I believe the point was they are offering the reduced price as-is. What they aren't offering is a higher priced variant where have you have the right to repair.
Right, but they're never going to sell the "you will own everything and we will be pissed" version of the tractor. Because the value to the consumer for being able to repair what they own is less than the control premium that companies are willing to pay in order to lock people into branded repair. Furthermore, providing you the actual repairability often requires re-engineering the product to support it. Like, I don't think most people would pay just to have, say, Apple get rid of the iPhone's Face ID lock and nothing else. They want an actually repairable phone.
A similar problem happens with advertising. Theoretically I should be able to pay for first-party ad block from every site and social platform I visit. In practice the value that a larger ad inventory commands is always greater than the small fractions of people who would pay X/mo for an ad-free version of that service, minus however much it costs to maintain the ad-free option. Why serve a niche that cuts into your bottom line?
The few exceptions to the above that I can think of largely prove the rule:
* Framework and Fairphone are able to market repairable phones and laptops. In this case, they aren't actually charging a repairability premium over an existing product, they're just selling into higher-end markets. Repairability is built into both the product and the pricing in ways that aren't separable - you wouldn't be able to sell a cheaper Framework that isn't repairable.
* YouTube sells ad-free access, but this is mainly because online video ad revenue has cratered badly. Advertising is a moat that keeps YouTube out of profitability, not in it.
* Twitter tries to sell ad-free, except it's "less ads", and mostly exists because Elon desperately needs to justify how much money he spent on buying the crack factory he was addicted to.
Whether or not repairability commands a premium or having everything locked down comes with a discount is immaterial. Consumers are not in a position to actually realize said discount or pay said premium. Because it's not a matter of consumer choice. It's a matter of control. We (the MBAs) put shit in the product you were going to buy anyway, and it isn't immediately causing you to run to the hills, so we win.
kmeisthax|2 years ago
A similar problem happens with advertising. Theoretically I should be able to pay for first-party ad block from every site and social platform I visit. In practice the value that a larger ad inventory commands is always greater than the small fractions of people who would pay X/mo for an ad-free version of that service, minus however much it costs to maintain the ad-free option. Why serve a niche that cuts into your bottom line?
The few exceptions to the above that I can think of largely prove the rule:
* Framework and Fairphone are able to market repairable phones and laptops. In this case, they aren't actually charging a repairability premium over an existing product, they're just selling into higher-end markets. Repairability is built into both the product and the pricing in ways that aren't separable - you wouldn't be able to sell a cheaper Framework that isn't repairable.
* YouTube sells ad-free access, but this is mainly because online video ad revenue has cratered badly. Advertising is a moat that keeps YouTube out of profitability, not in it.
* Twitter tries to sell ad-free, except it's "less ads", and mostly exists because Elon desperately needs to justify how much money he spent on buying the crack factory he was addicted to.
Whether or not repairability commands a premium or having everything locked down comes with a discount is immaterial. Consumers are not in a position to actually realize said discount or pay said premium. Because it's not a matter of consumer choice. It's a matter of control. We (the MBAs) put shit in the product you were going to buy anyway, and it isn't immediately causing you to run to the hills, so we win.