7 ms·

this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me,

this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility. also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't know why a business would be incentivized to sell anything but the entire device.

mulletbum 10y ago
Should that open the market for third party manufacturers then to provide parts?
- yarri 10y ago
  Depends on the industry. The auto insurance industry had facilitated this, but was then reprimanded for using generic parts to repair damaged cars. There was some irony in that US parts manufacturers claimed 3rd parties were importing "foreign" parts, but many of the US manufactures also subcontracted overseas. Thorny issue.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The problem with repairs wasn't that they were using generic parts from third parties. The problem was they were using used parts. They created a huge market for stolen cars.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  Of course. People do that already. If you can reverse engineer it (or get it close), isn't that okay? I don't think anyone would condone a manufacturer like Foxcon ln selling parts independently, but that stuff is handled contractually anyways.
zardo 10y ago
Well... the EPA might not weigh in this time. They require 'tamper resistant' emission control systems. Making it easy for customers to change the software could put you in a bad situation. Essentially, the same one VW is in, a $35,000 per vehicle fine.
- revelation 10y ago
  Given the "coal rolling" trucks, those big fines still have yet to hit their target?
  - zardo 10y ago
    There is no EPA highway patrol, so they can only go after large violators. The companies making the 'chip kits' do get taken to the wall occasionally.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  But that doesn't mean the farmers shoudln't be able to work on the system itself if it is broken, using readouts from the system as a guide to fixing it. This might mean, however, that instead of being able to fix the software itself, they have to buy a new drive, exchanging in the old one in the process. This small bit is a reasonable request because folks can be highly motivated to cheat otherwise.
  - zardo 10y ago
    It's certainly true that the manufacturers have no reason to push back, and every reason to interpret the rule broadly. It's easier to just lock down everything than to get the lawyers involved in the software architecture.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  The EPA can say "tamper resistant," but I call it "repair resistant". I object to the word "tamper" because implies that even though I am the owner of the car I somehow require authorization to work on it.
AckSyn 10y ago
> I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the parts, requiring them to sell replacement parts to customers really should be a thing. Holding them back because of shitty IP laws and strangling their ability to get things running is bad form and anti consumer
- BEEdwards 10y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, but they may be doing JIT production and literally only have parts to build however many units they build for a day. Allowing third parties to make the parts is the way to go.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    What about mandating the release of specifications for every part?
  - imglorp 10y ago
    They also need to keep the authorized service chain supplied as well. This is why you can walk into your car dealer and they should sell you anything in the fiche. This is what keeps your corner mechanic in business too.
- kodis 10y ago
  Also, car manufacturers are currently required to make replacement parts available for some period of time -- something like ten years after each model year. So no, not a stretch at all.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  Aren't there some jurisdictions that already legally require car manufacturers to disclose their repair manuals, to facilitate 3rd party repair? I believe Tesla games this by charging ridiculous amounts for short-term online repair manual subscriptions, but most manufacturers just sell copies of the manuals. I think access to that information is a good idea, so Tesla should be swatted down.
omouse 10y ago
I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. It's not a stretch. This is equipment that should last a while and you should be able to get replacement parts. This isn't a single-use phone that will be thrown out and recycled.
Steko 10y ago
> we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices No people should demand the devices they buy be repairable and if enough people care that's where the market would follow. When it comes to rights I think companies should have the right to sell devices that are not user repairable. I also think consumers have the right not to be ripped off on first party repairs but that's a problem with multiple solutions e.g. audits and penalties.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  First revoke all corporations, no limited liability if you want to make consumers fight it out in the market.
- cmurf 10y ago
  There are all sorts of examples of closed and anti-competitive and collusive markets. So no, it is false to say "if enough people care...the market would follow". That doesn't always happen, there have to be many buyers and sellers first off, and we don't have a competitive market in smart phone software or hardware at all. I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable. It's more weird today to go to a bar and say, "yeah I left my phone at home on purpose" than to say "yeah I'm an atheist" 20 years ago. So it's quite nearly socially unacceptable to not have a mobile phone. Understand that the U.S. is a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy, and its constitution prescribes quite a number of things including the power of the people to define an economic system and the means to regulate it. Market failures are why we get legislated alternatives. You can dislike it all you want, but some fairy tale notion of either capitalism or free markets is not a requirement of this government's founding documents.
  - Steko 10y ago
    > we don't have a competitive market in smart phone software or hardware at all Wait what? The smartphone market has plenty of competition. If being user-repairable was an important feature to consumers there would be lots of phones that delivered it. > I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable. I'm not sure what you're arguing against. > the U.S. is a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy, ... the power of the people to define an economic system and the means to regulate it ... You can dislike it all you want, Now you're really straw manning me as some sort of libertarian utopian who's against democracy (both false), Here is what I said: "I think companies should have the right to do X." That is quite clearly not a statement about legal or constitutional realities, it was a response to grandparents own made up right (to repair). The constitution allows for all sorts of things that are bad ideas. At one time it allowed the owning of humans as chattel slaves. More recently and relevantly it can compel companies like Apple to compromise the security of their devices in various ways. The Nebraska bill touches on this in a smaller but not insignificant way as part of the world class chain of security in current iphones is the touch sensor and third party replacement of the sensor breaks this chain. So yes the government has the right to force Apple to provide parts/specs/whatever. Is that a good idea? I don't think that's clear at all. You've also invoked market failure in this case with zero evidence that it exists in the smartphone market. I'd bet that repair revenue is a rounding error to Apple and they likely take a loss overall. And if market failure does exist (and it might well for tractors which are 90% of the article's focus) there are also other avenues for correcting that failure.
gozur88 10y ago
The problem is businesses will start including ASICs that don't really need to be there because they can effectively make the device unrepairable to anyone on the outside. Though I'm not sure making unrepairable equipment is a good business strategy: Once you get the reputation of gouging your customers on repairs your top line will start to sag.
hiisukun 10y ago
I did a ctrl+f for 'environment' and didn't see anything. So, this is me replying to say that government regulation might be seen as good or evil depending on your point of view and the context, but I hope members from both sides would agree that the health of the environment is rarely a consideration in businesses. Not being able to repair something sucks for the environment, because people will throw the whole thing away (like a phone), when just a small part is broken (for example, the microphone!). Sometimes an external (not-naturally-market-occuring) stimulus is required to incentivize things like repair.
- gambiting 10y ago
  At the same time, making things repairable definitely hurts the environment in some way too. I'm looking around my office - there's about 300 workstations, all of them have a gigantic metal case, the motherboard has several PCIEx slots that will never be used, several SATA connectors, metal clips for the CPU mounts, tons of power cabling just hanging around doing nothing because it has no devices connected to it. All of those PCs will be fully replaced for newer models in about 3 years, and all of this effort to make them repairable and modifiable will be for naught. If we could buy a small system that had everything integrated on the motherboard and required one cable for power, would that not be better for the environment? All the plastic to make superfluous connectors in my machine is literally a giant waste of resources and we could have done without it.
  - paulryanrogers 10y ago
    Buying new ones every 3 years seems the more wasteful choice, especially when they can be upgraded.
  - kerbalspacepro 10y ago
    The environmental impacts of repairability definitely have edge cases, but for any machine with a low rate of depreciation (any machine that isn't driven directly by Moore's Law) repairability makes it more environmentally friendly.

