> Now an old fashioned light bulb shouldn't be expected to last a decade, but an oven?
Funnily enough, there actually was the Phoebus cartel [1] which sought to reduce the lifespan of incandescent light bulbs to around 1,000 hours and raise prices.
I recall reading a quasi-debunking of this. I didn't go down the rabbit hole far enough to understand all the details, but it seems the situation was more complicated than just corporate greed. [1]
The topic has been discussed here in the past a few times, including [2] and [3]
I'm convinced this happened recently with LED bulbs as well, even though I've found no definitive proof. The LEDs I installed in my house 10-12 years ago are still going strong, but every newer one I've purchased gives up the ghost within a couple of years. And I only purchase brands with a good reputation, like Feit and the like.
- Incandescent bulbs had to balance factors like light output, efficiency, and lifespan - hotter filaments produced brighter, whiter light but reduced bulb lifespan.
- Longer-lasting bulbs were less efficient and produced dimmer, yellower light, so they were not simply "better" products being suppressed.
- The 1,000 hour target was a reasonable compromise that balanced these competing priorities, not necessarily a sinister plot.
- Even after the Phoebus cartel dissolved, the 1,000 hour lifespan remained the industry standard for general-purpose incandescent bulbs.
We've got a similar thing in New Zealand: the Consumer Guarantees Act.
The people who sold the broken thing to you can either fix it, replace it, or refund you the cost of it. The decision is unfortunately up to them, so they sadly often replace things rather than fixing them.
Consumer NZ is usually used as the independent source for expected product lifetimes: https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/appliance-life-expectan.... Interestingly, they specify 15 years for an oven, which is more than the company in this article claimed electric ovens should last for.
15 years seems darn short for an oven. The (electric) one I have now is from the late 1960's, and perfectly functional. At church, our (gas) kitchen oven is about a century old - and the last service man we had said that it should be good for another century, if we're careful not to let it rust out.
I bought a cool wifi, internet connected picture frame from a thrift store. It had someone else's pictures on it, so I went into the menu and selected "Factory Reset"
After that it never booted past the setup pages with a "unable to get token" message. I messaged the company who was very responsive but the end result was that they said it was unfixable and to return it to the store.
It was only $8, but I was looking forward to a wifi connected picture frame.
At a certain point we have to stop describing these situations as you "owning" something which broke, and instead describe it as you leasing the picture frame from that company for $0 (with an initial upfront cost) and the company failing to holdup on it's side of the deal.
MHBKD recently made a video on Apple testing lab [1], and one thing he talked about and that was kinda new to me is seeing repairability as a spectrum. I.e. on one side is "indestructible" product and on the other is "perfectly repairable". And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive.
In a hindsight it seems obvious, still this video was the first time I've heard this verbalized so clearly.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the video (I'm in a quiet place right now.)
> And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive.
I disagree on a fundamental level.
You could say such a thing when talking about really small (micro/miniature) devices. But as size increases, the validity of such arguments rapidly goes down. A phone case/bumper for example - makes the device larger, yes - but increases strength while not hurting reparability.
The "problem", imo, is two-fold:
1. Apple does not care too much about making repairs easy. If it costs $100 to make a board they can charge a customer $500 to repair, or $800 for a new phone, it's easy for them.
2. (Some) people prefer sleeker designs. Samsung has its active range of phones, CAT makes durable phones - but many prefer a smaller thickness/bezel etc. This means that when tech improves to make smaller bezels, manufacturers decrease the bezel a little and add protective padding a little... haha no. It's only bezel reduction. Because it sell, I suppose.
For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech.
The real "killer" argument? The presence of companies like Framework. I'm typing this out on my FW13 & its build quality is really good. Perhaps a 10 year old thinkpad may be similar or better, but this is almost certainly thinner. But it is almost definitely more repairable.
It's possible, but requires companies to offer products, and people to use and buy them.
In France, the "Repairability Index" was mandatory since 2021 [1, in French], and will be superseded by the "Durability Index" starting on 2025 [2, in French]
I have a Rainforest Automation Eagle 200 radio box that pairs with a PG&E meter to enable real time data egress. The onboard software is brittle and the device fails to boot up completely, though it is responsive to local network requests.
Rainforest Automation is uninterested in debugging it and is offering only a discount on replacement hardware. But this is likely a software problem (I suspect failed certificate rotation to connect to their backend) and I don't want to give them more money.
I live in California and the right to repair goes live next month. Anybody know how I can use that right to actually get a repair?
I would presume it's not retroactive, and would only apply to devices sold after the law went into effect. And perhaps only even devices manufactured before then.
I've got a friend who claims to have sued dozens of companies in the equivalent in the UK; he called it "Small Claims Court", but perhaps it has a more specific technical name. Here's an example:
I don't think the courts really matter, what does matter are the legal guarantees. In the EU it is an explicit two years, so I think a situation like this, where a 9 year old appliances is being repaired under threat of legal action, simply won't arise as the customer has no legal basis for his claim.
