[Serkevan]

What seems like a simple problem is actually an extremely complex one. Spare parts has always been a balancing act. The "Just in time" model of manufacturing has only added to the problem. With fewer and fewer parts manufactured in house the problem grows further.

This is a very good point - lean manufacturing models will always run counter to long term repairability. The theory, of course, is that with Six-Sigma methods of reliability the devices (and the respective components) should always be up to spec, but that doesn't help with breakdowns later in the product's life.

But part of the reason why consumer electronics are affordable nowadays is precisely that they are disposable. Eternal consumption engine at its finest...

[BigMackCam]

... and so, it would seem my strategy thus far of treating any camera I buy as essentially "disposable" if it fails outside warranty is probably a prudent one, with little downside. If the camera lasts several years beyond the two year warranty, fantastic. If it develops a minor fault or dies completely a year after the warranty expires, I can choose to pay a minimum of $300 to have my three-year-old, 50k shutter count camera repaired, or I can sell it for parts (given the support for "right to repair", it should easily sell for maybe $100 - $150?) and put the money - plus the $300 I saved by not having it repaired - towards a new camera. The manufacturer is happy because it sells me another camera (which is what it wanted all along), I'm not too disappointed because I prepared myself for this eventuality, and I end up getting a new camera for $400 - $450 less than best retail price... and whoever buys my faulty camera hopefully repairs one of their own using the parts. The only environmental impact is from whatever's left of the camera once it's stripped of the necessary parts...

[Serkevan]

... and so, it would seem my strategy thus far of treating any camera I buy as essentially "disposable" if it fails outside warranty is probably a prudent one, with little downside. If the camera lasts several years beyond the two year warranty, fantastic. If it develops a minor fault or dies completely a year after the warranty expires, I can choose to pay a minimum of $300 to have my three-year-old, 50k shutter count camera repaired, or I can sell it for parts (given the support for "right to repair", it should easily sell for maybe $100 - $150?) and put the money - plus the $300 I saved by not having it repaired - towards a new camera. The manufacturer is happy because it sells me another camera (which is what it wanted all along), I'm not too disappointed because I prepared myself for this eventuality, and I end up getting a new camera for $400 - $450 less than best retail price... and whoever buys my faulty camera hopefully repairs one of their own using the parts. The only environmental impact is from whatever's left of the camera once it's stripped of the necessary parts...

This is essentially what I do with phones already. I budget assuming that they will last one day more than the warranty . Anything longer, free money!

[normhead]

I think manufactures, en masse, have decided that they make more money with unrepairable units that force upgrades than they would by trying to exploit the market for repairable units.

And I think manufacturers realize customer satisfaction is part of that equation.

Another Apple decision from 93, there is more customer satisfaction if you push them onto a new unit rather than an upgrade or a repair. I know in the minds of the brainwashed, Apple is nefarious and everything they do is evil. Try and see beyond that, don't get distracted and blow gasket a trashing Apple, (Apple's just the example I know about) look at the concept.

It blows me away that after all the success of Apple, there are still people who don't realize Apple has done what their customers wanted them to do. And they've done the market research to know what that is. No one buys Apple just because they are Apple. If the product and philosophy didn't suit their customers they'd be bankrupt, like Atari, Commodore and many other manufacturers of the day. If they can make more money doing that, that's not the issue. Of course you make more money if you pay close attention to those customer satisfaction reports.

Not an Apple customer... no problem, it's not about you. You don't get a say. Apple sells to those who agree with their philosophy and practices and makes good money doing it, despite all the horrible opinions directed their way.'

As far as making money... there used to be warehouses full of returned under warranty Apple product before reliability caught up with the philosophy. IN the days Apple just trashed them. There was no attempt at on board (or any repairs) or refurbs...instead of the alleged money grab it cost them a pile. They could have just resold (or returned to the customer) a repaired unit that statistically would have been less reliable than a unit that never had a problem.The line form the Apple execs internally at that time was "If it lasts 6 months it should last 10 years (and everyone of my Apple computers has lasted more than 10 years." Again, something they knew because they actually had marketing research on these things. Eventually they got the manufacturing tightened up and it became profitable. It wasn't that way through the 90s.

The right to repair isn't desired by everyone. A lot of folks will pay extra, for quality product that is obsolete by the time it needs repair or upgrade.

It's amazing how much nefarious intent is attributed to Apple, who were probably the best at reliability research, market research, and gathering and interpreting the numbers, popular or not. It's the old science vs. what I believe to be true dichotomy. Remarkable numbers of people are willing to believe anything but the truth.