mulletbum 10y ago

Should that open the market for third party manufacturers then to provide parts?

yarri 10y ago
Depends on the industry. The auto insurance industry had facilitated this, but was then reprimanded for using generic parts to repair damaged cars. There was some irony in that US parts manufacturers claimed 3rd parties were importing "foreign" parts, but many of the US manufactures also subcontracted overseas. Thorny issue.
- gozur88 10y ago
  The problem with repairs wasn't that they were using generic parts from third parties. The problem was they were using used parts. They created a huge market for stolen cars.
wheelerwj 10y ago
Of course. People do that already. If you can reverse engineer it (or get it close), isn't that okay? I don't think anyone would condone a manufacturer like Foxcon ln selling parts independently, but that stuff is handled contractually anyways.

zardo 10y ago

Well... the EPA might not weigh in this time. They require 'tamper resistant' emission control systems. Making it easy for customers to change the software could put you in a bad situation. Essentially, the same one VW is in, a $35,000 per vehicle fine.

revelation 10y ago
Given the "coal rolling" trucks, those big fines still have yet to hit their target?
- zardo 10y ago
  There is no EPA highway patrol, so they can only go after large violators. The companies making the 'chip kits' do get taken to the wall occasionally.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
But that doesn't mean the farmers shoudln't be able to work on the system itself if it is broken, using readouts from the system as a guide to fixing it. This might mean, however, that instead of being able to fix the software itself, they have to buy a new drive, exchanging in the old one in the process. This small bit is a reasonable request because folks can be highly motivated to cheat otherwise.
- zardo 10y ago
  It's certainly true that the manufacturers have no reason to push back, and every reason to interpret the rule broadly. It's easier to just lock down everything than to get the lawyers involved in the software architecture.
ryandrake 10y ago
The EPA can say "tamper resistant," but I call it "repair resistant". I object to the word "tamper" because implies that even though I am the owner of the car I somehow require authorization to work on it.

