[TimTheTinker]

Goods and services are always (and will always be) separate for those at the top of the economic food chain. Why should it be different for those who are less privileged? Looks like a likely avenue for exploiting or at least taking control/power/freedom from other people.

Don’t count on service quality laws to make up the disparity caused by losing the right to full ownership of one’s property.

[amelius]

> Goods and services are always (and will always be) separate for those at the top of the economic food chain. Why should it be different for those who are less privileged? Looks like a likely avenue for exploiting or at least taking control/power/freedom from other people.

Can you come up with a concrete scenario?

> Don’t count on service quality laws to make up the disparity caused by losing the right to full ownership of one’s property.

Yeah, but now we're fighting for the "right to repair". And we need to fight for the "right of a clean environment". And a "right of no planned obsolescence". Seems much more complicated to me than just getting the incentives right in the first place.

[BartSaM]

I am afraid this solution could kill second-hand market with "service providers" not happy to dispose of old products to keep the prices high.

Would iPhone allow the second-hand market for their phones? Not likely, thus keeping a huge part of the less fortunate population out of the possibility to get hands-on premium products.

Your model could be an addition to the current service model, not a replacement.

[TimTheTinker]

> Can you come up with a concrete scenario?

The current events cited in the article serve as examples.

There aren’t a lot of universal human “rights” that are self-evident in the context of common law, but the few that are ought to be held as absolutely sacred and inalienable. Property ownership is one of them.