To me the "right to repair" guys are just trying to drag the whole world down to their pathetic level. Personally, I don't want to repair. I'd rather have quality product that doesn't need a lot of repair. I'll pay extra to avoid the loss of time money and use of product in the whole repair process. It's pay now or pay later decision. Pay for quality product now, or pay for repair later. The fact that most of the world has gone for the cheapest possible purchase price then pay to repair model doesn't mean all of us should be forced to go that way.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-11-2020 at 10:04 AM.

[Mooncatt]

Not an Apple customer... no problem, it's not about you. You don't get a say. Apple sells to those who agree with their philosophy and practices and makes good money doing it, despite all the horrible opinions directed their way.'

I would argue the other way, that non-Apple customers do get a say by withholding their money from the company. If they change policies and enough people vote with their dollars to other companies, Apple sales go down and could go bankrupt. As it stands now, you are partially correct because the number of consumers not buying Apple is overshadowed by the consumers that are.

[Mooncatt]

In the early 70's I used to manage a full service Texaco gas station. Back yard mechanics were a very good source of income. The last 17 years of my career at Kodak I did field service. Customers without service agreements would often attempt repairs themselves. This on equipment that cost them over $250,000 US. Some of those repairs ran into 5 figures.


There have been several right to repair cases successfully litigated in the US. Usually initiated by independent service providers so that they could get access to parts. The real fun began after they would screw up a repair and blame us for sending them faulty parts. Another issue is for those assemblies that are very expensive and the old part is sent back to be refurbished.


Part of the cost of the new part is covered by the value of the old part returned. Customers and third party service providers can be very lax about sending back the old assemblies. They are more likely to send back the old assembly as a returned not needed "new" part. These would be put back in stock and the fun would really begin. When we started looking into this the amount of fraud was amazing. In one year I uncovered faulty assemblies returned as new to the value of $2,200,000. Money stolen form us by the independent service providers.


Then there is the issue of warranty parts and inventory. In today's fast moving world many parts are only manufactured for a very short time period. Stocking to provide for long warranties is extremely expensive. There is a reason why equipment sold in countries with mandated long consumer warranties is more expensive that equipment sold in countries with shorter consumer mandated warranties. Inventory is money tied up to no real purpose. In the US, every year Kodak had to add up the value of all the unsold inventory and pay taxes on it. Kodak always kept a six week buffer of film sales on hand. On top of the fresh off the line film is not ready for sale for several weeks as the emulsion continues to ripen and stabilize during that time.


What seems like a simple problem is actually an extremely complex one. Spare parts has always been a balancing act. The "Just in time" model of manufacturing has only added to the problem. With fewer and fewer parts manufactured in house the problem grows further.

That was rather insightful and makes for a good argument on how a closed system can cut down on such waste and fraud.

[ThorSanchez]

And I think manufacturers realize customer satisfaction is part of that equation.

Another Apple decision from 93, there is more customer satisfaction if you push them onto a new unit rather than an upgrade or a repair. I know in the minds of the brainwashed, Apple is nefarious and everything they do is evil. Try and see beyond that, don't get distracted and blow gasket a trashing Apple, (Apple's just the example I know about) look at the concept.

It blows me away that after all the success of Apple, there are still people who don't realize Apple has done what their customers wanted them to do. And they've done the market research to know what that is. No one buys Apple just because they are Apple. If the product and philosophy didn't suit their customers they'd be bankrupt, like Atari, Commodore and many other manufacturers of the day. If they can make more money doing that, that's not the issue. Of course you make more money if you close attention to those customer satisfaction reports.

Not an Apple customer... no problem, it's not about you. You don't get a say. Apple sells to those who agree with their philosophy and practices and makes good money doing it, despite all the horrible opinions directed their way.'

As far as making money... there used to be warehouses full of returned under warranty Apple product before reliability caught up with the philosophy. IN the days Apple just trashed them. There was no attempt at on board (or any repairs) or refurbs...instead of the alleged money grab it cost them a pile. They could have just resold a repaired unit that statistcally would have been less reliable than a unit that never had a problem. Again, something they knew because they actually had marketing research on these things. Eventually they got the manufacturing tightened up and it became profitable. It wasn't that way through the 90s.

The right to repair isn't desired by everyone. A lot of folks will pay extra, for quality product that is obsolete by the time it needs repair or upgrade.

I understand that most people would rather spend money and get the new thing than try to maintain what they have and squeeze more life out of their investment in the product. Most people don't want to or don't have the aptitude to do even minor repairs, maintenance and upgrades. But that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when companies don't give you the choice. It's easy... it's just money... don't you want your life to be easy all the time? The new iPhone is only $25 a month for four years... you can afford it. You deserve it, don't you?

