shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9y0yj1 wrote

I will give you a recent example with a laptop. It ended up with a busted battery. The warranty service claimed it was user damaged. I had to prove it's not. With this model it's the other way around. The company has to prove it's fully functioning in my presence in order to get the next recurring payment. If they can't the plan ends and the device is considered non-functional.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xwu3e wrote

>So, this will be the status quo until the world economy collapses, which will probably be soon.

I agree with you but while we wait we can ease our pain by pushing for even if temporary solutions. Think of it this way - with a warranty you have to prove a product is broken with this model the company needs to prove it's working each year before you make a recurring payment.


shanoshamanizum t1_j9xujju wrote

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.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_j9xua32 wrote

It's all about the business model really and the bi-directional incentives for users and producers. The post is not really about how to make them but rather how to make companies make them.

Consider that companies make cheaper products because of decreasing income of population. They can still make everlasting products but they will cost a lot. So making it half price now and recurring payments based on usage incentives both sides.


shanoshamanizum t1_j9xu4vy wrote

Thanks for elaborating. The warranty example is a good one to clarify the difference between the two. The user has no incentive to damage its own device since along with skipping the next payment they will not have a device at all. Maybe a 1 year warranty is only needed with this business model and after that you simply rely on these recurring payments?


shanoshamanizum t1_j9xth9r wrote

I understand your point of view. Thinness and lightness have their limitations too. They can't go on forever and definitely there is a trade to be made.

The idea is that you don't pay double or triple but rather get it as affordable as the mainstream ones and then reward the company for each year it lasts. It guarantees fair trade rather than marketing promises.


shanoshamanizum t1_j9xsejw wrote

Thanks for the constructive feedback and valuable insights. Products with fast innovation cycles can also be made modular so that you don't change the whole device. We actually had that for a while across laptops and even some attempts in smartphones. Currently the whole competition revolves around lower prices and that makes planned obsolescence obligatory and hard to fix by circular economy alone.