29 ms·

EU Prepares "Right to Repair" Legislation to Fight Short Product Lifespans

387 points by SwellJoe 9y ago

skrause 9y ago
The right to repair is a good step, but I think the better approach to fight short product lifespans would be much longer and mandatory guarantees on products. A mandatory 5-year guarantee on laptops and 10 years on washing machines or dryers doesn't sound unreasonably.
- wyager 9y ago
  The way this would work is that laptop prices would be massively inflated to pay for the expected multiple repairs that 90% of consumers wouldn't even want, given the choice. I buy a new laptop every two years or so; I shouldn't be forced to subsidize people on a slower upgrade cycle.
  - skrause 9y ago
    Or to stay competitive on price the manufacturers will try to build longer lasting products instead of just rising prices to pay for repairs.
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    What if it meant these laptops had better second-hand value? (Like Macs do)
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Brands would probably start by turning the process into some kind of hell. We're partly responsible for the status of things, too many consumers aim for cute and thin instead of modular. Today we could have some form of standard form factors that allows to swap parts and make opening machines easy.
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    No one disputes that the sellers would prefer to make more profit. But we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist society (yet). The article is about the EU preparing legislation that would require this sort of guarantee. A functioning government would not allow them to turn the process into a hellish ordeal.
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      I find this notion naive. It's been the case forever. It's still hard to get decent phone support (meanwhile they're always right there if you ask to stop your membership). The issue is that there's no efficient backpressure mechanism in place when these systems are in place. People just waste time, money and then half of them surrender because no one listens or it's worthless to wait for a proper solution.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        I agree. Any ideas on how to create some additional forms of backpressure?
        agumonkey 9y ago
        Not really, I haven't thought about this particularly yet. It should be the normal function of a political structure. IMO I'd be more willing to try a flatter system where users, forming a similar emotional class, could share and help themselves in case of need. So promoting this behavior culturally should be done, and maybe enough.
      - kalleboo 9y ago
        I never had trouble getting things replaced under the Swedish 2-year repair law.
- pmlnr 9y ago
  ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you can extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5, but they are significantly more expensive than a laptop in [random local PC store]. The first step would be to make people understand that the shiny new is most probably nothing better - not in power, keyboard, etc - than a 3-4 years old business rugged one (there are always exceptions, we're talking generic category here), so just go and get a used, perfectly functioniong business tank instead.
  - runeks 9y ago
    > ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you can extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5 [..] I think this is a great solution. I don't see the purpose of preventing people from purchasing the laptop with a 3-year warranty by mandating a 5-year warranty. Why not just let the people who prefer the 5-year warranty pay for it?
    - baq 9y ago
      Because this isn't about individuals. It's all about the whole society and the environment it's in. See also tragedy of the commons.
  - Jach 9y ago
    Yup. But sometimes sourcing an old thing at a good price is hard. It's further made difficult by misguided environmentalism like e.g. cash for clunkers that end up removing a ton of functioning old stuff from the market and forcing extra manufacture and purchase of new stuff.
maaaats 9y ago
EU is also working on mandatory two year expected lifetime on many products. As in, if a product is in a category expected to last more than two years (eg most products except perishable items), if it breaks down through no fault of the consumer, the producer will have to fix or replace it. This extends beyond whatever guarantees/warranties provided by the producers. I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  I think there is a middle ground here. I'm okay with items lasting at least 2 with 3 expected as long as it is repairable by third parties without OEM parts. So they'd have to release schematics ect. There is 0 reason I should not be able to replace seals and motors in my washing machine, and the electronics should last 20 years or more. Unless of course it is engineered it to fail and they should just release schematics so an independend shop can replace the crappy parts with something more durable.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  An option is to include a 'reasonableness' test like is in the Australian Consumer Law[1]. 1) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
- wyager 9y ago
  I think this is bad. Sometimes I want a cheap Chinese piece of crap that breaks in 3 months because I only need to use it one or two times. I shouldn't be forced to shell out for a high-quality BIFL model if that doesn't correspond to my needs.
