Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shanoshamanizum t1_j9xujju wrote

Reply to comment by spambearpig in A platform for products with no planned obsolescence by [deleted]

With a one year warranty they can claim it only before the recurring payment scheme starts. After that they have nothing to claim they either pay if the product is still functional or they don't pay and they don't have a product. That leaves the company with half the income if it breaks after the 1 year warranty expires.

1

spambearpig t1_j9xupxv wrote

I don’t think you quite get me. Problem 1 is they will claim it’s broke when it hasn’t.

How do you prove that it’s broke at all? Might be working just fine.

So they say it broke and then no more yearly fee?

1

shanoshamanizum t1_j9xuyxe wrote

Ah now I understand. They can verify it once a year before the recurring payment.

2

spambearpig t1_j9xvfep wrote

Okay so there’s an annual inspection cost built in now and yet trust me, the plot thickens from there on out. Your problems are just starting.

What I’m saying is that an ongoing trust relationship on a large scale is very costly to manage and enforce.

So when you add that model to buying a toaster or something it seems impractical to me.

Cars seem really ideal because a regular official inspection is part of running a car (in most countries), wastage and inefficiency in the auto industry dwarfs tech items and domestic white goods by the mass of material and consumption involved, the costs are high and what’s at stake through unreliability is high.

So as an idea for cars, I like it I think. Maybe worth the hassle there.

1

shanoshamanizum t1_j9xw2ho wrote

Nothing much different than a warranty inspection really. It's just a different model where they have to prove it's working rather than you proving it's not working.

1

termanatorx t1_j9ynx2z wrote

Just spitballing but even asking them to verify doesn't stop someone from claiming it's broken and just not verifying.

What about reversing the payment system and having them pay premium and receiving a small rebate each year they verify? That would definitely handle the problem of faking that it's broken to avoid fees, and might incentivize people also to repair if broken rather than paying for that and then also paying a fee to use it another year. Just thoughts...

1

shanoshamanizum t1_j9yobst wrote

The core idea is to have the user rewarding the producer not the other way around. The user has no incentive to break it or fake it because it will get returned to the producer. If it's truly broken both sides lose - the user loses the product, the producer loses potential 40-50% profit over the next 4-5 years.

1

termanatorx t1_j9yojup wrote

Ooooh. Good you clarified that. It's not clear in your initial post.

2

shanoshamanizum t1_j9ypsho wrote

It's evolving as we speak and as we discover corner cases.

1

termanatorx t1_j9yr6ql wrote

Nice. I think return of product if not functional is a great idea. And, you may have thought of this of course, the producer could then refurbish and sell again. I'm thinking of Amazon warehouse deals where products with flaws are sold at discount. I bought something there. Granted it was new and not refurbished, they do also have options to buy refurbished on there I think.

1