shanoshamanizum t1_j9xuyxe wrote on February 25, 2023 at 10:07 AM

Reply to comment by spambearpig in A platform for products with no planned obsolescence by [deleted]

Ah now I understand. They can verify it once a year before the recurring payment.

spambearpig t1_j9xvfep wrote on February 25, 2023 at 10:14 AM

Okay so there’s an annual inspection cost built in now and yet trust me, the plot thickens from there on out. Your problems are just starting.

What I’m saying is that an ongoing trust relationship on a large scale is very costly to manage and enforce.

So when you add that model to buying a toaster or something it seems impractical to me.

Cars seem really ideal because a regular official inspection is part of running a car (in most countries), wastage and inefficiency in the auto industry dwarfs tech items and domestic white goods by the mass of material and consumption involved, the costs are high and what’s at stake through unreliability is high.

So as an idea for cars, I like it I think. Maybe worth the hassle there.

shanoshamanizum t1_j9xw2ho wrote on February 25, 2023 at 10:23 AM

Nothing much different than a warranty inspection really. It's just a different model where they have to prove it's working rather than you proving it's not working.

termanatorx t1_j9ynx2z wrote on February 25, 2023 at 3:15 PM

Just spitballing but even asking them to verify doesn't stop someone from claiming it's broken and just not verifying.

What about reversing the payment system and having them pay premium and receiving a small rebate each year they verify? That would definitely handle the problem of faking that it's broken to avoid fees, and might incentivize people also to repair if broken rather than paying for that and then also paying a fee to use it another year. Just thoughts...

shanoshamanizum t1_j9yobst wrote on February 25, 2023 at 3:18 PM

The core idea is to have the user rewarding the producer not the other way around. The user has no incentive to break it or fake it because it will get returned to the producer. If it's truly broken both sides lose - the user loses the product, the producer loses potential 40-50% profit over the next 4-5 years.

termanatorx t1_j9yojup wrote on February 25, 2023 at 3:20 PM

Ooooh. Good you clarified that. It's not clear in your initial post.

shanoshamanizum t1_j9ypsho wrote on February 25, 2023 at 3:29 PM

It's evolving as we speak and as we discover corner cases.

termanatorx t1_j9yr6ql wrote on February 25, 2023 at 3:38 PM

Nice. I think return of product if not functional is a great idea. And, you may have thought of this of course, the producer could then refurbish and sell again. I'm thinking of Amazon warehouse deals where products with flaws are sold at discount. I bought something there. Granted it was new and not refurbished, they do also have options to buy refurbished on there I think.