That's fine, people should make their own decisions on what they spend their money on. I choose to keep my phone for five+ years and replace the battery when it quits working. I change my brakes at 30 cents on the dealer's dollar. And I run Linux on my computer I assembled myself, and do all the tech support for. Most people don't do those things, and that's okay. Just so long as the model never excludes me from doing things my way. I know I've saved way more money operating that way than I've ever spent on camera gear. I won't feel bad buying a K-3iii because I am thrifty in other ways that make up for that extravagance.

[ZombieArmy]

Right to repair advocates seem to mostly want access to repair and diagnostic manuals from the manufacturer, along with their proprietary diagnostic software without (in my opinion) going through the proper channels to buy those licences and get the proper training on their usage.

Right for repair also want access to the parts that these companies make deals with to be as hard as possible to obtain. Also you make it sound like independent repair wouldn't go through the proper channels (almost implying there's already currently a choice to?).

[RobA_Oz]

Then there is the issue of warranty parts and inventory. In today's fast moving world many parts are only manufactured for a very short time period. Stocking to provide for long warranties is extremely expensive. There is a reason why equipment sold in countries with mandated long consumer warranties is more expensive that equipment sold in countries with shorter consumer mandated warranties. Inventory is money tied up to no real purpose. In the US, every year Kodak had to add up the value of all the unsold inventory and pay taxes on it. Kodak always kept a six week buffer of film sales on hand. On top of the fresh off the line film is not ready for sale for several weeks as the emulsion continues to ripen and stabilize during that time.


What seems like a simple problem is actually an extremely complex one. Spare parts has always been a balancing act. The "Just in time" model of manufacturing has only added to the problem. With fewer and fewer parts manufactured in house the problem grows further.

All very good points, although the situation on warranties varies from industry to industry. We don’t have mandated long warranties in Australia, but the introduction of 6 and 7-year warranties by Korean car-makers has forced their more expensive competitors to match that, so the marketplace can be just as effective as government fiat.

Given the long development cycles that are associated with Pentax products, and the rising price regime, that could imply a longer warranty period might have some traction in the camera marketplace. While Canon could probably match that, Nikon’s present financial problems and Sony’s notoriously short development cycles could hobble their doing likewise.

[normhead]

I understand that most people would rather spend money and get the new thing than try to maintain what they have and squeeze more life out of their investment in the product.

What you aren't understanding is that I have 3 Apple computers from 2010 that still do what I bought them for and a lot more, that have never needed any repair. One runs sports from internet sites on my TV. One runs aperture, my editing software, and the other I use as a second laptop for bypassing she of the current Apple disk write protocols. I didn't choose third party repair or Apple repair, I essentially chose no repair necessary. I'm currently running five computers, because they just never break, and I can find uses for them. 3 of them manufactured more than 10 years ago. It's not about "the new thing". It's about something that lasts beyond it's capability to be upgraded or desirability of being repaired. It would be nice if you didn't consistently characterize my choice as in some way negative. I have good reasons for not seeing them in a negative light, regardless of how you may have been conditioned to see them.

I also know some folks very high up in the electronics industry that see things the same way.

[BigMackCam]

It's about something that lasts beyond it's capability to be upgraded or desirability of being repaired.

I guess this, and length of warranties, is really my main bug-bear. If I have a five year old camera with 100k shutter count that - aside from a button falling off or a single internal component failing - is in great working condition, with (potentially) several years of life left in the other 99% of components, should I simply accept that it's no longer capable - that it has reached "end of life"? Perhaps... What, then, of a three year old camera with 20k shutter count? That would be a more difficult pill to swallow, no? How about a 26 month old camera with 10k shutter count? Most folks would be pretty disappointed, I think.

The minimum service charge from authorised service centres is part of the problem, too, I think. If I'd paid $2,000 - $3,000 for my camera and - two or three years later - I had to pay $300 - $500 for a repair, I don't think that's so bad, even if it's for something relatively small or simple. But if I'd paid $1,000 or less for a more basic model, I'd still have the same minimum repair costs. $300 minimum to replace a missing button on a three year old camera that only cost $1,000 new barely makes sense, unless it has sat in the cupboard for most of that time and is essentially still new. If the minimum service charge on that less expensive camera was also less costly, it would be less of an issue...

[bhbrake]

I guess this, and length of warranties, is really my main bug-bear. If I have a five year old camera with 100k shutter count that - aside from a button falling off or a single internal component failing - is in great working condition, with (potentially) several years of life left in the other 99% of components, should I simply accept that it's no longer capable - that it has reached "end of life"? Perhaps... What, then, of a three year old camera with 20k shutter count? That would be a more difficult pill to swallow, no? How about a 26 month old camera with 10k shutter count? Most folks would be pretty disappointed, I think.

