zlacker

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+(OP)
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+(OP)
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+0f1
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+Gz2
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+Gz2
Those old cars won't last forever. What's your plan when they're all rusted out junk?