Comment on Logitech will brick its $100 Pop smart home buttons on October 15 - Ars Technica
nosuchanon@lemmy.world 1 week agoWe agree that something needs to be done. Stronger regulations will just be in an added requirement for the development of these devices, which will make it more expensive. You can’t have fast development, cheap things and longevity. Companies will not invest in making those products because they’ll be out of business by the time their market is saturated.
I see your point. I would like to add that you probably can’t ever have fast or cheap without negative externalities. I think this is the missing part of the equation that perverts these systems and produces the garbage results we have to deal with like ewaste.
Unregulated capitalism seems to thrive by externalizing as many costs as possible. So we end up with a systems that ignores the environment and social costs.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s the point. If your business has to create a mountain of un-recyclable trash in order to thrive, it should absolutely fail.
nosuchanon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
There has to be some sort of reasonable balance between new developments and longevity.
Asking any engineer for a device that’s near indestructible but will continue to have software updates for 10 years is a hard ask.
For a lot of devices right to repair would work just fine. Being able to swap out battery extends the life of most cell phones. But it’s an unreasonable request for that cell phone, for example, to be able to be supported for 10 years worth of software updates.
It will slow the development cycle for a lot of devices down quite a bit. Which honestly is fine. I feel like a lot of products have reached maturity, and companies are reinventing them just for the sake of reinventing them and selling a “new” product with a new battery. I’m looking at you, Apple.
The problem with determining what is an acceptable lifecycle for a product is that there will be no one left to support the product in 10 years if the company folds in the meantime. It is a significant drag on companies to support legacy products while also innovating and creating new products. It’s just a fact a fact.
And from a consumer perspective, If you want cool, new fancy, shiny shit every year and for it to be reliable and last for 10 years, it’s just not gonna happen. We have been trained To buy new shit every year and desire that new shiny upgrade Without understanding that we’re getting cheap shitty products for a premium.
Your $100” iPhone is now going to become a $3000 iPhone that lasts for five years instead of two. Tell me how that’s a win for anybody?
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Right to repair is not about demanding unlimited software support it is saying we want access to the API so we can do our own support if we choose to.
It is about designing products that can be repairable and providing the means to do so. Regulations will be required to do this because a big part relies on standardization of parts.
This is because we can’t expect manufacturers to continuously supply parts. That is unrealistic. On the other hand, if you require standardized parts then it becomes repairable without the burden on the manufacturer.
Auli@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
I mean it doesn’t have to have updates for 10 years but why are they bricking them?
nosuchanon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
They’re creating artificial demand And capitalizing on it to sell you a new phone and power, charger and accessories, and all kinds of other crap.