[golergka]

> Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory

I find the situation where the state dictates private companies what to sell much more ludicrous.

To clarify, I don't think that it's a good practice, and it's one of the reasons I don't buy iPhones anymore. But as I would vote against company doing this idiotic thing with my wallet, I would still defend it's legal right to do that idiotic thing.

It's not the government place nor responsibility to solve such trivial problems, especially with products on very competitive markets that are almost a luxury item and in no way a basic neccessity. Consumers can figure it out on their own.

[ssivark]

Well, “copyright” is a government regulation that interferes with a market-driven “free trade” in parts. If the government can stop third-parties from selling replacement/refurbished parts (especially give the doctrine of first-sale, etc), then I don’t see why it cannot equally well demand that Apple sell spare parts at fair rates. Both or nothing makes most sense.

[jethro_tell]

I disagree, the government shouldn't require apple to produce parts, but their ability to sue should also be reduced if they don't produce spare parts.

[jay_kyburz]

I think consumer protections should provide nice long warranty periods that ensure you get what you paid for.

Phones are designed to be held in your hands, and hands occasionally drop things, so phones should be designed to withstand being dropped. You should be able to get a warranty replacement / repair for your phone if you drop it.

We would have stronger phones that last longer, and produce less waste.

[em-bee]

i think the european union now has a warranty period of one or two years on electronics

[Brian_K_White]

Then you agree, not disagree. Both or nothing, the important point was, you can't just have one without the other.

[golergka]

That's taking away somebody's property, justifying it by misuse. Which means that it wasn't really property in full sense of a word in the first place.

[inapis]

Not necessarily. This trivial stuff can blow up into big things for society. This unavailability of spare parts translates into a lot of devices ending up in the landfill. That is an unmitigated environmental disaster. Free markets will not solve this problem without govt intervention.

The economic costs are not the only costs in a capitalist society. The other costs just don’t show up on the paper.

P.S and I’ll argue that smartphones are necessary in today’s world. They are the primary form of computing, communication and fulfilling bureaucratic work for large sections of the population on the planet. In India, you’ll have a tough time in life if you don’t have a smartphone. You can survive? Yes. But it will be a PITA to communicate with others, deal with govt, banking or utilities etc

[pmlnr]

The very purpose of a governing body, by greek idea, is to protect citizens. That includes protrcting from bad companies.

[golergka]

"Protecting" a person from a bad deal that he enters voluntarily is not protection, it's taking away that person's freedom.

[em-bee]

only if the person can reasonably be expected to know that this is bad deal, which in most cases they can't

[golergka]

This may be true; however, it's also implied in your statement that government does.

Never assume that government knows better than it's citizens. It's made out of the worst of them.

[em-bee]

well, it depends on how that protection is implemented. sure, if the government is blocking certain deals then it better be sure that those are actually a bad deals. i agree with you on the downside of that

but the government doesn't need to know that something is a bad deal if instead it provides for ways to revert the deal once it's discovered to be bad.

for example in the EU any online purchase can be reverted within 14 days without requiring any explanation, because it is assumed that bad deals may not become aparent until after the purchase.

[golergka]

Many private enterprises implement money-back guarantees on their own, without any requirement from the law. Which tells me that government in these matters requirements is not necessary, and therefore, shouldn't exist.