I don't know about Sweden particularly but in Norway "Forbrukerkjøpsloven" [0] gives you up to a 5 year warranty on any items which are obviously meant to last for at least that long. For instance, shoes have a two years warranty, but a laptop or most kitchen appliances have an automatic 5 year warranty which cannot be waived.
I'm not that knowledgeable about all the details here, but I've done it once for a PSU which stopped working after four years.
I don't think it's actually what you meant to ask (I think you are actually interested in legally mandated warranties rather than the courts where they're enforced) but I think most countries have something equivalent to "small claims court" to make low-stakes suits viable.
I have successfully used exactly the same technique of "get a court date, wait for your opponent to contact you and resolve the issue, cancel the court date" in the past to challenge an illegal rent increase in Switzerland. The court for that here is called the Schlichtungsbehörde.
In the EU there are 2 years warranty for pretty much anything (not services), so the reverse bathtub descent is bit more than that.
As for courts - there is a customer protection commission/service in most (all) EU member states. However, they won't do anything if the item is out of legal claim for 'free' (any) repairs.
My personal issue is not the warranty/courts, though. While I can repair all kinds of stuff (from laptops board repair to gas lawn mowers), the fact you get a piece of junk that serves no purpose until repaired, is damning. A story may make a decent material for a blog post, but in real life you generally don't have luxury to pursue a slow process for repair/replacement, if it's an important piece of equipment.
It's kinda same here in Thailand; with much more bureaucrat issue though.
Although we didn't explicitly have a consumer court, we have a court department in both municipal and Provincial Courts. (ศาลจังหวัด/ศาลแขวง... แผนกคดีผู้บริโภค)
People can file a complaint themselves both in-person or via e-Filing system. Although very tedious to do so, at least in my opinion, it still workable.
Same as the blog's author, any plaintiff I've help with, need some patient and times on both evidence collecting and consulting with the court's appointed lawyer to draft the complaint. But, for the case against big company at least, it mostly worked out for them.
Check Swedish law; there are no EU-wide laws like the Australian one, but some member states di have extra laws similar to the Australian one. I don't know about Sweden specifically.
Similar law in the UK. There is also trading standards who can sometimes help but the small claims court is fairly straight forward. On top of that if you pay with a credit card or any other form of credit specific to that purchase (e.g. a car loan) you also have a claim against the credit provider.
Don't usually need to even go to court anymore as there is a mediation step offered before court. I did this to get a refund for a smartphone that stopped working after a couple of years.
This is the way. You just need to be patient. Threatening to file a case with the consumer court (India) often gets a better response from big businesses. Though, I am surprised why you are allowed to sue the retailer here (unless they were selling the product under their own brand name)?
Many countries place the regulatory burden on the importer/retailer of products to make enforcement easier.
It can be difficult to directly sue a foreign manufacturer but importers and retailers tend to have domestic legal entities that can be compelled to attend court appearances etc.
Works the same in the UK. It makes sense that the retailer is responsible for ensuring goods they sell are fit for purpose, especially when many of these laws predate online shopping. Also it would be difficult to sue a manufacturer who isn't in your country.
There are three companies involved (maybe more): The retailer, with which you have a contract, the importer and/or distributor, with which you don't, and the manufacturer, which is in another jurisdiction. Given that the manufacturer is usually somewhere abroad, which company will the legislature pick? There are two options, so I'd be shocked if the lawyers agreed on which option is better to write into the law.
Sadly, the US doesn't seem to have particularly great consumer guarantees - you just have to rely on warranties given as an extra marketing point by a company.
In more developed countries like Australia, NZ, and the UK, warranties last less time than the guarantee offered by consumer law and only exist to try and confuse consumers into not asking for repairs after the warranty expires (but not necessarily the consumer law guarantee)
From my understanding, small claims court in the US can be particularly effective because sending a company representative there costs more than just refunding the product.
However, I suspect that if something breaks out of warranty, you don't have a legal right to get it replaced/repaired.
I predict that this is going to get more and more common: Companies enshittify their service, hiding behind impenetrable walls of AI chatbots and useless outsourced template-reply service centers, customers respond by taking one attempt to resolve it with the company and then straight to court.
If you have a working small claims court system, I can recommend giving it a try. It can be way less frustrating than trying to deal with a company that just doesn't want to.
They're rolling out the arbitration clauses like mad recently though. There was an HN post a few years ago about going to arbitration and winning, so it's not a complete lost cause but I guess the damages would be less.
TFA describes Electrolux as a mid-range manufacturer. I guess that's about right; their products aren't cheap "break-on-day2" crap, but they're not up there with Miele and Bosch.
