Is one of the great curses of our time. The machines with which we live are poorly made. Well, exaggeration: they are well made, but they seem to be designed to do what they have to do for a specific period of time. They have an expiration date when they should not.
End users coexist with that heavy burden, and we do it with a mixture of boredom and anticipation. Repairing a product to extend it's life has become more complex, but that also gives us the perfect excuse to go buy newer gadgets and that always promises to be better. That fight against scheduled obsolescence seems impossible to win, but some are fighting it fiercely.
This week we were familiar with a new proposal from the European Parliament that the member states should take measures to ensure that consumers can "enjoy durable, high-quality products that can be upgraded and repaired".
According to a Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2014, 77% of consumers in the European Union would prefer to repair their products rather than buy new ones. The problem, of course, is that the cost and quality and response of after-sales services often overcome those who are considering that option.
Among the recommendations of the proposal are those which indicate that "essential components, such as batteries or LEDs should not be fixed to products other than for safety reasons", or those which indicate that "dissuasive measures" should be introduced for Manufacturers in that predefined obsolescence in those products.
The aim, in short, is to try to strengthen a culture in which manufacturers produce products that in addition to being more durable can be repaired with fewer obstacles than those imposed by the current situation.
In 2015 the French Assembly, in fact, set a fine of 300.000 euros, 5% of its annual income and up to two years imprisonment for manufacturers that offered products with clear visions to support this programmed obsolescence. These techniques, he stated, include "deliberate introduction of a defect, weakness, scheduled shutdown, technical limitation, inconsistency or other obstacles to repair."
It is even shuffled by the creation of labels that certify the durability and guarantees of product expansion, update or reparability, as well as processes that allow consumers to know if the product they buy will last well over time or not. Something like the certifications of energy efficiency that we see in various appliances, but applied in this area. The idea is great, and could certainly improve the current situation.
The United States has been talking about a totally different speech: the products you buy are not yours because you can not try to repair them. That philosophy has become sadly famous with the case of John Deere tractors, but that extends to the major manufacturers of mobile phones and laptops. Sony, Microsoft and Apple have been pushing for legislation that will only allow their authorized services to repair malfunctioning devices.
That attitude of overprotective parent companies like Apple can be seen as appropriate by those who do not feel like touching their devices, but is that situation is starting to be ridiculous in their products, increasingly difficult to repair.
The situation extends to many other areas that go beyond electronics, but all this debate has meant that in recent months some states in the United States have introduced the legislation "Right to Repair" to which Oh, surprise, Apple has been head-on.
