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.
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.
The issue with renting is, of course, just like apartments (or flats if you will), the producers of the items will see the opportunity to inflate the retail costs of the items, the more they see their sales dip due to renting, which will make the price of renting the equipment greater … and so it goes
I don’t really see a problem with a model of companies creating fewer, more durable/expensive items that everyone can share.
Not exactly. The type of rental discussed in the article is short term, not long term like an apartment.
Also, there will probably be a response in the industry, but it could end up being better overall. For instance, an appliance may end up being designed more for repair and have a longer design lifespan as there are fewer, but more educated, consumers of the appliances. I would expect a steam cleaner that has to run two times a week to be more expensive than one that has to run two times a year.
I dunno. There have been tool rental places with pro level tools for a very long time, and the tool manufacturers don’t seem to have reacted to stop it.
I didn’t say tool makers would stop it.
But there is a difference in design philosophy between pro tools and amateur tools. I would expect that, if the market shifts to more kinds of tools, the design of those tools will shift as well.
There are pros and cons to both. Sometimes you should rent, others buy. If you use it every day then buying is often best. If you need it once a decade then rent.