Electrolux is a Swedish company that has quietly bought-up most of the European brands, like Hotpoint and AEG. When you buy one of those brands, you are buying the Electrolux standard of service. The service engineers are a third-party. Last time I looked, there was no contact information on the Electrolux website. And TBH, I think it must be at least a decade since I saw Electrolux-branded products in stores.
I think Electrolux' business is like those cheapo Chinese companies that buy up good bicycle brands, and then drastically downgrade the product. So be careful if you're buying white goods in Europe: you could be buying Electrolux in mufti.
I have a similar situation right now. Washing machine is leaking when load is anything bigger than light load. Initial guarantee claim to Whirlpool was sent 8 weeks ago. It's dead, no response from anyone.
Under consumer rights shop should refund, but claim is without response for 3 weeks (14 calendar days is upper limit according to EU law + local regulations).
Today I was supposed to contact the lawyer, but I figured out that f** this s**. It's weeks of legal battle over 300€. They won. Stress enough isn't worth it.
Oven is a different thing though, as I don't think it's as essential as washing machine (and dragging clothes every week for washing).
Maybe I should file a claim to refund after it was made, but it's still a net loss. Lesson learned: stay away from manufacturer Whirlpool, don't ever spend a dime on a shop and live on.
We are not alike. As soon as it costs them several tens of billable hours (people on phone, someone making appointments, discussions, emails, lawyer doing it's thing etc) I'm all fair game and will definitely spend my time screwing with them simply to make them pay even if I lose in the end.
Since I'm going to be frustrated when I'm being screwed over I see no reason not repay that and to act out that frustration in the worst possible way I can manage for the companies involved.
That’s the same situation with the appliance but not with the law, because you have to use a lawyer.
Under New Zealand and Australian consumer law (the laws are different but similar) we have access to a low-cost tribunal. In fact in New Zealand you’re not allowed to be represented by a lawyer - on either side. It’s a single hearing with immediate resolution. Appeals and re-hearings are very limited and pretty rare.
I’ve used it twice. Both times the vendor magically found the warranty to be valid and fixed the issue before the tribunal date arrived. You don’t get a refund on the filing fee, but on most home appliances it’d be NZ$45, or about €25.
It depends a lot of how much expensive is the court on your jurisdiction. If you live in a place with some kind of small claims court, where you don't need to hire a lawyer, yes. If not, your only hope is by pooling with other victims in a class action, in the jurisdiction where this exists.
Those companies hire a lot of lawyers, have extensive data on customer behavior, court costs and generally know that most people don't have the time and/or the money to sue, and will find that it is more economical for them to just forget the matter and buy a brand new item.
In the U.S. you can usually file a complaint with the state's Attorney General's office. Sometimes there is a regulatory authority like for utilities or the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Usually a complaint gets forwarded to the company which requires some sort of authoritative response (which wastes time and money) so you can have reasonable success there.
Same issue as the article explains, it still takes a lot of time on the consumer side (who wants to be without an oven 2 months while they file paperwork and wait)
I think there is a way to resolve this sort of thing. If there are a certain number of tribunal appointments for the same type of issue, it becomes a criminal case for the CEO.
> NSW (and I think all the other states) has a tribunal especially for consumer claims, what used to be the "small claims court" is now the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, NCAT. It's specifically designed to be low cost and straightforward. You shouldn't need a lawyer and can turn up with your documents.
I’ve never actually used small claims court in the US. Curious if those who have can answer if it’s a similar experience?
If you're in the US, this method isn't directly available to you (though small claims court is and can work), but most (all?) states have a procedure to complain to the attorney general's office. I've found that companies are willing to play ball when they get a letter on the AG's letterhead.
Did the same years ago in the UK with an iPod. Was like a week out of the warranty, I tried to argue it was a premium device - nope, denied.
Did a claim with MCOL, they waited until the day of the hearing to pony up what I was claiming for, with interest. In the UK the individual gets to choose the venue with MCOL, so they'd have had to send a lawyer to Cheltenham to contest it.
That system fails unprivileged people though. Even if the "privilege" is "a number of Twitter followers".
That's probably why a tradition of more formal courts arose. But they probably worked better when they operated at a communal scale.
Think: "walk down the road to the courtroom on the second Wednesday of the month and wait your turn" and if you win, you get to boast about it at the pub for a few weeks: "can you believe ol' Jon thought he could pull the wool over my eyes?! Ha! Shame on him! He had to pay me for two days labor, the bastard!"
I wonder how we bring some of that convenience and public shaming back?
My sense is that there's not enough personal accountability because the courts and companies are too big for "ol' Jon" to held to account.
What types are harm can go their US Small Claims court? For example, does it have to be a monetary loss or can you sue to address recurring issues or force an exit of contract (w/o penalty)?
I have had succes with that approach as well. Don't expect the CEO to answer of course but whoever gets tasked with it is usually still much better positioned to get your issue resolved than a call center drone.
The EU gets a lot of heat for many things (and rightfully so), but this is an area where it is actually doing wonders in favor of consumers.