  - purplethinking 9y ago
    This type of legislation is not about you, it's about the environment. Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.
yummybear 9y ago
How are planned obsolescense implemented in practice?
- simias 9y ago
  Mostly by very tight tolerances on certain components that causes them to fail prematurely. The difference between planned obsolescence and just cheapening out on the BOM is mostly in the eye of the beholder. There's also the classic "software driven obsolescence", such as pushing a software upgrade that performs poorly on older hardware. Again, you could argue that maintaining older versions of the software is costly for the vendor and it makes sense for them to push their newer, shinier version. I think in many cases "planned obsolescence" is not so much about some evil corporate type saying "let's have this thing break on purpose two years from now" but rather some greedy corporate type saying "let's make this thing as cheap as possible".
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  Plastic bearings, where a metal one would last half a eternity. Capacitators near heatsources. Subconciously annoying the consumer, by making a product via software update laggy and unresponsive.
- IshKebab 9y ago
  It isn't. What really happens is cost reduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_reduction). Basically the design is changed to make it as cheap as possible to manufacture, while still lasting the guarantee period. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability Examples of what you might do: * Change the design to relax tolerances. * Switch from nuts/bolts to other fixings like glue, snap-fit, screws into plastic, etc. * Reduce the thickness of plastic parts that rarely fail * Switch to cheaper materials, e.g. metal->plastic * Integrate electronics into fewer places / components / PCBs. I have a theory that first generation products last longer than recent ones because they haven't had a chance to make them crap yet (though this may also be selection bias). None of it is really done to screw the customer over, rather to maximise profit. You can't compete on reliability nearly as easily as on price. It takes many years and lots of reviews for customers to learn the reliability of a product. It will probably be obsolete by the time its reliability is clear to the average person, so really only huge long-lived brands can compete on reliability. Cost is easy to compare.
filleokus 9y ago
Is this really a good idea? Sure, "right to repair" and longer lifespans might sound good. But think of all the advancements made by people like Apple with almost all of their products that would be prohibitively hard to do under this legislation. How would you design a iMac where the user could easily fix broken parts (without using a suction cup to remove the whole front glass) or a superthin Macbook Pro where no parts could be fastned by glue, like the batteries. Not to mention the iPhone. I imagine that by demanding easy user repair would make everything look like the bulky Lenovo machines. I don't believe that Apple design their stuff with the intention to make it hard to repair for end users, but rather that they make trade-offs that improve other things with the cost of making user repairs hard. But I might be wrong...
- skummetmaelk 9y ago
  I think most people see eye to eye with you on this, at some point a product is just so tightly integrated that it is almost impossible to repair without specialised equipment. That is completely fine. However, I think the main purpose here is to make spare parts available for the people who really want to try. Designing for repairability in mind is such a vague concept that Apple & Co. will be able to legally weasel out of it anyway.
- q3k 9y ago
  Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem. The problem is lack of genuine replacement parts, lack of (legally available) schematics and other technical documentation, and software/firmware that prevents repairs by bricking devices [1]. [1] - https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-error-53-class-action-lawsuit/ https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-error-53-c...
  - mason240 9y ago
    >Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem. This is already not true for independent auto repair shops. Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools can cost them tens of thousands each and often they don't have the same level of tools as the dealers.
Shivetya 9y ago
I have a feeling that in some cases less efficient manufacturing and more individually replaceable parts will be more damaging to the environment. what worries me most is who is to decide what parts of a product must be user replaceable or replaceable at all? Does the piece have to comprise a certain percentage of the device or will the separate it down to only specific components? Components being battery, screen, and logic board.
