10 ms·

The title irks me a little: you already have the right to repair, provided you have enough knowledge. What the author demands is documentation. I would love mo

by Fradow 11y ago

The title irks me a little: you already have the right to repair, provided you have enough knowledge. What the author demands is documentation. I would love more documentation, like anyone, but you don't really need any documentation to replace a broken capacitor (a very common failure for most screens, I guess): you need to know how to spot a broken capacitor, find a replacement, and basic soldering skills. There are tons of videos that teach that, but few people really want to research that (generally because they are afraid of electronics, or think they are not smart enough). On the other end, some issues can't be fixed at all, because repairing is so close to the full price of the device. Some examples that happened to me: inflating smartphone battery that damages the motherboard, damaged screen due to shock (wide vertical band of dead pixels). Between that, there are probably a lot of small problems that are specific to a particular model. It would be great that those ones are documented, indeed. Some other basic things, like replacing a smartphone/laptop battery and screens would be very welcome on the manufacturer website, but like capacitors, you should be able to find tutorials for a lot of devices. The truth is, to repair things, you need mostly knowledge to identify problems and labor time to fix things. Both of which is what makes it expensive.

belorn 11y ago
Limited access to parts is mostly about patents so even if you had all the knowledge in the world you are prevent by the state to create what is needed to do the repairs. After the patent is expired we often find that the social contract between inventor and state is violated, and society do not in fact gain the necessary information to replicate the invention by reading the patent. There has been some political discussion to force car manufacturers to provide equal access to parts in order to protect the free market for car repairs and maintenance. Then we have digital locks (DRM) which the article brings up which artificially prevents customers from repairing. You can have all the knowledge in the world and still not be able to fix a simple issue since the digital signature of the part won't be accepted by the device. There has been political discussion around the world to forbid this kind of technical restrictions in cars or at least force retailers to inform the customer about the limitations. Both issues impacts customer rights and is entirely political in nature. The problem of having enough knowledge, access to documentation, or skill to perform repairs is all secondary problems once the political right to repair is granted.
- Fradow 11y ago
  Thanks, I didn't really consider this part of the problem. I thought, for "gadgets" (pc, smartphones and small electronics), DRM was a limited problem (I heard about coffee machines and cat litterbox DRM, and that's it). But it may well becomes a problem, if manufacturers find that people repairing gadgets reduce their revenue, which pre-suppose a non-negligible part of potential consumers are motivated to repair instead of buying new (I am not sure it's really a lot right now). For limited access to parts, it depends what "parts" we are talking about. If it is an electronic part (capacitor, microcontroller etc...), most gadgets use off-the-shelf components, that are easy to find, provided you know where to search. If it is a black-box with very specific requirements (screen, battery, whole PCB ..), access to parts may indeed be a problem. While I like the political right to repair, we have to be careful about what this mean. How does it affect small companies, that may not have the time to produce documentation, or very integrated products that can't really be repaired (which, if there is an exception, becomes a loophole big companies will use, of course).
  - Retric 11y ago
    Printers also use DRM resulting in ridiculous ink costs or people that treat printers as disposable items. Even some water filtration systems have started to use DRM.
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      I think this is a slightly different, though related, point. Built-in artificial obsolescence, where an otherwise perfectly usable device is deliberately crippled at some point by some sort of unnecessary software or hardware barrier, is never in the customer's interests. This one has an easy solution, though: manufacturers and vendors should be compelled to prominently disclose exactly what the nature of any such behaviour will be before the sale is finalised, so customers can vote with their wallets and there is awareness in the market if anyone wants to compete on the basis that they have no (or at least less customer-hostile) artificial limitations. Fail to do so and be on the hook for whatever the normal compensation would be for a device breaking at the time the limitation kicks in, up to and including a partial or full refund of the purchase price or even paying additional compensation for any consequential losses.
marincounty 11y ago
I didn't read the article, but I think I know what the author is getting at? Right now that fancy watch on your bosses wrist looks great while the wheels are turning. Once they stop, the person will need to send the watch to an expensive trip to the factory. Why, because these companies don't sell parts to independent watch repairers. That watch is essential a lease from the company. That automobile, with the propiority operating system, breaks down. Independent auto repair shops have no legal right to buy the repair codes--let alone fiddle with the computers. All those fancy features break. People are being forced to bring their ailing automobile to expensive Dealerships. The tech has gotten so complicated, even dealership mechanics are learning on your dime. I know this for a fact. My best buddy is a dealership mechanic. So, it's not just computers/electronics. I'm big on repair. I don't like this throw away society. If you don't have the knowledge/skills to repair a gadget--that's fine. If you are locked out of the system, can't get the schematics, or can't get parts--that just wrong? I'm fine with not allowing a customer to fiddle with a gadget when in warranty, but after that warranty ends, they should be able to repair their Gadget?
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't think the watch example is valid; it's not an artificial restriction like hidden repair codes or patented screws, they simply don't sell the product (extra parts) you want.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    I told him the same thing yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10184926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10184926
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    They make the parts, keep stock of the individual parts, and do sell the parts... but only if you buy it in a bundle with a hundred others. It is an extremely artificial restriction.
    - icebraining 11y ago
Fuxy 11y ago
To be fair most electronics these days are not made with fix-ability in mind but them again that takes extra effort on the engineers part which would make the unit more expensive and less people would buy it. Then again if the marketed it right a lot of the tinkerers would probably go for it. Plus the reason Samsung recommends qualified shops is because at the end of the day electronics can be dangerous if you are not careful. Touching a charged high voltage capacitor could give you a nasty shock or even kill you so it's not for everybody. If i had to complain about something it would be that the repair shop is charging too much for a very simple job.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  To be fair most electronics these days are not made with fix-ability in mind but them again that takes extra effort on the engineers part which would make the unit more expensive and less people would buy it. Manufacturers like this sort of argument, but often don't seem to have a lot of actual evidence to support their position. If using a certain kind of custom screw is necessary to save a few mm of thickness and 0.5lb of weight in a new laptop, there's a concrete benefit to the customer. If using a certain kind of custom screw really makes no detectable difference at all to the spec, but the only global supplier of such screws has an exclusive contract with the original manufacturer to supply them so no-one else can get hold of replacement screws without a silly amount of effort, that's just artificially limiting third party repair options. At some point that sort of behaviour justifies regulatory intervention to keep the market competitive.
LordKano 11y ago
The title irks me a little: you already have the right to repair, provided you have enough knowledge. Some manufacturers are trying to use DMCA to prevent user repairs/modifications. We had the right to repair but it's in jeopardy.
- mc32 11y ago
  I don't think companies will have a chance to come down on individuals. Where some manufacturers balk is when another company sees an advantage in another company's razor blades business strategy and tries taking advantage of the initial subsidy. Whether that's valid or not is debatable. But it's not the same as saying an individual cannot repair their gadgets (voiding warranty is expected, but understandable).
  - LordKano 11y ago
    You are mistaken. Recently, John Deere has been threatening shade tree mechanics with DMCA suits for performing unauthorized repairs on tractors that they own.
    - mc32 11y ago
      That's a nuanced condition. Here you are not talking mechanical repair but rather ecu modification --which if done by an amateur could potentially end with dangerous results.
      - wlesieutre 11y ago
        Only because John Deere designed their tractors to require poking around the ECU to replace a hydraulic sensor. They could build that failure mode into a million places if they wanted. What if your next car from GM said "Oh the oil light came on. You'll need to go to the dealer for an oil change so they can have the engine control unit turn the oil light off." Suddenly an easy fix turns into something protected by the DMCA, and we're just supposed to be OK with it? http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-ni... for anyone who hasn't seen the John Deere story: > The family farmer who owns this tractor is a friend of mine. He just wanted a better way to fix a minor hydraulic sensor. Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor. So for two days, Dave’s tractor lies fallow. And so do his fields.

