- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
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.
Wait is this trying to suggest just renting is the same thing as a library?
The benifit of a library is you share the cost as a group and get some fractional use of it. Like books that you only really need access to for small amount of time.
Its not the same as say Amazon owning the book rental space and choosing, without any choice on your point, on what books are there or who could get access to them.
Tool libraries are libraries, not rentals.
So no, they aren’t saying renting is the same thing as a library. They are saying libraries offering more services are a great way for you to save money by not buying a tool you only need once or for a day here and there over the years.
I agree with the first part, but they are using the terms interchangeable of renting and borrowing. Talking about renting and subscription in the same vain as borrowing.
I just don’t want the very cool idea of a library economy to be conflated with the “you own nothing” subscription/rent everything economy.
They both have similarities but the actual ownership matters IMHO or else you get rent seeking/enshittification.
That’s fair, I’d agree the article does a terrible job of differentiating, and a company calling itself a library in it’s name doesn’t make it a library, just a rental service playing pretend for profit.