Here is the directive adopted by the EU Council to promote the repair of broken or defective goods, also known as the right-to-repair (or R2R) directive:
"The directive adopted today enshrines a new right for consumers: the right to have defective products repaired in an easier, cheaper and faster way. It also gives manufacturers the incentive to make products that last longer and can be repaired, reused and recycled."
The US, the UE and China have wildly different approaches to many important topics, and the fact they are all affecting the entire world has the tendency to break political stale matches and balance things out.
It shows that diversity is a good thing, you end up having to compromise no matter how rightful you feel.
Meta don’t, for instance. They sell their quest headsets throughout Europe, but offer no warranty or support in many European countries in which they sell them, which is illegal under the EU CRD.
I foolishly bought one, knowing the risk - and it stopped working after a week, and that’s the end of the story - they refused to do a return or exchange, said I could ship it at my own expense, which I tried, only for them to “lose” the inbound package. They received it from the courier, mislaid it - my problem. They then kindly offered to ship a replacement controller at my expense (€150), but only to a different country, not to where I live. They then “lost” that too, forcing me to do a chargeback to get my money back, as despite having no proof of delivery to me, they insisted it had been.
As to “take them to court” - they know damned well that it’s not worth it to spend €10,000+ on legal fees over a €500 piece of electronics, which is why they knowingly and willingly act illegally.
The EU needs a simple, pan-European way to deal with bad actors, or it’s just meaningless legislation that provides no protection to consumers.
This article is actually about implicit warranty rather than right to repair, which the EU also has (my memory is at least 2 years, but I don't know if it's higher for different categories of things like in NSW).
I mean, litigation is fine and all, but what you can do will vary by jurisdiction.
In the past 14 months I've had to deal with two misbehaving insurance companies, one misbehaving utility provider (overcharging), and a few other things as well that I don't really want to talk about here.
I did not get to the point of actually having to take legal action but I did have to threaten it in two cases, along with action from the relevant ombudsmen.
Nothing like this, or on this scale, has ever happened to me before (once, about thirty years ago, I had to threaten a company with small claims for unpaid wages, but that's it).
There are, to an extent, processes you have to follow before you can get to the point where you are within your rights to threaten to throw the legal book at companies. You usually have to have gone through their complaints procedures and got to what you consider an unsatisfactory result. This in itself can take weeks or months of emailing back and forth, phone calls, etc. You gradually escalate your approach, you cover the internet in bad reviews, you contact your local MP and the local media, and so it goes on.
Its an exhausting and kafkaesque shitshow and this is with the backing of authorities, such as ombudsmen, who operate with the backing of legislation.
I understand why you have to do it: because some consumers are vexatious and dishonest. But it takes too long (elapsed) and it takes far too much time (effort) that could be better spent with family and friends (as an example).
I am currently gearing myself up to deal with the other insurance company, who I haven't so far had to threaten with legal action, and file a police complaint due to some new information that's come to light that shows our insurers, and the advice they gave us, in a very bad light.
Honestly, I don't know if I can be bothered any more. Taking the actions that I have, well, I wouldn't say they've left us better off, but they've left us much less worse off, because we haven't been taken for mugs... but the cost to my sanity and my soul. I don't know if the juice has always been worth the squeeze.
And that, of course, is what these companies bank on: that you'll get tired of it all and stop bothering them. It's extremely scummy behaviour, and frustrates me that I have to get to the point of threatening them with legal action just to get them to do the right thing. I strongly resent being forced to act like an asshole just to get a fair outcome.
I welcome any legislation that helps consumers get to a fair outcome more easily, but I also suggest that we need to look at the question of the obfuscatory tactics companies use to force consumers to jump through ridiculous hoops first.
From the article, the parent company themselves clearly say 13 years for ovens.
To quote from that article on the parent company's website:
According to the American National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) - who
helpfully released research called the Study of Life Expectancy of Home Components
- the contemporary average lifespans are as follows:
• Fridges - 13 years
• Dishwashers - 9 years
• Electric ovens - 13 years
• Gas stoves - 15 years
• Microwaves - 9 years
• Dryers - 13 years
Which is entirely irrelevant in Australia as the consumer law is based on expectations and the value of the item.
If I buy an expensive fridge and it fails in 5 years due to a faulty component, then that is up to the retailer and manufacturer to sort out between themselves as to who wears the cost of replacement or repair.
Considering an oven is essentially just a control panel, a fan or two, some sensors and a heating element, there's no reason why these shouldn't last for decades.
As long as no exotic or custom components are used they should be easy to find parts and repair too
> Hilariously the retailer's parent company, has a blog post that gives explicit ranges for different appliances. Electric ovens should last 13 years according to them.
