Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc.
There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
I'm not sure about it either, but I think the cost increase would be at least partially eaten by savings of companies developing further the more durability/repair-friendly business models.
> This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition.
I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.
At the time of purchase there is not much the consumer can know about how long devices will last. The 50% more expensive option may last 50% longer, twice as long or half as long as the cheaper model.
Manufacturers might signal a bit with extended warranties, but there is no need to be a correlation to longevity. They might just decide to take the occasional hit and write it off on their margins.
It can often be a hassle to make use of a warranty, and when they are manufacturer specific it can be hard to get help from consumers protection agencies also.
Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc.
There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.