The minimum service charge from authorised service centres is part of the problem, too, I think. If I'd paid $2,000 - $3,000 for my camera and - two or three years later - I had to pay $300 - $500 for a repair, I don't think that's so bad, even if it's for something relatively small or simple. But if I'd paid $1,000 or less for a more basic model, I'd still have the same minimum repair costs. $300 minimum to replace a missing button on a three year old camera that only cost $1,000 new barely makes sense, unless it has sat in the cupboard for most of that time and is essentially still new. If the minimum service charge on that less expensive camera was also less costly, it would be less of an issue...

This is really what it's about - having options to make economically rational decisions. I don't support the government stepping in and making list of mandates for consumer products. i think if there is enough demand, the parts would be there. With both my appliances and my cars, I can always find decent 3rd party parts to repair when something goes amiss and if it a major enough failure then you scrap the item. The value proposition for repairing many electronic consumer goods does not often work out.
I personally have a use for both expensive high quality and burner grade items. I have tools I bought 12 years ago that have had a failure but had lifetime warranty support and I got on the phone and had a replacement component in 3-5 days. With enough use even good things fail and some of those good things don't really have any upgrade value to the user. I also have really cheap tools that I bought because I knew I would practically never use it and if it broke after a couple rounds I didn't care. this is somewhat wasteful, but the alternative is trying to buy a high end product and then trying to resell it which would end up costing more and being a huge hassle.
If the GOV forces this upon every industry, then it could have significant affect on options. I prefer to vote with my wallet.

[UncleVanya]

This is really what it's about - having options to make economically rational decisions. I don't support the government stepping in and making list of mandates for consumer products. i think if there is enough demand, the parts would be there. With both my appliances and my cars, I can always find decent 3rd party parts to repair when something goes amiss and if it a major enough failure then you scrap the item. The value proposition for repairing many electronic consumer goods does not often work out.
...

If the GOV forces this upon every industry, then it could have significant affect on options. I prefer to vote with my wallet.

The problem with this model is dissimilar access to information. The asymmetrical ability to know up front the real future reparability makes this hard to evaluate as a consumer.

[bhbrake]

The problem with this model is dissimilar access to information. The asymmetrical ability to know up front the real future reparability makes this hard to evaluate as a consumer.

This is a valid concern, particularly if one is new to a product segment/market- I have mostly relied on research from either my social groups or internet searches to get an idea of what I am getting into in that regard. Generally, companies tend to build a reputation and talking to the customer base can give you a good idea of whether the product will likely be economically practical (or even possible) to service or not. At some point I do wonder if norm is correct in that there are so few people interested in fixing things that not enough people care to make it worth the while of many companies. I have had the experience of trying to get parts for a perfectly good product because a very minor thing broke and then being told sorry, your only option is to send it in and pay us to fix/replace it (at basically new cost), because they don't ship parts. I didn't purchase another product from them. Fool me once...

[normhead]

This is a valid concern, particularly if one is new to a product segment/market- I have mostly relied on research from either my social groups or internet searches to get an idea of what I am getting into in that regard. Generally, companies tend to build a reputation and talking to the customer base can give you a good idea of whether the product will likely be economically practical (or even possible) to service or not. At some point I do wonder if norm is correct in that there are so few people interested in fixing things that not enough people care to make it worth the while of many companies. I have had the experience of trying to get parts for a perfectly good product because a very minor thing broke and then being told sorry, your only option is to send it in and pay us to fix/replace it (at basically new cost), because they don't ship parts. I didn't purchase another product from them. Fool me once...

With Pentax selling 40,000 units a year you have to wonder if they could even support 3rd part usage and their support centre. Here in Canada I know Sun camera hired 3 of the 6 technicians when Pentax closed their repair depot and made Sun the authorized repair dealer. It would seem there is work for three technicians. So would you rather have 3 technicians working as close as possible to full time on Pentax (Sun Camera is also the authorized Canon repair centre. The question becomes is it better to have right of repair, with that world being spared among a bunch of shops who see Pentax infrequently of 3 guys in centralized shop. I'm not convinced that Pentax could support both.

The question is whether or not Apple certified technicians will be used. It's not as black nd white. I know a number of Apple certified technicians and Apple ships them parts. I know of no Pentax technicians except fr the one I knew when they worked at Pentax facility in Mississauga.

I guess then the thing both Pentax knows is, if a non certified tech messes up and fries your camera, Pentax will be blamed, and who will be able to prove different? These companies spend a lot of time and money producing repair protocols. Electronics stuff is complicated. They want them to be followed. Apple has courses you can take, and they'll sell you parts. A small company like Pentax probably can't offer you enough to train you. And the cost of the training would be unlikely to be recouped any time soon by you or them.

So you have to a sk. If Pentax closes their repair centre and ships parts to anyone who wants them. Or certified technicians doing the repairs.I'm not sure in country this size we can have both. I kind of like it the way it is, I'm happy with Sun Camera.