- Posts
- 13,310
- Likes
- 18,424
gatorcpa
··ΩF InvestiGatorStory on CBS Sunday Morning today.
Watches are not mentioned, but the parallels are pretty obvious.
Enjoy,
gatorcpa
Enjoy,
gatorcpa
Right to Repair Movement
- Posts
- 5,082
- Likes
- 15,701
DaveK
·Dang, I can’t see it, what’s the gist?
- Posts
- 17,942
- Likes
- 37,521
- Posts
- 2,451
- Likes
- 9,934
- Posts
- 2,451
- Likes
- 9,934
Rman
·On the topic
- Posts
- 13,310
- Likes
- 18,424
gatorcpa
··ΩF InvestiGatorDang, I can’t see it, what’s the gist?
A very few companies are setting up certified repair programs and others are designing products to be easily repaired. But too few to make much of a difference.
Done,
gatorcpa
- Posts
- 1,430
- Likes
- 2,957
Marsimaxam
·A sign of our throw away society and many of the big companies support this philosophy as either you need to buy a new product or deal with the manufacturer when it comes to repair. All about money. Besides dealing with issues of self repair, lest not forget another strategy... planned obsolescence.
- Posts
- 29,674
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerUnfortunately Swatch group intercepted this transmission.
I am always baffled by the singling out of Swatch when this topic comes up.
Swatch group does sell parts to independent watchmakers, at least for watches up to the level of Omega.
Most of the other large conglomerates and brands are far more restrictive than Swatch is, but they all seem to get a free pass by people. 😕
Not singling you out, because I see this time after time, even by watchmakers who know that the other brands are far worse.
Cheers, Al
- Posts
- 2,443
- Likes
- 4,232
wsfarrell
·I am always baffled by the singling out of Swatch when this topic comes up.
The folks at Rolex Forums might have opinions on their brand, but I think they're too busy posting wrist shots of their Daytona on the Ferrari steering wheel to bother with repair issues.
- Posts
- 29,674
- Likes
- 76,836
- Posts
- 2,443
- Likes
- 4,232
- Posts
- 24,261
- Likes
- 54,031
Dan S
·I would love for companies to make parts more available, but I wouldn't be in favor of legislation requiring it. As long as the industry isn't monopolized by a particular company (clearly not the case with wristwatches), it seems like a strategic decision that a company should be allowed to make, even if it's distasteful. From the perspective of quality control, there could be good reasons to exercise some control over who is permitted to repair complicated machinery. And more generally, I think that companies should be allowed to have proprietary technology, if they choose that path.
- Posts
- 29,674
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerI would love for companies to make parts more available, but I wouldn't be in favor of legislation requiring it. As long as the industry isn't monopolized by a particular company (clearly not the case with wristwatches), it seems like a strategic decision that a company should be allowed to make, even if it's distasteful.
Do you then agree that all car companies can refuse to sell parts or distribute technical information for all their vehicles?
From the perspective of quality control, there could be good reasons to exercise some control over who is permitted to repair complicated machinery.
Do you believe that not providing parts and technical information will stop people from repairing these items?
If not do you think quality control is helped or hindered by not having parts and technical information?
- Posts
- 24,261
- Likes
- 54,031
Dan S
·Do you then agree that all car companies can refuse to sell parts or distribute technical information for all their vehicles?
Do you believe that not providing parts and technical information will stop people from repairing these items?
If not do you think quality control is helped or hindered by not having parts and technical information?
These are good questions. I don't know of laws that require car companies to sell parts, I suspect that they do it voluntarily. However, it doesn't seem outrageous to me if they had some requirements regarding who they would sell the parts to. For example, they might require a certain level of training before they agreed to sell parts or provide technical information. This could even be a safety/liability issue in some industries.
- Posts
- 2,451
- Likes
- 9,934
Rman
·Cheers, Al[/QUOTE]
It was low hanging fruit Al. Even Omega qualified watchmakers ive talked to havent been able to source parts i need. Im talking hand sets mostly.
I am always baffled by the singling out of Swatch when this topic comes up.
Swatch group does sell parts to independent watchmakers, at least for watches up to the level of Omega.
Most of the other large conglomerates and brands are far more restrictive than Swatch is, but they all seem to get a free pass by people. 😕
Not singling you out, because I see this time after time, even by watchmakers who know that the other brands are far worse.
Cheers, Al
It was low hanging fruit Al. Even Omega qualified watchmakers ive talked to havent been able to source parts i need. Im talking hand sets mostly.
- Posts
- 13,310
- Likes
- 18,424
gatorcpa
··ΩF InvestiGatorThese are good questions. I don't know of laws that require car companies to sell parts, I suspect that they do it voluntarily.
Many states require that auto dealers be independent of the factories. These laws were enacted during the Great Depression to ensure that the auto manufacturers didn’t buy out the dealers on the cheap when times were bad.
