Take that Apple

GinoLatino
Take that Apple

Apple won't care, their Ts&Cs and support details are to take it to Apple for all issues. None of it is designed to be a “do it yourself”.

Same with Microsoft and the Surface Laptop.

It may change things, but not dramatically.

Tabbykatze

GinoLatino
Take that Apple

Apple won't care…

They will if they have to comply.

Could be the same thing happened with car warranties. Your local high-street phone repairer could have access to genuine parts for a reasonable price and be able to repair a phone (for example) without affecting the device warranty.

GinoLatino
Take that Apple

And Microsoft and Samsung and…..<pick mfr of choice> etc

The 2014 Eurobarometer survey did not find that 77% of EU consumers "would rather repair their goods than buy new ones, it found that 77% make an effort to get broken appliances repaired before buying new ones, EU consumers who said they throw things away as it is difficult or too expensive to get them repaired was 39%.

In this case it seems like the EU is trying to meddle in something that's working fairly well already.

GinoLatino
They will if they have to comply.

Not really. They'll just have to put:

“This device contains no user repairable parts.” or similar on the box. Same as pretty much every appliance manufacturer.

I can't see that harming their business model in the slightest.

b0redom

GinoLatino
They will if they have to comply.

Not really. They'll just have to put:

“This device contains no user repairable parts.” or similar on the box. Same as pretty much every appliance manufacturer.

I can't see that harming their business model in the slightest.

It's quite likely that the EU is using this as a basis upon which to introduce legislation which punishes manufacturers for irreparability, at which point it will.

From what I read this is to get more ‘repair work’ done in the EU, so money basically although they're using ‘recycling’ as the reasoning behind it.

If it's recycling then MS/Apple et al will likely be fine because all of their products can be dismantled and put back together, its just not something that someone at home can do with a screwdriver which to be fair if you want thin/light/small etc then you can't expect it to be repairable by household tools.

As someone who actually works in the design sector relating to product design I can tell you first hand that to introduce screws into the thin and light designs that we have now due to glue would likely make the product thicker and heavier.

HW90
It's quite likely that the EU is using this as a basis upon which to introduce legislation which punishes manufacturers for irreparability, at which point it will.

Which no doubt will be seen as negative meddling rather than a positive approach to a sustainable future.

Biscuit

HW90
It's quite likely that the EU is using this as a basis upon which to introduce legislation which punishes manufacturers for irreparability, at which point it will.

Which no doubt will be seen as negative meddling rather than a positive approach to a sustainable future.

Maybe in the UK, not anywhere in the EU though.

How is this a bad thing again?? Companies making things non-repairable are doing it so instead of a cheaper repair you buy another new product from them,and it makes them more money whilst probably costing the consumer more.

It also smacks of hypocrisy too when everyone is going on about renewable energy and electric cars,whilst ignoring the big issue with electronic waste which is usually dumped in third world countries.

About time. Hope it's the start of some strong anti-consumerism legislation although for the UK it probably won't make any difference because of Brexit.

And yes, Apple (and all the recent copy-cats now making equally disposable goods) really ought to be worried because the logical outcome of this is that eventually the non-repairable goods will higher taxes on them, as should non-recyclable items.

Of course, by the time strong environmental legislation finally comes a major environmental collapse will probably be well on it's way.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
How is this a bad thing again?? Companies making things non-repairable are doing it so instead of a cheaper repair you buy another new product from them,and it makes them more money whilst probably costing the consumer more.

It also smacks of hypocrisy too when everyone is going on about renewable energy and electric cars,whilst ignoring the big issue with electronic waste which is usually dumped in third world countries.

Depends on the cost of the repair of course. One of the drivers towards the ‘disposable’ culture is the high cost of labour. I did a repair of a digital alarm clock - a duff capacitor as it happens, costing abut 20p, but it took an our to dismantle it and put it back together - so if I had been charging for that, it would have cost more than a replacement. Have repaired a few items like that (because I can) but it wouldn't have been economical to pay for them to be repaired.

b0redom
Not really. They'll just have to put:

“This device contains no user repairable parts.” or similar on the box. Same as pretty much every appliance manufacturer.

Unless the EU then require them to put an expected lifespan on the product, whilst requiring the manufacturer to repair/replace the item for that duration.

Given choices between something that says “2 years” compared to “5 years”, thats likely to drive buyers towards the longer lifespan items.

The first thing I picked up was

A voluntary European label should highlight a product's durability, eco-design features, and upgradeability in line with technical progress and reparability.

If it's voluntary, manufacturers choosing (for whatever reason, be it safety or built-in obsolescence) not to build in repairability will simply not volunteer, and we're no further forward.

LSG501
From what I read this is to get more ‘repair work’ done in the EU, so money basically although they're using ‘recycling’ as the reasoning behind it.

If it's recycling then MS/Apple et al will likely be fine because all of their products can be dismantled and put back together, its just not something that someone at home can do with a screwdriver which to be fair if you want thin/light/small etc then you can't expect it to be repairable by household tools.

As someone who actually works in the design sector relating to product design I can tell you first hand that to introduce screws into the thin and light designs that we have now due to glue would likely make the product thicker and heavier.