Absolutely blows my mind how many people have fallen into the trap that is "SMART" devices and "POWER EFFICIENT" appliances. Only to find out just after the warranty runs out that they ultimately invested in a hawt piece of trash. There is no pride in manufactured goods anymore, imho there's not much pride in anything nowadays. Not surprising when a burger engineer at McDonald's makes more money than even an entry level machinist.
> Absolutely blows my mind how many people have fallen into the trap that is "SMART" devices and "POWER EFFICIENT" appliances. Only to find out just after the warranty runs out that they ultimately invested in a hawt piece of trash
Those two/three things are entirely unrelated.
Power efficient appliances are a must in most countries not powered by low-carbon energy (so in the EU, that basically leaves everyone outside of France and the Nordics), and a good to have for those that are. Quality of those appliances is entirely unrelated to their power efficiency.
Smart appliances are on a spectrum. Some are useless, some are practical. Again, their quality is entirely unrelated to their smartness. Their smartness can be optional, non-blocking and using open protocols; or it can be mandatory, cloud-only so that when the cloud service gets retired to save money the appliance is useless. As an example, my LG washing machine/dryer combo can connect to my Wi-Fi network to be able to send me notifications when it's done, to load custom programmes, to remind me I need to do a wash cycle of the machine itself. Those are useful features, entirely optional, and the machine won't stop working if it can't connect to the Wi-Fi.
Oral B sell a variety of Electric toothbrushes, dependent on the built in Li ion battery.
Some of them hook up to a mobile phone by bluetooth to track how you brush. The thing is once the battery dies the £150 toothbrush is useless, it's' sealed so replacing the battery isn't trivial.
I think in the battery may last a fair bit longer now.
Electric tooth brushes are quite an improvement over a normal tooth brush.
Consumers voted for this a long time ago, people want cheap s*t. There are manufacturers that do take pride and their products can last a lifetime if not easily repairable. Guess what, nobody actually wants it. (except the HN crowd aparently).
r4indeer|1 year ago
Funnily enough, there actually was the Phoebus cartel [1] which sought to reduce the lifespan of incandescent light bulbs to around 1,000 hours and raise prices.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
gnicholas|1 year ago
The topic has been discussed here in the past a few times, including [2] and [3]
1: https://readmedium.com/en/the-phoebus-cartel-was-never-reall...
2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21596792
3: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17606748
stronglikedan|1 year ago
Youden|1 year ago
Key points from an AI summary:
- Incandescent bulbs had to balance factors like light output, efficiency, and lifespan - hotter filaments produced brighter, whiter light but reduced bulb lifespan.
- Longer-lasting bulbs were less efficient and produced dimmer, yellower light, so they were not simply "better" products being suppressed.
- The 1,000 hour target was a reasonable compromise that balanced these competing priorities, not necessarily a sinister plot.
- Even after the Phoebus cartel dissolved, the 1,000 hour lifespan remained the industry standard for general-purpose incandescent bulbs.
notoverthere|1 year ago
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light
Dylan16807|1 year ago
afiori|1 year ago
The 1000 hours limit is in practice a lower bound to a combination of luminosity and efficiency
mratsim|1 year ago
http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
tiberious726|1 year ago
I know this is a common pop-history thing to cite on the Internet, but I would think hackernews would understand the benefits of standardization.
If every brand's lightbulb has different luminousities how on earth would architects decide how to space fixtures?
This "cartel" is how we avoided a dimness war, like the loudness war we had in digital music a decade or so back
promiseofbeans|1 year ago
Consumer NZ is usually used as the independent source for expected product lifetimes: https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/appliance-life-expectan.... Interestingly, they specify 15 years for an oven, which is more than the company in this article claimed electric ovens should last for.
bell-cot|1 year ago
lostlogin|1 year ago
No, I wouldn’t like the extended warranty thanks - I’m covered already.
Ylpertnodi|1 year ago
jvm___|1 year ago
After that it never booted past the setup pages with a "unable to get token" message. I messaged the company who was very responsive but the end result was that they said it was unfixable and to return it to the store.
It was only $8, but I was looking forward to a wifi connected picture frame.
beezlebroxxxxxx|1 year ago
divan|1 year ago
In a hindsight it seems obvious, still this video was the first time I've heard this verbalized so clearly.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8reaJG7z-is
user_7832|1 year ago
> And that those properties (being hard to damage/destruct and being easy to repair) might be mutually exclusive.
I disagree on a fundamental level.
You could say such a thing when talking about really small (micro/miniature) devices. But as size increases, the validity of such arguments rapidly goes down. A phone case/bumper for example - makes the device larger, yes - but increases strength while not hurting reparability.
The "problem", imo, is two-fold: 1. Apple does not care too much about making repairs easy. If it costs $100 to make a board they can charge a customer $500 to repair, or $800 for a new phone, it's easy for them.
2. (Some) people prefer sleeker designs. Samsung has its active range of phones, CAT makes durable phones - but many prefer a smaller thickness/bezel etc. This means that when tech improves to make smaller bezels, manufacturers decrease the bezel a little and add protective padding a little... haha no. It's only bezel reduction. Because it sell, I suppose.
