• @rockSlayer
    link
    English
    10
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Yea, I agree. I think these bills should require the maximum cost to be cost of manufacture at the date of engineering; i.e. a part designed in 2008 can not cost more than the materials to make it and it must keep that price for as long as it is used.

    But progress is progress, we’ll get there eventually as long as we keep up the political pressure.

    Edit: please read the spirit in that example rather than to the letter. There’s a lot of nuance that I just skimmed over, and that’s because I don’t want to write the bill.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      93 months ago

      The issue with that is it leaves no room for paying the engineers who actually designed the device. The cost of designing the parts is really expensive. I have no issue with a small markup. I definitely agree though that the costs shouldn’t be so absurdly prohibitive to repair though.

      • @douglasg14b
        link
        English
        73 months ago

        Don’t forget the actual cost of manufacturing. The building, the workers, the people working behind the scenes on finance or logistics, or manufacturing details…etc

        Manufacturing takes a lot of people on a lot of different levels not only to get it up and running but to keep it running and that’s expensive.

      • @rockSlayer
        link
        English
        13 months ago

        I think that it would still leave room for engineers to be paid a living wage. After all they aren’t getting paid for designing parts, they’re getting paid to design a product made of interoperable parts

    • @sramder
      link
      English
      23 months ago

      Even better. I thought we were just talking about the cost to provide the repair information, which should be free after so many years of shenanigans.

      Good points about parts cost/availability. Hopefully ORs bill keeps costs down with the threat of competition.