While I wouldn't dispute the design inferences you mention for a moment, as a consumer, I'd like to know if a product is of the ‘bin it if battery fails’ category, because it would influence my purchase decision.

Personally, I'd go for ‘thicker, heavier and repairable’ over ‘slim but bin’ every time. But I know people likely to go the other way too.

My £5 dirt-cheap phone is in FAR better condition, after 10 years, than a friend's 8-month old top-of-range iPhone. Why? Partly, I take care of my possessions, and he doesn't. When I asked him about it, he said (paraphrasing) …

I change it every 18 to 24 months anyway, why worry about a few bangs or dents?

Different people have different approaches. To me, being able to replace the battery would be one of about the top three or four criteria in a purchase decision, and a few ml of thickness or grams of weight wouldn't be in the same universe as that list, because I'm after a tool to do a job not a fashion accessory. But my friend loves having shiny, new gadgets …. and loses interest pretty quickly too.

We need products designed to suit both my friend and myself, but I'd certainly like to know which is which, because it'd often change the purchase decision (assuming an alternative exists), so I'd support not only a labelling scheme, but a mandatory not voluntary one. My friend wouldn't care.

It feels, now that we're Brexiting (allegedly) that I'm making a habit of saying this, but the EU does have some good ideas, especially on consumer protection. This is one.

Saracen
The fiest thing I picked up was
If it's voluntary, manufacturers choosing (for whatever reason, be it safety or built-in obsolescence) not to build in repairability will simply not volunteer, and we're no further forward.


While I wouldn't dispute the design inferences you mention for a moment, as a consumer, I'd like to know if a product is of the ‘bin it if battery fails’ category, because it would influence my purchase decision.

Personally, I'd go for ‘thicker, heavier and repairable’ over ‘slim but bin’ every time. But I know people likely to go the other way too.

My £5 dirt-cheap phone is in FAR better condition, after 10 years, than a friend's 8-month old top-of-range iPhone. Why? Partly, I take care of my possessions, and he doesn't. When I asked him about it, he said (paraphrasing) …


Different people have different approaches. To me, being able to replace the battery would be one of about the top three or four criteria in a purchase decision, and a few ml of thickness or grams of weight wouldn't be in the same universe as that list, because I'm after a tool to do a job not a fashion accessory. But my friend loves having shiny, new gadgets …. and loses interest pretty quickly too.

We need products designed to suit both my friend and myself, but I'd certainly like to know which is which, because it'd often change the purchase decision (assuming an alternative exists), so I'd support not only a labelling scheme, but a mandatory not voluntary one. My friend wouldn't care.

It feels, now that we're Brexiting (allegedly) that I'm making a habit of saying this, but the EU does have some good ideas, especially on consumer protection. This is one.

Doesn't have to be a mandatory scheme to provide what you'd like - if you need some easy way to differentiate between thin&light&glued and stuff that can be fixed, then the manufacturers of the stuff that can be fixed would be expected to sign up to the label showing how repairable it was while the thin&glued stuff wouldn't bother. Whether anyone buying a phone these days gets a chance to look at the box before they buy it is another matter, of course.

Corky34
The 2014 Eurobarometer survey did not find that 77% of EU consumers "would rather repair their goods than buy new ones, it found that 77% make an effort to get broken appliances repaired before buying new ones, EU consumers who said they throw things away as it is difficult or too expensive to get them repaired was 39%.

In this case it seems like the EU is trying to meddle in something that's working fairly well already.

If they make an effort to repair the item then it's pretty clear that they'd rather have the item repaired instead of buying new

This will also be seen by americans as a european attack on american business.

Which it is, and rightly so.

Xlucine
Doesn't have to be a mandatory scheme to provide what you'd like - if you need some easy way to differentiate between thin&light&glued and stuff that can be fixed, then the manufacturers of the stuff that can be fixed would be expected to sign up to the label showing how repairable it was while the thin&glued stuff wouldn't bother. Whether anyone buying a phone these days gets a chance to look at the box before they buy it is another matter, of course.

While I see what you mean, that relies on ALL manufacturers of repairable phones lebelling them in order to negatively infer the status of those that don't. Far better IMHO, to simply require ALL manufacturers to adequately label product.

Tnere is nothing wrong, IMHO, with either design choice. The issue, IMHO, is to properly inform consumers, allowing them to exercise genuinely informed choice.

It's a bit like requiring country of origin on products, and/or foodstuffs. There are countries I would not buy certain products from, under any circumstances. There are others I avoid, unless no suitable alternative exists. There are yet others I would pick as a preference. But doing so requires the information to inform myself.

Xlucine
If they make an effort to repair the item then it's pretty clear that they'd rather have the item repaired instead of buying new

Isn't that what i said. :confused:

Maybe it's just me but this…

The article
The survey found that 77 per cent of EU consumers “would rather repair their goods than buy new ones, but ultimately have to replace or discard them because they are discouraged by the cost of repairs and the level of service provided”.

Reads as if 77 per cent of EU consumers want to repair their goods but can't.