Forever Products -- Why Not?

 A significant part of the waste we all send to the landfill are products that fail due to some proprietary component,  or because they weren't designed to be repairable.  Often the bad component can't be replaced because the manufacturer either (A) doesn't offer it  (B) they did but only for a short while; or (C) it isn't possible to replace the failed part because the product wasn't designed to permit that.

All these issues are things that can be addressed in a variety of ways.  While the "right to repair" movement has gained some traction, my examples in the previous paragraph show that it can only go so far -- unless the design process used to make our "stuff" includes the requirement that the item can be repaired for a very long time, even long after the original manufacturer has gone out of business.

Our military has some similar requirements, considering how large their inventory of materiel can be, and concerns regarding the availability of replacements in a wartime situation.  But, considering the concurrent issues of waste reduction and the reduction of resource depletion -- both mineral and energy resources -- and the rather large multiplier of a consumer economy at work -  that also has large implications, given current trends.

So, what's in the way of making products that use off-the-shelf components as much as possible, so they can be replaced long after the manufacturer has declared the product obsolete?  What's in the way of requiring manufacturers to provide design data on their proprietary components for those same products so they can be made with 3D printers?  Many companies these days employ designed-in obsolescence as a part of their business model, so they can sell new stuff.  But that tactic has become a larger and larger problem, given the issues of waste and all the resource-consuming aspects of making new items that, in many cases, aren't any better (often less) than what they replaced.

This is where government has a role to play, basically drawing a line and saying that youse-guys have to clean up your act.  Of course, manufacturers should be able to offer new products with new features:  but they need to both design their products so they can be repaired; or if some unique parts are in there, once they have come out with a new model they have to make the design information available for the older item so replacement parts can be fabricated by a third party, or, if possible, with a 3D printer.

The overall impact of this would be multifold.  For starters, manufacturers that simply "churn" their products so older, but equivalent, products become obsolete, will have a greatly reduced incentive to do so.  To appeal to consumers, new products would only succeed if they offered better functionality, or added functions.  This would promote innovation rather than just putting a different color of lipstick on the same pig.  Of course, the new products would have to be Forever Products too, so the pattern of innovation would continue.  Or maybe some vendors would just offer Forever Products and tap into the demand for something that can be repaired until long into the foreseeable future.

Some manufacturers are very good about providing replacement components for the products they sell, but they seem to be in the minority.  That has to change.