Without trying to defend this particular carve-out, I would suggest that things like computers and video game consoles are improving in capability over a much faster time scale than TVs and video cameras. Hence there is much less of an expectation of longevity / relevance than with other tech goods.
That said, the same argument could be made for mobile phones as well, so it's clearly spurious.
>Hence there is much less of an expectation of longevity / relevance than with other tech goods.
These kinds of arguments are hollow. Especially in gaming, if you make a good console with good games, people will want to hang on to them and play them for literally decades. But even ignoring that specific aspect of gaming culture, it really should not be up to some top-down, self-serving analysis about what most consumers should expect. Otherwise it's just a race to making the least consumer-friendly product so you can make legal/political arguments about consumers obviously want to buy expensive garbage which they expect to break beyond repair in a few years at best.
That argument made sense 10 years ago, but since then we've seen a lot of slowdown in computers, consoles and mobile phone progress, while TVs have overcome the LCD slump.
The value difference between 10 year old console (PS4!) and new one, can be smaller than 10 year old LCD vs new OLED.
> > Without trying to defend this particular carve-out, I would suggest that things like computers and video game consoles are improving in capability over a much faster time scale than TVs and video cameras. Hence there is much less of an expectation of longevity / relevance than with other tech goods.
I disagree with your point, but I'll reply to this one:
> That argument made sense 10 years ago, but since then we've seen a lot of slowdown in computers, consoles and mobile phone progress
That argument doesn't made even less sense 10 years ago in my opinion. When things are moving fastest (eg, most profitable) is when parts must be made available for consumers to repair themselves. When things are moving slower, then the IP/schematics should absolutely be provided if nobody is willing to make the parts.
This is absolutely true when you look at hardware from today vs 10 years ago, then do the same comparison between the 90s and 80s or even 00s and 90s. People are playing basically the same manner of game now and 10 years ago, but between the 80s and 90s there was radical change in technology in a way that shaped the development of entirely new video game genres. Video game development since about the early to mid 00s has been mostly a matter of refinement, very little has been truly revolutionary.
It makes less sense. Video game consoles typically run 5-10 year cycles. If anything, supporting repair on them should be easier, because you can play the same games on the console at very first release as you can on the console sold right before they discontinue them. PCs and phones get updates yearly, and a 10 year old PC certainly can't play the same games as a brand new one.
InSteady|2 years ago
These kinds of arguments are hollow. Especially in gaming, if you make a good console with good games, people will want to hang on to them and play them for literally decades. But even ignoring that specific aspect of gaming culture, it really should not be up to some top-down, self-serving analysis about what most consumers should expect. Otherwise it's just a race to making the least consumer-friendly product so you can make legal/political arguments about consumers obviously want to buy expensive garbage which they expect to break beyond repair in a few years at best.
KptMarchewa|2 years ago
The value difference between 10 year old console (PS4!) and new one, can be smaller than 10 year old LCD vs new OLED.
inetknght|2 years ago
I disagree with your point, but I'll reply to this one:
> That argument made sense 10 years ago, but since then we've seen a lot of slowdown in computers, consoles and mobile phone progress
That argument doesn't made even less sense 10 years ago in my opinion. When things are moving fastest (eg, most profitable) is when parts must be made available for consumers to repair themselves. When things are moving slower, then the IP/schematics should absolutely be provided if nobody is willing to make the parts.
mcpackieh|2 years ago
Kirby64|2 years ago