EU wants device packaging to indicate reparability, durability

[Saracen]

The first thing I picked up was

A voluntary European label should highlight a product's durability, eco-design features, and upgradeability in line with technical progress and reparability.

If it's voluntary, manufacturers choosing (for whatever reason, be it safety or built-in obsolescence) not to build in repairability will simply not volunteer, and we're no further forward.

From what I read this is to get more 'repair work' done in the EU, so money basically although they're using 'recycling' as the reasoning behind it.

If it's recycling then MS/Apple et al will likely be fine because all of their products can be dismantled and put back together, its just not something that someone at home can do with a screwdriver which to be fair if you want thin/light/small etc then you can't expect it to be repairable by household tools.

As someone who actually works in the design sector relating to product design I can tell you first hand that to introduce screws into the thin and light designs that we have now due to glue would likely make the product thicker and heavier.

While I wouldn't dispute the design inferences you mention for a moment, as a consumer, I'd like to know if a product is of the 'bin it if battery fails' category, because it would influence my purchase decision.

Personally, I'd go for 'thicker, heavier and repairable' over 'slim but bin' every time. But I know people likely to go the other way too.

My £5 dirt-cheap phone is in FAR better condition, after 10 years, than a friend's 8-month old top-of-range iPhone. Why? Partly, I take care of my possessions, and he doesn't. When I asked him about it, he said (paraphrasing) ...

I change it every 18 to 24 months anyway, why worry about a few bangs or dents?

Different people have different approaches. To me, being able to replace the battery would be one of about the top three or four criteria in a purchase decision, and a few ml of thickness or grams of weight wouldn't be in the same universe as that list, because I'm after a tool to do a job not a fashion accessory. But my friend loves having shiny, new gadgets .... and loses interest pretty quickly too.

We need products designed to suit both my friend and myself, but I'd certainly like to know which is which, because it'd often change the purchase decision (assuming an alternative exists), so I'd support not only a labelling scheme, but a mandatory not voluntary one. My friend wouldn't care.

It feels, now that we're Brexiting (allegedly) that I'm making a habit of saying this, but the EU does have some good ideas, especially on consumer protection. This is one.

[Xlucine]

The fiest thing I picked up was
If it's voluntary, manufacturers choosing (for whatever reason, be it safety or built-in obsolescence) not to build in repairability will simply not volunteer, and we're no further forward.


While I wouldn't dispute the design inferences you mention for a moment, as a consumer, I'd like to know if a product is of the 'bin it if battery fails' category, because it would influence my purchase decision.

Personally, I'd go for 'thicker, heavier and repairable' over 'slim but bin' every time. But I know people likely to go the other way too.

My £5 dirt-cheap phone is in FAR better condition, after 10 years, than a friend's 8-month old top-of-range iPhone. Why? Partly, I take care of my possessions, and he doesn't. When I asked him about it, he said (paraphrasing) ...


Different people have different approaches. To me, being able to replace the battery would be one of about the top three or four criteria in a purchase decision, and a few ml of thickness or grams of weight wouldn't be in the same universe as that list, because I'm after a tool to do a job not a fashion accessory. But my friend loves having shiny, new gadgets .... and loses interest pretty quickly too.

We need products designed to suit both my friend and myself, but I'd certainly like to know which is which, because it'd often change the purchase decision (assuming an alternative exists), so I'd support not only a labelling scheme, but a mandatory not voluntary one. My friend wouldn't care.

It feels, now that we're Brexiting (allegedly) that I'm making a habit of saying this, but the EU does have some good ideas, especially on consumer protection. This is one.

Doesn't have to be a mandatory scheme to provide what you'd like - if you need some easy way to differentiate between thin&light&glued and stuff that can be fixed, then the manufacturers of the stuff that can be fixed would be expected to sign up to the label showing how repairable it was while the thin&glued stuff wouldn't bother. Whether anyone buying a phone these days gets a chance to look at the box before they buy it is another matter, of course.

The 2014 Eurobarometer survey did not find that 77% of EU consumers "would rather repair their goods than buy new ones, it found that 77% make an effort to get broken appliances repaired before buying new ones, EU consumers who said they throw things away as it is difficult or too expensive to get them repaired was 39%.

In this case it seems like the EU is trying to meddle in something that's working fairly well already.

If they make an effort to repair the item then it's pretty clear that they'd rather have the item repaired instead of buying new

[wazzickle]

This will also be seen by americans as a european attack on american business.

Which it is, and rightly so.

[Saracen]

Doesn't have to be a mandatory scheme to provide what you'd like - if you need some easy way to differentiate between thin&light&glued and stuff that can be fixed, then the manufacturers of the stuff that can be fixed would be expected to sign up to the label showing how repairable it was while the thin&glued stuff wouldn't bother. Whether anyone buying a phone these days gets a chance to look at the box before they buy it is another matter, of course.

While I see what you mean, that relies on ALL manufacturers of repairable phones lebelling them in order to negatively infer the status of those that don't. Far better IMHO, to simply require ALL manufacturers to adequately label product.

Tnere is nothing wrong, IMHO, with either design choice. The issue, IMHO, is to properly inform consumers, allowing them to exercise genuinely informed choice.

It's a bit like requiring country of origin on products, and/or foodstuffs. There are countries I would not buy certain products from, under any circumstances. There are others I avoid, unless no suitable alternative exists. There are yet others I would pick as a preference. But doing so requires the information to inform myself.

[Corky34]

If they make an effort to repair the item then it's pretty clear that they'd rather have the item repaired instead of buying new

Isn't that what i said.

Maybe it's just me but this...

The survey found that 77 per cent of EU consumers "would rather repair their goods than buy new ones, but ultimately have to replace or discard them because they are discouraged by the cost of repairs and the level of service provided".

Reads as if 77 per cent of EU consumers want to repair their goods but can't.