For example gorilla glass/protective glass has improved in technology, but thinner screens (for thinner devices) have eaten up the benefits of stronger tech.
The real "killer" argument? The presence of companies like Framework. I'm typing this out on my FW13 & its build quality is really good. Perhaps a 10 year old thinkpad may be similar or better, but this is almost certainly thinner. But it is almost definitely more repairable.
It's possible, but requires companies to offer products, and people to use and buy them.
Rygian|1 year ago
[1] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-reparabilite [2] https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/indice-durabilite
eemil|1 year ago
Plenty of devices are indestructible and repairable, they're just bulky.
zbrozek|1 year ago
Rainforest Automation is uninterested in debugging it and is offering only a discount on replacement hardware. But this is likely a software problem (I suspect failed certificate rotation to connect to their backend) and I don't want to give them more money.
I live in California and the right to repair goes live next month. Anybody know how I can use that right to actually get a repair?
stronglikedan|1 year ago
prmoustache|1 year ago
FOREVER. Just design them so parts are replaceable and buildable by any third party and provide the documentation.
Tistron|1 year ago
For me, it's the most interesting with EU/Sweden. We don't have courts like this do we?
gwd|1 year ago
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-syste...
constantcrying|1 year ago
deugtniet|1 year ago
https://e-justice.europa.eu/42/EN/small_claims?SWEDEN&member...
This link also contains a reference for all other EU member states
dotandgtfo|1 year ago
I'm not that knowledgeable about all the details here, but I've done it once for a PSU which stopped working after four years.
[0] https://www.forbrukerradet.no/cause-for-complaint/
bjackman|1 year ago
I have successfully used exactly the same technique of "get a court date, wait for your opponent to contact you and resolve the issue, cancel the court date" in the past to challenge an illegal rent increase in Switzerland. The court for that here is called the Schlichtungsbehörde.
xxs|1 year ago
As for courts - there is a customer protection commission/service in most (all) EU member states. However, they won't do anything if the item is out of legal claim for 'free' (any) repairs.
My personal issue is not the warranty/courts, though. While I can repair all kinds of stuff (from laptops board repair to gas lawn mowers), the fact you get a piece of junk that serves no purpose until repaired, is damning. A story may make a decent material for a blog post, but in real life you generally don't have luxury to pursue a slow process for repair/replacement, if it's an important piece of equipment.
itpcc|1 year ago
Although we didn't explicitly have a consumer court, we have a court department in both municipal and Provincial Courts. (ศาลจังหวัด/ศาลแขวง... แผนกคดีผู้บริโภค)
People can file a complaint themselves both in-person or via e-Filing system. Although very tedious to do so, at least in my opinion, it still workable.
Same as the blog's author, any plaintiff I've help with, need some patient and times on both evidence collecting and consulting with the court's appointed lawyer to draft the complaint. But, for the case against big company at least, it mostly worked out for them.
BoredPositron|1 year ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_small_claims_proced...
arp242|1 year ago
RobotToaster|1 year ago
2rsf|1 year ago
graemep|1 year ago
aembleton|1 year ago
thisislife2|1 year ago
spacebanana7|1 year ago
It can be difficult to directly sue a foreign manufacturer but importers and retailers tend to have domestic legal entities that can be compelled to attend court appearances etc.
RobotToaster|1 year ago
davidgerard|1 year ago
Arnt|1 year ago
https://toroid.org/exide-warranty-nightmare is an Indian story you might like BTW.
sneak|1 year ago
Tell your friends and family.
theodric|1 year ago
23B1|1 year ago
promiseofbeans|1 year ago
In more developed countries like Australia, NZ, and the UK, warranties last less time than the guarantee offered by consumer law and only exist to try and confuse consumers into not asking for repairs after the warranty expires (but not necessarily the consumer law guarantee)
criddell|1 year ago
Here’s one, but there are others as well: https://www.shuchow.com/so-i-took-a-huge-corporation-to-arbi...
tgsovlerkhgsel|1 year ago
However, I suspect that if something breaks out of warranty, you don't have a legal right to get it replaced/repaired.
zamalek|1 year ago
tgsovlerkhgsel|1 year ago
If you have a working small claims court system, I can recommend giving it a try. It can be way less frustrating than trying to deal with a company that just doesn't want to.
gosub100|1 year ago
denton-scratch|1 year ago
Electrolux is a Swedish company that has quietly bought-up most of the European brands, like Hotpoint and AEG. When you buy one of those brands, you are buying the Electrolux standard of service. The service engineers are a third-party. Last time I looked, there was no contact information on the Electrolux website. And TBH, I think it must be at least a decade since I saw Electrolux-branded products in stores.
