Technology

59534 readers

3209 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

792

How rental ‘libraries of things’ have become the new way to save money (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

224 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's dystopic if most can only afford to rent what they always need. IMO being able to rent something you rarely need is a good thing.

I'd much rather have my car for day to day driving and rent something with more space the few times I need to move something that won't fit in my car. Even better would be to have ride share programs to use for medium loads and reliable mass transit for trips where I don't have much to move.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 months ago

it's not dystopic in the sense that companies are selling tools to people who don't need tools for an extremely prolonged time.

That would be fucking dystopic, being forced to buy tools you don't need, because it's the only option to get them.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Even better would be that Arcimoto MUV thing. Sadly it appears they went bankrupt

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Cool

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

These things always fail because ultimately it's just a motorcycle with extra garbage.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And how is that a bad thing?

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No one wants it. The people that are comfortable in a car don't want to be outside and will replace their current car with another car. The people with a motorcycle don't want it because they already have a bike. The cyclists would rather just have a cargo bike. Ultimately, there's no market for these things, so they always, always fail.

Ultimately, people would rather buy a Caterham than one of those stupid things for about the same price.

https://caterhamcars.com/en/find-buy?model=Any

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

There is a roof. People aren't getting exposed. There are also optional door coverings I've seen.
The rest of your argument sounds like it works against any new vehicle purchase, not to mention the added comfort this has over many bikes. At around $19000, the FUV is cheaper than any of these silly, roofless and less capacious Caterhams you've linked. Not to mention gas prices.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago

LOL mate you don't have to convince me. Your argument is irrelevant [just look at sales.] and I don't give a shit.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Looks a lot like a BMW prototype I saw almost 20 years ago. I kept hoping they'd bring it to market, but I guess it's safe to give up on it by now!

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They brought it to market for six glorious years but couldn't achieve mass-production and spent way too much on a ton of SKUs most people don't want before they basically went bankrupt.