Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja356v8 wrote

On the surface it seems like a rent to own but the big difference is that the user is in control and rewards the company for fulfilling its promise. Warranties require you to prove that it's not a user damage while here the company needs to prove the product is still functional. It's warranties reversed with payments in the hand of the user not the company. These are not the same products sold via different model but rather a forgotten class on its own. Products with no planned obsolescence.

On the other hand companies regain their beefiest market from 10 years ago - the most reliable and most expensive machines which were rebranded into consumer goods with planned obsolescence and sold at a fraction of their prices back then.

Same happened to cars in the 90s , same happened to laptops in the post 2010s.


Decumulate t1_ja37ch8 wrote

Well then I’m confused and the model seems very broken. If you are selling a product under its “value” with the idea that users will keep paying additional (on goodwill) after some period of time, you’ll find that users will just resell these products at high prices and buy another product at the “under valued” price. This will cause supply and demand issues, and the undervalued price will just shoot up to the original price anyways.

If you’re saying they will never actually own the product and the subscription will go on for perpetuity, then this is just a simple rental model with requirement of an upfront payment. It’s viable but I’m not sure it does much to solve the obsolescence issue as phones have been following this model for many years and it seemed to do nothing to stop people from upgrading. In fact, before most carriers shifted more to “rent to own” models, people anxiously waited to upgrade after 2 years, meaning your model might actually be making the obsolescence problem worse.

A more efficient way to solve the problem of obsolesce is to make trash and disposal very expensive such that people are cautious about what they purchase. This would also reduce trash intake and profitability from trash to a point where we could implement a very high expectation of recycling with all trash. Consumers will buy things that last longer across the board, and manufacturers will design for longevity.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja37mt4 wrote

>If you are selling a product under its “value” with the idea that users will keep paying additional (on goodwill) after some period of time, you’ll find that users will just resell these products at high prices and buy another product at the “under valued” price.

Users are not paying on goodwill but upon inspection that the device is still functional. If it doesn't work then and only then they don't pay. Also if it's non-working they return it so they can't resell anything.

There is no under-valued price it just builds up with the longevity of the product. Failed promises failed payments. Unlike now where user damage saves the day every time.


Decumulate t1_ja39z0u wrote

At what point do users have the right to resell? When do users own the product? If the answer is “never” then I don’t think you’re doing to have a lot of love here. People are getting tired and frustrated with subscription models.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3a770 wrote

After a negotiated period. Anywhere from 5 to 7 years for standard users and 7 to 10 years for enterprises.

Compare that to my last 2 laptops which failed after 1 to 3 years of use.

On a macro level this model slows down the production/consumption cycle at both ends by reintroducing maximum quality paid for in installments.

Great for the environment too.


Decumulate t1_ja3adha wrote

Ok that’s rent to own, and yes in rent to own the user is still in control. The consumer being able to terminate rights of use is the benefit of rent to own.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3ay8a wrote

Thanks! Can you direct me to an example?


Decumulate t1_ja3d8aw wrote

Yeah - this site. and before you say “but those products aren’t the long lasting type I imagined”, I think it’s because this model isn’t inherently going to solve this issue. You’re appealing to buyers that want to get in cheaper, not buyers that care about obsolescence


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3dndd wrote

It's not about getting in cheaper. In fact the first down-payment will be equivalent of a mainstream product. It's the only way to sell premium products to customers with decreasing income. Rent to own can have many variations. The one presented here is designed specifically to reward longevity and to guarantee no planned obsolescence.


Decumulate t1_ja3l1dz wrote

I’m still missing how longevity is rewarded though outside of a typical rent to own system


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3mn0r wrote

You simply stop paying if it breaks. You lose the product the company loses 40-50% of potential revenue. For each operational year you reward the company.


Decumulate t1_ja3nuco wrote

There’s absolutely nothing different with that versus what I posted above. That’s nearly every rent to own model. That doesn’t incentivize obsolescence - it would have to be direct incentive.