I think Electrolux' business is like those cheapo Chinese companies that buy up good bicycle brands, and then drastically downgrade the product. So be careful if you're buying white goods in Europe: you could be buying Electrolux in mufti.
xlii|1 year ago
I have a similar situation right now. Washing machine is leaking when load is anything bigger than light load. Initial guarantee claim to Whirlpool was sent 8 weeks ago. It's dead, no response from anyone.
Under consumer rights shop should refund, but claim is without response for 3 weeks (14 calendar days is upper limit according to EU law + local regulations).
Today I was supposed to contact the lawyer, but I figured out that f** this s**. It's weeks of legal battle over 300€. They won. Stress enough isn't worth it.
Oven is a different thing though, as I don't think it's as essential as washing machine (and dragging clothes every week for washing).
Maybe I should file a claim to refund after it was made, but it's still a net loss. Lesson learned: stay away from manufacturer Whirlpool, don't ever spend a dime on a shop and live on.
consp|1 year ago
We are not alike. As soon as it costs them several tens of billable hours (people on phone, someone making appointments, discussions, emails, lawyer doing it's thing etc) I'm all fair game and will definitely spend my time screwing with them simply to make them pay even if I lose in the end.
Since I'm going to be frustrated when I'm being screwed over I see no reason not repay that and to act out that frustration in the worst possible way I can manage for the companies involved.
sitharus|1 year ago
Under New Zealand and Australian consumer law (the laws are different but similar) we have access to a low-cost tribunal. In fact in New Zealand you’re not allowed to be represented by a lawyer - on either side. It’s a single hearing with immediate resolution. Appeals and re-hearings are very limited and pretty rare.
I’ve used it twice. Both times the vendor magically found the warranty to be valid and fixed the issue before the tribunal date arrived. You don’t get a refund on the filing fee, but on most home appliances it’d be NZ$45, or about €25.
elzbardico|1 year ago
Those companies hire a lot of lawyers, have extensive data on customer behavior, court costs and generally know that most people don't have the time and/or the money to sue, and will find that it is more economical for them to just forget the matter and buy a brand new item.
nijave|1 year ago
Usually a complaint gets forwarded to the company which requires some sort of authoritative response (which wastes time and money) so you can have reasonable success there.
Same issue as the article explains, it still takes a lot of time on the consumer side (who wants to be without an oven 2 months while they file paperwork and wait)
ilaksh|1 year ago
dclowd9901|1 year ago
I’ve never actually used small claims court in the US. Curious if those who have can answer if it’s a similar experience?
jackvalentine|1 year ago
threemux|1 year ago
buggeryorkshire|1 year ago
Did a claim with MCOL, they waited until the day of the hearing to pony up what I was claiming for, with interest. In the UK the individual gets to choose the venue with MCOL, so they'd have had to send a lawyer to Cheltenham to contest it.
navigate8310|1 year ago
gabesullice|1 year ago
That system fails unprivileged people though. Even if the "privilege" is "a number of Twitter followers".
That's probably why a tradition of more formal courts arose. But they probably worked better when they operated at a communal scale.
Think: "walk down the road to the courtroom on the second Wednesday of the month and wait your turn" and if you win, you get to boast about it at the pub for a few weeks: "can you believe ol' Jon thought he could pull the wool over my eyes?! Ha! Shame on him! He had to pay me for two days labor, the bastard!"
I wonder how we bring some of that convenience and public shaming back?
My sense is that there's not enough personal accountability because the courts and companies are too big for "ol' Jon" to held to account.
throwaway7ahgb|1 year ago
6510|1 year ago
Ideally everything is shipped back to the manufacturer at the end of the life span. Those dates would also be nice to have.
iandanforth|1 year ago
hug|1 year ago
WarOnPrivacy|1 year ago
al_borland|1 year ago
account42|1 year ago
xattt|1 year ago
greekanalyst|1 year ago
Here is the directive adopted by the EU Council to promote the repair of broken or defective goods, also known as the right-to-repair (or R2R) directive:
"The directive adopted today enshrines a new right for consumers: the right to have defective products repaired in an easier, cheaper and faster way. It also gives manufacturers the incentive to make products that last longer and can be repaired, reused and recycled."
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024...
BiteCode_dev|1 year ago
It shows that diversity is a good thing, you end up having to compromise no matter how rightful you feel.
madaxe_again|1 year ago
Meta don’t, for instance. They sell their quest headsets throughout Europe, but offer no warranty or support in many European countries in which they sell them, which is illegal under the EU CRD.
I foolishly bought one, knowing the risk - and it stopped working after a week, and that’s the end of the story - they refused to do a return or exchange, said I could ship it at my own expense, which I tried, only for them to “lose” the inbound package. They received it from the courier, mislaid it - my problem. They then kindly offered to ship a replacement controller at my expense (€150), but only to a different country, not to where I live. They then “lost” that too, forcing me to do a chargeback to get my money back, as despite having no proof of delivery to me, they insisted it had been.
