全真阅读 Text 3：产品可维修性

A device that cannot be repaired cheaply may still have been manufactured efficiently. These claims seem contradictory only if efficiency is measured at the factory gate. Manufacturers reduce assembly time by sealing components together and using specialized parts. The same choices can make diagnosis difficult and turn a minor failure into replacement of the whole product.

Some proposed repairability labels attempt to reveal this downstream cost. They score products according to the availability of manuals, spare parts and ordinary tools. Critics note that a score can become outdated when a company withdraws parts or changes software support. The criticism is valid, but it argues for updating labels, not for leaving buyers uninformed.

Labels alone, however, cannot create a repair market. Independent technicians need legal access to diagnostic information, while consumers need enough confidence that repair will work. Nor should every product be designed for unlimited disassembly; safety, weight and water resistance involve genuine trade-offs. The policy challenge is therefore not to maximize repairability in isolation. It is to prevent producers from shifting avoidable costs onto owners and waste systems while allowing design constraints to be made explicit.

Question: Factory-gate efficiency may overlook

A device that cannot be repaired cheaply may still have been manufactured efficiently. These claims seem contradictory only if efficiency is measured at the factory gate. Manufacturers reduce assembly time by sealing components together and using specialized parts. The same choices can make diagnosis difficult and turn a minor failure into replacement of the whole product.

Some proposed repairability labels attempt to reveal this downstream cost. They score products according to the availability of manuals, spare parts and ordinary tools. Critics note that a score can become outdated when a company withdraws parts or changes software support. The criticism is valid, but it argues for updating labels, not for leaving buyers uninformed.

Labels alone, however, cannot create a repair market. Independent technicians need legal access to diagnostic information, while consumers need enough confidence that repair will work. Nor should every product be designed for unlimited disassembly; safety, weight and water resistance involve genuine trade-offs. The policy challenge is therefore not to maximize repairability in isolation. It is to prevent producers from shifting avoidable costs onto owners and waste systems while allowing design constraints to be made explicit.

Question: Critics' objection to repairability scores is that they

A device that cannot be repaired cheaply may still have been manufactured efficiently. These claims seem contradictory only if efficiency is measured at the factory gate. Manufacturers reduce assembly time by sealing components together and using specialized parts. The same choices can make diagnosis difficult and turn a minor failure into replacement of the whole product.

Some proposed repairability labels attempt to reveal this downstream cost. They score products according to the availability of manuals, spare parts and ordinary tools. Critics note that a score can become outdated when a company withdraws parts or changes software support. The criticism is valid, but it argues for updating labels, not for leaving buyers uninformed.

Labels alone, however, cannot create a repair market. Independent technicians need legal access to diagnostic information, while consumers need enough confidence that repair will work. Nor should every product be designed for unlimited disassembly; safety, weight and water resistance involve genuine trade-offs. The policy challenge is therefore not to maximize repairability in isolation. It is to prevent producers from shifting avoidable costs onto owners and waste systems while allowing design constraints to be made explicit.

Question: The author responds that this objection supports

A device that cannot be repaired cheaply may still have been manufactured efficiently. These claims seem contradictory only if efficiency is measured at the factory gate. Manufacturers reduce assembly time by sealing components together and using specialized parts. The same choices can make diagnosis difficult and turn a minor failure into replacement of the whole product.

Some proposed repairability labels attempt to reveal this downstream cost. They score products according to the availability of manuals, spare parts and ordinary tools. Critics note that a score can become outdated when a company withdraws parts or changes software support. The criticism is valid, but it argues for updating labels, not for leaving buyers uninformed.

Labels alone, however, cannot create a repair market. Independent technicians need legal access to diagnostic information, while consumers need enough confidence that repair will work. Nor should every product be designed for unlimited disassembly; safety, weight and water resistance involve genuine trade-offs. The policy challenge is therefore not to maximize repairability in isolation. It is to prevent producers from shifting avoidable costs onto owners and waste systems while allowing design constraints to be made explicit.

Question: A functioning repair market also requires

A device that cannot be repaired cheaply may still have been manufactured efficiently. These claims seem contradictory only if efficiency is measured at the factory gate. Manufacturers reduce assembly time by sealing components together and using specialized parts. The same choices can make diagnosis difficult and turn a minor failure into replacement of the whole product.

Some proposed repairability labels attempt to reveal this downstream cost. They score products according to the availability of manuals, spare parts and ordinary tools. Critics note that a score can become outdated when a company withdraws parts or changes software support. The criticism is valid, but it argues for updating labels, not for leaving buyers uninformed.

Labels alone, however, cannot create a repair market. Independent technicians need legal access to diagnostic information, while consumers need enough confidence that repair will work. Nor should every product be designed for unlimited disassembly; safety, weight and water resistance involve genuine trade-offs. The policy challenge is therefore not to maximize repairability in isolation. It is to prevent producers from shifting avoidable costs onto owners and waste systems while allowing design constraints to be made explicit.

Question: The author would most likely favor a policy that