Who Controls the Future of What We Buy?

A small component in a device fails. The rest could continue working, but the replacement part cannot be found or nobody can say when the repair will be complete. Buying a new product can become a necessity rather than a preference. Ownership may have passed to us on the receipt, while our influence over its lifespan remains limited.

For that reason, I think about consumption’s future through more than what we buy. The relationship we can have with a product after buying it matters too. Can we repair it, reuse it safely and continue benefiting from it when software support ends? The conditions governing its lifespan belong in any assessment of its price.

The European Union’s right-to-repair rules give this discussion a practical form. With a deadline of July 31, 2026, for member states to transpose them into national law, the rules aim to make repair easier and extend the useful life of covered products. They do not offer an unlimited guarantee for every device or fault. What interests me is the way consumer choices are considered alongside manufacturers’ responsibilities for design and service.

When does a cheap purchase become expensive?

A product may have a low initial price. If it requires frequent replacement, its overall cost tells a different story. Transferring data, installation, learning to use a replacement and time lost without a working device may all need to be added. For a small business, the absence of equipment can create a problem extending well beyond its invoice.

This does not mean the most expensive product is always the right purchase. An expensive item may also be difficult to repair. We need comparable information alongside the price. Spare-part availability, service conditions and the duration of support should be more visible when a purchasing decision is made.

Such clarity could encourage a different form of competition. Reliability over the years might gain value alongside features available on the first day. The economic contribution of a long-lasting product can be assessed through measures beyond the number of units sold.

Not every repair will be safe or economical. Replacement can be more appropriate for some faults, while certain products require specialist knowledge and authorisation. I am not arguing that everyone should open and repair every device at home. A trustworthy repair should be a real option.

There is an environmental dimension too. Continuing to use an existing product can, in some circumstances, reduce demand for the production and resources required for a new one. This should not be assumed automatically for every device. Energy consumption during use, safety and remaining useful life also matter. A good decision requires comparison rather than a slogan.

Carrying repair knowledge into the future

For Türkiye, I find the skills and production side of this debate especially important. The ability to diagnose a fault, carry out a safe repair and explain the work represents valuable capacity. Treating it only as a memory of traditional trades can narrow the space in which it might develop alongside new technologies.

Vocational training, access to current technical information and dependable spare-part channels should be considered together. Learning a skill alone is not enough for a young person to see a future in this work. They also need working conditions in which good practice is rewarded and responsibilities and service terms are clear.

Reducing uncertainty can strengthen customers’ trust. The fault, diagnostic charge, expected timeframe and scope of the work can be explained understandably. Agreeing to a repair should not mean reluctantly approving a process a person cannot understand. It should involve an opportunity to ask questions and compare options.

Public purchasing choices could support this culture too. Assessing maintenance and the availability of support throughout a device’s useful life, alongside its purchase price, can reveal long-term value. We should examine outcomes to learn which products benefit from this approach.

I do not imagine tomorrow’s economy simply as a race to keep buying new things. Being able to make better-informed decisions about when to replace what we already own is also progress. A production system’s strength can be measured partly by how seriously it takes the life of what it makes after the sale.

The day we buy a product is not the end of its story. It is the beginning of its actual use. A more responsible approach to consumption can be built by considering together the options available to users, technical workers and manufacturers throughout that longer story.