I’m generally curious what you all think about the “R2R” movement, because as a whole, it's great imo and Louis Rossmann, who’s the most recognizable face of it, is someone who I wish was more well known to the general public, but as a whole, what it aims to do is make it so that you're able to fix the things you purchase, rather than be “encouraged” by the company to purchase a new one, and in general, has become a question of “do you own your device/car/tractor/etc., or does the company” in terms of how much you're allowed to do with what you own.
People who farm have had to deal with John Deere locking down their tools so only licensed dealers can work on them effectively and have had to resort to jailbreaking their tractors on occasion, Apple and other Big Tech names have made their electronics harder to repair over the years, serializing and pairing parts to motherboards so they don't work even if you swap between two of the same part between two of the same brand new phone, it's a whole mess in and of itself, but the general conclusion that’s been agreed on is that only two things can really change this:
-
Government regulations preventing all the nonsense like serialization/pairing, making manufacturers/OEMs have to provide parts and schematics.
-
Society actually puts pressure on said companies by not buying those harder to repair products, which is pretty fucking hard, considering what society we live in, illustrated in this video.
Most R2R activists think that number 1 is way more likely to happen, and have been doing that, getting R2R laws passed in almost 20 states so far, but I'm just wondering if anyone has any issues with having to use the government to make companies less shitty when it comes to actually owning the device you purchase, or not.
Consumers are not weak-willed; Consumers are ignorant and stupid.
Mostly consumers are not able to even able to understand points of difference between products, let alone map and apply a case-by-case comparative value.
Many years ago, in the dim and distant past, I used to sell things for a big box store. This included TVs and Laptops. In this role I set a few sales records. Never once did I sell a product insurance policy.
The way an above average consumer shops for a complex product is that they do a (very) little research and decide on a list of five or six features that are important. Then they see how little money they can pay for those features.
The way a below average consumer shops is that they pick a brand that speaks to their values, then pick a price point within that brand.
As a result, a (say laptop) company does some market research and figures out the buzz-word features that consumers are looking for this month. They then produce a product with those buzz-word features, and cut the costs of everything else to get the price as low as they can. Winning!
Never mind that most laptops die because of dust issues and cooling failure; that replacement lithium batteries can cost as much as the replacement cost of a (refurbished or whatever) computer. Consumers don't understand, they don't care and they won't start.
Want a case study? Look at the way Apple does business. They spend a lot to have a high value brand. They build a walled-garden and aim for maximum data lock-in. Phones, tablets and laptops last the life of their batteries.
With other brands, the models are mostly commodities. The exceptions are Gamers, who are deeply involved in the hobby of gaming, and often hand-build their own computers so they can pick every component. Joe Sixpack will never give a shit about how much an all-in-one water-cooler will extend the life of his box.
I do not know of any method by which the population in general and women in specific can be caused to care about the tech on which they depend for their quality of life. Take away a person's electronics and offer them a notebook and pen and some snail mail stamps; Watch their head explode.