by Fradow 11y ago

belorn 11y ago

Limited access to parts is mostly about patents so even if you had all the knowledge in the world you are prevent by the state to create what is needed to do the repairs. After the patent is expired we often find that the social contract between inventor and state is violated, and society do not in fact gain the necessary information to replicate the invention by reading the patent. There has been some political discussion to force car manufacturers to provide equal access to parts in order to protect the free market for car repairs and maintenance. Then we have digital locks (DRM) which the article brings up which artificially prevents customers from repairing. You can have all the knowledge in the world and still not be able to fix a simple issue since the digital signature of the part won't be accepted by the device. There has been political discussion around the world to forbid this kind of technical restrictions in cars or at least force retailers to inform the customer about the limitations. Both issues impacts customer rights and is entirely political in nature. The problem of having enough knowledge, access to documentation, or skill to perform repairs is all secondary problems once the political right to repair is granted.

Fradow 11y ago
Thanks, I didn't really consider this part of the problem. I thought, for "gadgets" (pc, smartphones and small electronics), DRM was a limited problem (I heard about coffee machines and cat litterbox DRM, and that's it). But it may well becomes a problem, if manufacturers find that people repairing gadgets reduce their revenue, which pre-suppose a non-negligible part of potential consumers are motivated to repair instead of buying new (I am not sure it's really a lot right now). For limited access to parts, it depends what "parts" we are talking about. If it is an electronic part (capacitor, microcontroller etc...), most gadgets use off-the-shelf components, that are easy to find, provided you know where to search. If it is a black-box with very specific requirements (screen, battery, whole PCB ..), access to parts may indeed be a problem. While I like the political right to repair, we have to be careful about what this mean. How does it affect small companies, that may not have the time to produce documentation, or very integrated products that can't really be repaired (which, if there is an exception, becomes a loophole big companies will use, of course).
- Retric 11y ago
  Printers also use DRM resulting in ridiculous ink costs or people that treat printers as disposable items. Even some water filtration systems have started to use DRM.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    I think this is a slightly different, though related, point. Built-in artificial obsolescence, where an otherwise perfectly usable device is deliberately crippled at some point by some sort of unnecessary software or hardware barrier, is never in the customer's interests. This one has an easy solution, though: manufacturers and vendors should be compelled to prominently disclose exactly what the nature of any such behaviour will be before the sale is finalised, so customers can vote with their wallets and there is awareness in the market if anyone wants to compete on the basis that they have no (or at least less customer-hostile) artificial limitations. Fail to do so and be on the hook for whatever the normal compensation would be for a device breaking at the time the limitation kicks in, up to and including a partial or full refund of the purchase price or even paying additional compensation for any consequential losses.

