logoalt Hacker News

defrostyesterday at 10:40 AM2 repliesview on HN

You might be interested in the vast world of public policy.

There's more to the world than banned / not banned.

In this instance, people might want a sensible pragmatic government to levy against companies that have high numbers of items ending up in eWaste processing (or discarded in fly tipping) and offer reductions to companies that invest in eWaste processing and collection.

There are also legitimate total lifetime cost of item models that suggest clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct might actually be "cheaper" in time, resources, and energy across a large consumer population than a functionally equivalent item designed to be "unbuilt" and rebuilt (ie repaired).


Replies

streetfighter64yesterday at 4:03 PM

Another point regarding your last paragraph, there are actually tons of examples of Apple (and others) making a more complicated (and thus expensive) design sorely to prevent independent repair shops from providing cheap repairs, thus "encouraging" customers to buy a replacement, or use Apple's own "repair", which just replaces entire parts instead of repairing them, and bills enough for Apple's liking.

streetfighter64yesterday at 12:19 PM

> clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct

This seems like a total fantasy. Do you actually have any examples of non-repairability making the process cheaper?

Sure there are lots of economical incentives to making stuff that you use until it breaks and then throw away, but that's just because the cost of e.g. mining metals or taking care of e-waste are externalized, due to using unethical labor in third world countries. If the "large consumer population" of the west actually had to bear the real cost of the electronics they produce, things would be vastly different.