This is why there are no Tesla dealers in some states. Tesla insists on owning all dealerships
In most places, it is the dealers who sell parts to independent shops, not the factory. This is actually good business practice. If the dealers make it difficult to service their vehicles, then it is highly unlikely a customer will buy another of that brand. Since the dealer is the one doing the selling, they will the losers by restricting access to service and parts.
Hope this helps,
gatorcpa
- Posts
- 24,261
- Likes
- 54,031
Dan S
·Not true.
Many states require that auto dealers be independent of the factories. These laws were enacted during the Great Depression to ensure that the auto manufacturers didn’t buy out the dealers on the cheap when times were bad.
This is why there are no Tesla dealers in some states. Tesla insists on owning all dealerships
In most places, it is the dealers who sell parts to independent shops, not the factory. This is actually good business practice. If the dealers make it difficult to service their vehicles, then it is highly unlikely a customer will buy another of that brand. Since the dealer is the one doing the selling, they will the losers by restricting access to service and parts.
Hope this helps,
gatorcpa
That's interesting, but I'm not sure it's addressing the main question here. My point was that there is no law requiring companies (or dealer, I suppose) to sell parts to independent repair shops, and you didn't contradict that. You indicated that the dealers do it voluntarily because it's good for business. And I guess that the company itself may do it in other states. I just checked, and Ford has a website where I can go and buy parts from the manufacturer. are they required to do that by law? So why the adversarial "Not true" comment? We're just having a friendly discussion here, and I've got no dog in this fight.
Moreover, I think that car companies is just an example. I believe that it's generally legal for companies to restrict who they sell their products to. For example, I was googling this question and found that some HVAC companies only sell parts to certified repair shops.
Edit: Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not in favor of companies unnecessarily restricting sales of parts or technical information beyond what might be required for safety or quality control. But I'm also not sure I'd be in favor of legislation requiring it.
Edited:
- Posts
- 29,674
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerThese are good questions. I don't know of laws that require car companies to sell parts, I suspect that they do it voluntarily. However, it doesn't seem outrageous to me if they had some requirements regarding who they would sell the parts to. For example, they might require a certain level of training before they agreed to sell parts or provide technical information. This could even be a safety/liability issue in some industries.
Here in Canada the auto companies have agreed to it to avoid legislation. It doesn't work as well as it should, so legislation to force it was proposed for example here in Ontario, which hasn't passed yet.
In MA in the US, legislation was passed in 2012 that compelled auto manufacturers to provide diagnostic and technical information to anyone who requires it. There is another right to repair bill on the ballot for next month.
If it's not legislated, the companies tend to not cooperate. This in effect creates an effective monopoly.
I'll tell you that for watches, not providing technical information or parts doesn't stop unqualified people from servicing watches they are not trained to service. I have received a number of emails from watchmakers who have no training on co-axial watches for example, who have no clue how to service one properly, and when they get stuck they panic. As I've said many times, you can service one of these in a completely ineffective and incorrect way, and it will run just fine - for a while.
Your idealistic example that only trained people should do certain work just isn't reality, and restricting parts and information is simply compounding the problem, rather than helping to prevent it.
Cheers, Al
- Posts
- 24,261
- Likes
- 54,031
Dan S
·Here in Canada the auto companies have agreed to it to avoid legislation. It doesn't work as well as it should, so legislation to force it was proposed for example here in Ontario, which hasn't passed yet.
In MA in the US, legislation was passed in 2012 that compelled auto manufacturers to provide diagnostic and technical information to anyone who requires it. There is another right to repair bill on the ballot for next month.
If it's not legislated, the companies tend to not cooperate. This in effect creates an effective monopoly.
I'll tell you that for watches, not providing technical information or parts doesn't stop unqualified people from servicing watches they are not trained to service. I have received a number of emails from watchmakers who have no training on co-axial watches for example, who have no clue how to service one properly, and when they get stuck they panic. As I've said many times, you can service one of these in a completely ineffective and incorrect way, and it will run just fine - for a while.
Your idealistic example that only trained people should do certain work just isn't reality, and restricting parts and information is simply compounding the problem, rather than helping to prevent it.
Cheers, Al
That’s an interesting perspective. Thanks.
- Posts
- 29,674
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerIt was low hanging fruit Al. Even Omega qualified watchmakers ive talked to havent been able to source parts i need. Im talking hand sets mostly.
No idea what hand sets you are referring to, but unless you are asking for discontinued parts (which means no one can get them), or parts for LE's where an exchange is required, anyone with a parts account can order anything Omega sells if they are fully qualified. Give me an example and I'll look it up...
Richemont basically doesn't sell to any truly independent watchmakers. Rolex is closing parts accounts in droves. Swatch group is probably the most open manufacturer of any of them right now, and yet people rarely mention the others...baffling...
