That’s still hard to do. I think consumers would care more if we just held unreliable manufacturers to account.
Either make stuff that keeps working or the manufacturer has to pay to repair it. We do it with cars (lemon law), why not everything else that’s repairable.
Spare parts must be available, or else.
Repair schematics must be made available. A competitor can reverse engineer anything anyway, so the benefit of being secretive is outweighed by consumer interests.
Finally, more effort toward “second-lifing” old stuff instead of shredding it. E.g. old phones as security cameras.
That $50 flat tax will also make it harder for anyone new to compete (the practicality of which seems to be getting higher instead of lower with all these SBC's and the like). Don't underestimate the power of law to shape the future of companies, and which ones survive.
Either make stuff that keeps working or the manufacturer has to pay to repair it. We do it with cars (lemon law), why not everything else that’s repairable.
Spare parts must be available, or else.
Repair schematics must be made available. A competitor can reverse engineer anything anyway, so the benefit of being secretive is outweighed by consumer interests.
Finally, more effort toward “second-lifing” old stuff instead of shredding it. E.g. old phones as security cameras.