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.

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

            • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.orgOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            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.