As to “take them to court” - they know damned well that it’s not worth it to spend €10,000+ on legal fees over a €500 piece of electronics, which is why they knowingly and willingly act illegally.
The EU needs a simple, pan-European way to deal with bad actors, or it’s just meaningless legislation that provides no protection to consumers.
mijoharas|1 year ago
It's also a great consumer friendly regulation!
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
bartread|1 year ago
In the past 14 months I've had to deal with two misbehaving insurance companies, one misbehaving utility provider (overcharging), and a few other things as well that I don't really want to talk about here.
I did not get to the point of actually having to take legal action but I did have to threaten it in two cases, along with action from the relevant ombudsmen.
Nothing like this, or on this scale, has ever happened to me before (once, about thirty years ago, I had to threaten a company with small claims for unpaid wages, but that's it).
There are, to an extent, processes you have to follow before you can get to the point where you are within your rights to threaten to throw the legal book at companies. You usually have to have gone through their complaints procedures and got to what you consider an unsatisfactory result. This in itself can take weeks or months of emailing back and forth, phone calls, etc. You gradually escalate your approach, you cover the internet in bad reviews, you contact your local MP and the local media, and so it goes on.
Its an exhausting and kafkaesque shitshow and this is with the backing of authorities, such as ombudsmen, who operate with the backing of legislation.
I understand why you have to do it: because some consumers are vexatious and dishonest. But it takes too long (elapsed) and it takes far too much time (effort) that could be better spent with family and friends (as an example).
I am currently gearing myself up to deal with the other insurance company, who I haven't so far had to threaten with legal action, and file a police complaint due to some new information that's come to light that shows our insurers, and the advice they gave us, in a very bad light.
Honestly, I don't know if I can be bothered any more. Taking the actions that I have, well, I wouldn't say they've left us better off, but they've left us much less worse off, because we haven't been taken for mugs... but the cost to my sanity and my soul. I don't know if the juice has always been worth the squeeze.
And that, of course, is what these companies bank on: that you'll get tired of it all and stop bothering them. It's extremely scummy behaviour, and frustrates me that I have to get to the point of threatening them with legal action just to get them to do the right thing. I strongly resent being forced to act like an asshole just to get a fair outcome.
I welcome any legislation that helps consumers get to a fair outcome more easily, but I also suggest that we need to look at the question of the obfuscatory tactics companies use to force consumers to jump through ridiculous hoops first.
jopsen|1 year ago
I doubt it'd fly in the EU.
justinclift|1 year ago
To quote from that article on the parent company's website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20240318135242/https://www.winnin...dbetteridge|1 year ago
If I buy an expensive fridge and it fails in 5 years due to a faulty component, then that is up to the retailer and manufacturer to sort out between themselves as to who wears the cost of replacement or repair.
shermozle|1 year ago
xxs|1 year ago
[0]: https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/shopping-internet/spa...
withinboredom|1 year ago
pcl|1 year ago
jack_riminton|1 year ago
As long as no exotic or custom components are used they should be easy to find parts and repair too
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
Terr_|1 year ago
dfxm12|1 year ago
To what end? Annoy the people who are responsible for your predicament. Don't take it out on call center workers.
Terretta|1 year ago
The more time you spend with the call center, the more it costs the parent company. They don't like long calls.
If your call lasts long enough, it will get reviewed by a manager. Your class of complaint will end up on a tally.
Enough of these, and someone does something.
Redneck-Tech|1 year ago
sofixa|1 year ago
Those two/three things are entirely unrelated.
Power efficient appliances are a must in most countries not powered by low-carbon energy (so in the EU, that basically leaves everyone outside of France and the Nordics), and a good to have for those that are. Quality of those appliances is entirely unrelated to their power efficiency.
Smart appliances are on a spectrum. Some are useless, some are practical. Again, their quality is entirely unrelated to their smartness. Their smartness can be optional, non-blocking and using open protocols; or it can be mandatory, cloud-only so that when the cloud service gets retired to save money the appliance is useless. As an example, my LG washing machine/dryer combo can connect to my Wi-Fi network to be able to send me notifications when it's done, to load custom programmes, to remind me I need to do a wash cycle of the machine itself. Those are useful features, entirely optional, and the machine won't stop working if it can't connect to the Wi-Fi.
zeristor|1 year ago
Some of them hook up to a mobile phone by bluetooth to track how you brush. The thing is once the battery dies the £150 toothbrush is useless, it's' sealed so replacing the battery isn't trivial.
I think in the battery may last a fair bit longer now.
Electric tooth brushes are quite an improvement over a normal tooth brush.
throwaway7ahgb|1 year ago
Consumers voted for this a long time ago, people want cheap s*t. There are manufacturers that do take pride and their products can last a lifetime if not easily repairable. Guess what, nobody actually wants it. (except the HN crowd aparently).