zlacker

Most users don't understand the higher order effects of lack of ownership, if they care at all when it doesn't impact convenience in an obvious way. This information already exists before purchase, but it doesn't move sales among the masses where the money is made. The result is zero viable ownership respecting products for those of us who care: all modern CPUs have IME or equivalent, all modern cars are infested with proprietary spyware, all phones at reasonable prices¹ don't fully embrace user ownership in various ways. This also has higher order effects that affect everyone, such as car insurance having an involuntary data mine on anyone who drives a modern car.

1: the exception that I'm thinking of here is fair phone, and it isn't much of an exception.

>>john01+(OP)
I just don't see a problem with customers ignoring or not caring about the details as long as its clear. If a car manufacturer makes clear, for example, that you aren't allowed to work on the car you are buying yourself and the person still buys it that's their choice.

>>_heimd+WD
A practical one is that many industries have extreme barriers to entry and are dominated by a small number of players, with minimal chance of an upstart competitor showing up.

And if it so happens that engaging in some sort of anti-customer behavior is profitable, then it's entirely viable that all major players adopt it, even if they don't necessarily overtly collude.

>>_heimd+WD
The problem is that if 95% of people don't care and do this then the 5% who do care are completely fucked and can't work on their cars. This is because no manufacturer will make more money selling to the 5% who care.

>>john01+WS1
Well I'm in that 5%, and I own older cars mainly so I can still work on them myself.

My argument was that manufacturers should have to be clear up front with what they're selling. If 95% of the population doesn't care, and that means the market for maintainable cars isn't viable, why should I impose my will on everyone else? I'd like to buy a new car and be able to work on it but no company should be obligated to serve that desire.

>>_heimd+Cd3
You're being illogical. You'd only be 'imposing your will' on people if somebody preferred it being impossible to work on their car, which is obviously absurd. It's outright anti-customer behavior with no benefit to the customer whatsoever. It's akin to arguing that e.g. price fixing should be legal so long as a business informs the customer that prices are being rigged against them.

>>_heimd+Cd3
Those old cars won't last forever. What's your plan when they're all rusted out junk?