AckSyn 10y ago

> I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the parts, requiring them to sell replacement parts to customers really should be a thing. Holding them back because of shitty IP laws and strangling their ability to get things running is bad form and anti consumer

BEEdwards 10y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but they may be doing JIT production and literally only have parts to build however many units they build for a day. Allowing third parties to make the parts is the way to go.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  What about mandating the release of specifications for every part?
- imglorp 10y ago
  They also need to keep the authorized service chain supplied as well. This is why you can walk into your car dealer and they should sell you anything in the fiche. This is what keeps your corner mechanic in business too.
kodis 10y ago
Also, car manufacturers are currently required to make replacement parts available for some period of time -- something like ten years after each model year. So no, not a stretch at all.
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
Aren't there some jurisdictions that already legally require car manufacturers to disclose their repair manuals, to facilitate 3rd party repair? I believe Tesla games this by charging ridiculous amounts for short-term online repair manual subscriptions, but most manufacturers just sell copies of the manuals. I think access to that information is a good idea, so Tesla should be swatted down.

omouse 10y ago

I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. It's not a stretch. This is equipment that should last a while and you should be able to get replacement parts. This isn't a single-use phone that will be thrown out and recycled.

Steko 10y ago

> we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices No people should demand the devices they buy be repairable and if enough people care that's where the market would follow. When it comes to rights I think companies should have the right to sell devices that are not user repairable. I also think consumers have the right not to be ripped off on first party repairs but that's a problem with multiple solutions e.g. audits and penalties.

maxerickson 10y ago
First revoke all corporations, no limited liability if you want to make consumers fight it out in the market.
cmurf 10y ago
There are all sorts of examples of closed and anti-competitive and collusive markets. So no, it is false to say "if enough people care...the market would follow". That doesn't always happen, there have to be many buyers and sellers first off, and we don't have a competitive market in smart phone software or hardware at all. I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable. It's more weird today to go to a bar and say, "yeah I left my phone at home on purpose" than to say "yeah I'm an atheist" 20 years ago. So it's quite nearly socially unacceptable to not have a mobile phone. Understand that the U.S. is a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy, and its constitution prescribes quite a number of things including the power of the people to define an economic system and the means to regulate it. Market failures are why we get legislated alternatives. You can dislike it all you want, but some fairy tale notion of either capitalism or free markets is not a requirement of this government's founding documents.
- Steko 10y ago
  > we don't have a competitive market in smart phone software or hardware at all Wait what? The smartphone market has plenty of competition. If being user-repairable was an important feature to consumers there would be lots of phones that delivered it. > I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable. I'm not sure what you're arguing against. > the U.S. is a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy, ... the power of the people to define an economic system and the means to regulate it ... You can dislike it all you want, Now you're really straw manning me as some sort of libertarian utopian who's against democracy (both false), Here is what I said: "I think companies should have the right to do X." That is quite clearly not a statement about legal or constitutional realities, it was a response to grandparents own made up right (to repair). The constitution allows for all sorts of things that are bad ideas. At one time it allowed the owning of humans as chattel slaves. More recently and relevantly it can compel companies like Apple to compromise the security of their devices in various ways. The Nebraska bill touches on this in a smaller but not insignificant way as part of the world class chain of security in current iphones is the touch sensor and third party replacement of the sensor breaks this chain. So yes the government has the right to force Apple to provide parts/specs/whatever. Is that a good idea? I don't think that's clear at all. You've also invoked market failure in this case with zero evidence that it exists in the smartphone market. I'd bet that repair revenue is a rounding error to Apple and they likely take a loss overall. And if market failure does exist (and it might well for tractors which are 90% of the article's focus) there are also other avenues for correcting that failure.

gozur88 10y ago

The problem is businesses will start including ASICs that don't really need to be there because they can effectively make the device unrepairable to anyone on the outside. Though I'm not sure making unrepairable equipment is a good business strategy: Once you get the reputation of gouging your customers on repairs your top line will start to sag.

hiisukun 10y ago

I did a ctrl+f for 'environment' and didn't see anything. So, this is me replying to say that government regulation might be seen as good or evil depending on your point of view and the context, but I hope members from both sides would agree that the health of the environment is rarely a consideration in businesses. Not being able to repair something sucks for the environment, because people will throw the whole thing away (like a phone), when just a small part is broken (for example, the microphone!). Sometimes an external (not-naturally-market-occuring) stimulus is required to incentivize things like repair.

gambiting 10y ago
At the same time, making things repairable definitely hurts the environment in some way too. I'm looking around my office - there's about 300 workstations, all of them have a gigantic metal case, the motherboard has several PCIEx slots that will never be used, several SATA connectors, metal clips for the CPU mounts, tons of power cabling just hanging around doing nothing because it has no devices connected to it. All of those PCs will be fully replaced for newer models in about 3 years, and all of this effort to make them repairable and modifiable will be for naught. If we could buy a small system that had everything integrated on the motherboard and required one cable for power, would that not be better for the environment? All the plastic to make superfluous connectors in my machine is literally a giant waste of resources and we could have done without it.
- paulryanrogers 10y ago
  Buying new ones every 3 years seems the more wasteful choice, especially when they can be upgraded.
- kerbalspacepro 10y ago
  The environmental impacts of repairability definitely have edge cases, but for any machine with a low rate of depreciation (any machine that isn't driven directly by Moore's Law) repairability makes it more environmentally friendly.