marincounty 11y ago

I didn't read the article, but I think I know what the author is getting at? Right now that fancy watch on your bosses wrist looks great while the wheels are turning. Once they stop, the person will need to send the watch to an expensive trip to the factory. Why, because these companies don't sell parts to independent watch repairers. That watch is essential a lease from the company. That automobile, with the propiority operating system, breaks down. Independent auto repair shops have no legal right to buy the repair codes--let alone fiddle with the computers. All those fancy features break. People are being forced to bring their ailing automobile to expensive Dealerships. The tech has gotten so complicated, even dealership mechanics are learning on your dime. I know this for a fact. My best buddy is a dealership mechanic. So, it's not just computers/electronics. I'm big on repair. I don't like this throw away society. If you don't have the knowledge/skills to repair a gadget--that's fine. If you are locked out of the system, can't get the schematics, or can't get parts--that just wrong? I'm fine with not allowing a customer to fiddle with a gadget when in warranty, but after that warranty ends, they should be able to repair their Gadget?

icebraining 11y ago
I don't think the watch example is valid; it's not an artificial restriction like hidden repair codes or patented screws, they simply don't sell the product (extra parts) you want.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I told him the same thing yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10184926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10184926
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  They make the parts, keep stock of the individual parts, and do sell the parts... but only if you buy it in a bundle with a hundred others. It is an extremely artificial restriction.
  - icebraining 11y ago

Fuxy 11y ago

To be fair most electronics these days are not made with fix-ability in mind but them again that takes extra effort on the engineers part which would make the unit more expensive and less people would buy it. Then again if the marketed it right a lot of the tinkerers would probably go for it. Plus the reason Samsung recommends qualified shops is because at the end of the day electronics can be dangerous if you are not careful. Touching a charged high voltage capacitor could give you a nasty shock or even kill you so it's not for everybody. If i had to complain about something it would be that the repair shop is charging too much for a very simple job.

Silhouette 11y ago
To be fair most electronics these days are not made with fix-ability in mind but them again that takes extra effort on the engineers part which would make the unit more expensive and less people would buy it. Manufacturers like this sort of argument, but often don't seem to have a lot of actual evidence to support their position. If using a certain kind of custom screw is necessary to save a few mm of thickness and 0.5lb of weight in a new laptop, there's a concrete benefit to the customer. If using a certain kind of custom screw really makes no detectable difference at all to the spec, but the only global supplier of such screws has an exclusive contract with the original manufacturer to supply them so no-one else can get hold of replacement screws without a silly amount of effort, that's just artificially limiting third party repair options. At some point that sort of behaviour justifies regulatory intervention to keep the market competitive.

LordKano 11y ago

The title irks me a little: you already have the right to repair, provided you have enough knowledge. Some manufacturers are trying to use DMCA to prevent user repairs/modifications. We had the right to repair but it's in jeopardy.

mc32 11y ago
I don't think companies will have a chance to come down on individuals. Where some manufacturers balk is when another company sees an advantage in another company's razor blades business strategy and tries taking advantage of the initial subsidy. Whether that's valid or not is debatable. But it's not the same as saying an individual cannot repair their gadgets (voiding warranty is expected, but understandable).
- LordKano 11y ago
  You are mistaken. Recently, John Deere has been threatening shade tree mechanics with DMCA suits for performing unauthorized repairs on tractors that they own.
  - mc32 11y ago
    That's a nuanced condition. Here you are not talking mechanical repair but rather ecu modification --which if done by an amateur could potentially end with dangerous results.
    - wlesieutre 11y ago
      Only because John Deere designed their tractors to require poking around the ECU to replace a hydraulic sensor. They could build that failure mode into a million places if they wanted. What if your next car from GM said "Oh the oil light came on. You'll need to go to the dealer for an oil change so they can have the engine control unit turn the oil light off." Suddenly an easy fix turns into something protected by the DMCA, and we're just supposed to be OK with it? http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-ni... for anyone who hasn't seen the John Deere story: > The family farmer who owns this tractor is a friend of mine. He just wanted a better way to fix a minor hydraulic sensor. Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor. So for two days, Dave’s tractor lies fallow. And so do his fields.