Loomio

build to break

JJ
jan janssens Public Seen by 361

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.

VD

Valerie D. Wed 2 Mar 2016

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.

PD

Pascal Dk Wed 2 Mar 2016

Lab +1 :)

H

HgO Wed 2 Mar 2016

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 ^

JVO

Jan Van Opstal Fri 4 Mar 2016

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.

H

HgO Sat 5 Mar 2016

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.

PD

Pascal Dk Sat 5 Mar 2016

@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 ?

H

HgO Sat 5 Mar 2016

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...

PD

Pascal Dk Sat 5 Mar 2016

The whole GAFAM use open-source.
But that doesn't make their algorithm opened ;)

V

Vincent Sat 5 Mar 2016

That's not the point. Hgo (and so did you, btw) illustrated the fact that open source can be profitable.

PD

Pascal Dk Sun 6 Mar 2016

"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.

V

Vincent started a proposal Sat 5 Mar 2016

I endorse "build to break" for the drafting zone. Closed Thu 10 Mar 2016

Agree - 3
Abstain - 3
Disagree - 3
Block - 3
4 people have voted (8%)
V

Vincent
Agree
Sat 5 Mar 2016

H

HgO
Agree
Sat 5 Mar 2016

I thought we were already in the drafting zone, my bad ^

PS

Pat Seynaeve
Agree
Wed 9 Mar 2016

What's the drafting zone?
If it means we have to do something against this mentality that profits allows to waste raw materials and energy to produce cheap products that are dumped after minimum time, Yes

VD

Valerie D.
Abstain
Wed 9 Mar 2016

I am interested but willing to discuss it at the GA, not convinced that's the spot yet. Rather a lab first.

V

Vincent Sat 5 Mar 2016

I guess it' time to frame the debate and build something out of it.

JJ

jan janssens Sat 5 Mar 2016

Nice. Also when companies get longer warrenty they will stop changing models so quickly.

JJ

jan janssens Sat 5 Mar 2016

I hope

JVO

Jan Van Opstal Sun 6 Mar 2016

"I prefer face to face, because I'am lazy at typing, and I could link this to alot of other stuff. What do you guys/girls think?" the topic states....

starting a discussion on a 5 years warranty (legislation-proposal) concept? How far is this gone take us?

PD

Pascal Dk Sun 6 Mar 2016

That can be an idea. I like it because it's a practical case.

Here some proposals :

  • case study : what does such warranty provides/involves (let's take an easy one)
  • workshop 1 : how to make it better
  • workshop 2 : trying to create our own public licence (such as the WTFPL we had once, but better)
  • having a presentation from a legal specialist would be highly interesting also
V

Vincent Wed 9 Mar 2016

Pat, you've actually accepted to work on the proposal to present it to the GA.
It's still a good thing :)

J

James Thu 24 Mar 2016

Imho, paying near 500 Es for a television to have it fail after 2 years is nonsense. That's 21 euros per month !

Planned obsolescence needs to be looked into. Consumers should not have to foot the bill for a profit drive involving dodgy electronics.

Older technology demonstrates that it's possible to have devices that last longer and at a similar price.