is just crap and should be handled.
Pascal Dk Wed 2 Mar 2016 9:00PM
Lab +1 :)
HgO Wed 2 Mar 2016 9:31PM
This is a very interesting topic indeed :) I added this one to the agenda of the next Pirate Lab (which will occurs in two months sadly :/ ) : http://wiki.pirateparty.be/index.php/Pirate_Lab/April2016 Hopefully, this will give us time to think about this issue ^
Jan Van Opstal Fri 4 Mar 2016 10:43PM
Re-Pairing or just Re-newing... If you augment warranty time... Cost will also rise. Then consumer price will rise to.
For some applications standards and long life functioning are good,
But technology is still evolving in such a speed and scale, that re-newing is far more the best for all. 500€ for a flat screen for two years.... But I have flatscreens working for 5 years now...
And I have still color monitors working for 15 years. But I don't use them anymore ... they consume way more power and are less good for the eyes.
HgO Sat 5 Mar 2016 10:26AM
I find that argument quite easy. I have a course this semester that state that the Moore's law ("the CPU power of computers double every two years") might be broken in 2020. This means that you won't be able to buy faster computer every two years. The same for smartphones. Therefore, maybe it's time to think about a model where computers last longer. Also, because of this speed race, we can be sure that this will cause serious economical issues in the years to come.
Anyway, even if we agree that technology is evolving quickly, I don't see why we couldn't make some standards which would last for let's say 10 years. During this interval, components of your device could be replaced or upgraded easily. Because, if I need more power in my computer, I don't need to buy a brand new computer, for the same reason that if I need more memory I will just buy some RAM.
Pascal Dk Sat 5 Mar 2016 12:29PM
@janvanopstal @hgo
By reading your posts, it seems that Jan talks about industrial standards while Hg0 is talking about technical one.
The technical standards provide compatibility where industrial ones provides profits.
Ex (an easy one)
Apple standards : not compatible, but highly profitable
Open source standards : highly compatible, not really profitable
Maybe it could be intersting to check what happens when we try to make those standards working togheter ?
HgO Sat 5 Mar 2016 12:45PM
To be very short : Internet is based upon open-source standards, Android use Linux, and so on. So I don't think we can say that open source standards are not really profitable...
Pascal Dk Sat 5 Mar 2016 4:04PM
The whole GAFAM use open-source.
But that doesn't make their algorithm opened ;)
Vincent Sat 5 Mar 2016 7:04PM
That's not the point. Hgo (and so did you, btw) illustrated the fact that open source can be profitable.
Pascal Dk Sun 6 Mar 2016 2:43PM
"Anyway, even if we agree that technology is evolving quickly, I don't see why we couldn't make some standards which would last for let's say 10 years".
I'm answering to that.
Open-source standards are already used by the industry - but it doesn't provide less obsolescence.
Said otherwise, the open-source implementation in the industry has nothing to do with the open-source implementation in our (yet to come) Pirates services.
I think it's important to point it out and being aware of it in such discussions.
Valerie D. · Wed 2 Mar 2016 7:21PM
very very big issue you are raising there :)
Yes, extending warranties to five years is one thing. But it is not the whole thing.
In short, I would add, in different time stages:
1) information and transparency is key: each piece of equipment should have a label stating which lifetime it has been designed for (they all have) and which parts are repairable,
2) each piece should be designed for repair (e.g. avoid glue, custom screws, etc).
3) stop advertisement : things are build to break because that is what our growth-economy is based on (and they have been so since the beginning of the 20th century). On the longer term, you cannot fight the "build to break" without questioning our growth model.
I am probably forgetting some stages... to be discussed face to face once on a Pirate Lab maybe.