- kbart 9y ago
  How can upgrading RAM or changing a broken fan in a laptop be more damaging to the environment than replacing the whole laptop? I just don't follow your logic.
jaclaz 9y ago
Related previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14700784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14700784
amiga-workbench 9y ago
Nice to hear, wish companies and consumers would stop chasing the thinness meme at all costs and get their priorities straight. Removing socketed components to save a few cents off the BoM and a couple of mm off the thickness is a revolting trade-off.
rdl 9y ago
It might be nice for some products to have this designed into them, but the transition will be tough. It might mean redesigning a product well before the end of a natural product cycle. It will almost certainly raise costs (and thus prices) at transition. Last big EU effort like this was RoHS, which actually lowered product lifespans and reliability substantially. Even if it is overall a net good, the winners here will be those selling to EU people but exempt from the regulation during the transition (US, Canadian, etc retailers); once all the costs have been paid by EU consumers to the point that it makes sense to voluntarily adopt elsewhere, then global production might shift overall to selling these kind of devices only. So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate ways.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate ways. Maybe, but as an EU citizen, I'd actually like them to do that - as long as I can hope it'll make a lasting change on the market. The market doesn't always find good solutions by itself; often it takes a powerful actor to push it in the right direction.
- kbart 9y ago
  As an European, I don't mind that as long it works and makes the world a little bit cleaner. Your RoHS example was spot on why this works as even cheap Chinese knock offs are usually RoHS compliant now.
  - rdl 9y ago
    Indicate RoHS compliance, at least :)
squarefoot 9y ago
Ths is good, but let's see how it clashes with copyright laws since "repairing" an obsolete electronic appliance might involve its reverse engineering and at least distributing information on how to do so if not complete binaries containing parts of the original firmware along with other parts which were hacked or developed from scratch. I expect some opposition by the usual suspects lobbied by the industry.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  Making additional copies of a copyrightable work is not the intent of repair, even if copies of some of the parts art made during the repair process. Intent matters in law, and a repair should only leave the same single copy. Trying to prevent someone from repairing a product (as or private act or as a for-profit service) is not a right granted by copyright. Preventing repair is a misuse of copyright, which allows copyright infringers to avoid liability[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse [2] Lasercomb America v. Reynolds
- kevin_b_er 9y ago
  The EU doesn't have the DMCA foothold that allows ownership of your personal belongings by a copyright holder, but it will be interesting to see how the copyright cartel reacts to people owning the things they buy vs the cartel.
gasof 9y ago
Would this also apply to software products?
rajeshmr 9y ago
This is highly welcome! I wish all the governments introduce this legislation 'coz we are losing our beautiful planet and its resources to capitalistic greeds. We should by all means, extend the life of products to efficiently utilize resources.
zabana 9y ago
To me what's actually ridiculous is that this is even subject to debate. Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be assumed. Also, this raises a lot of frightening questions with regards to ownership (and its transfer) and how it's perceived by the Apples and Samsungs of this world. Realistically, if we let this slide, it could open up the door for many more abusive violations of rights, but I digress.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- runeks 9y ago
  > Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be assumed. Shouldn't my right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts also be assumed? The problem with creating rules is that you don't really fix anything, you just force those who disagree to accept your preference (e.g. replaceable parts, at the higher cost this incurs). Most people purchase devices with non-replaceable parts because they prefer the low price that comes with mass-production versus being able to repair it. Why take away this ability?
  - renesd 9y ago
    There is no "right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts". You just made that up. But I'll answer your question anyway. Because it's a giant waste that is destroying the planet, and is economically irresponsible and noncompetitive? Why should the arseholes who produce things that break in one year have a competitive advantage over companies that do the right thing by their customers and by the planet?
    - friedman23 9y ago
      There is also no right to have companies build products that are easy to repair. The EU and a bunch of internet activists made this up. You have the right to try to repair something. If it was built so that it was hard to repair, well you shouldn't have bought it in the first place. Almost all rights are "made up". Anyway, I really hope this law passes because it will fuck up even more small businesses in the EU and drive them to the US.
Osiris30 9y ago
See the previous discussion on HN - "recraiglist" and "They Used To Last 50 Years" (1) - a well-circulated blog post by a successful used home appliance repair & trading entrepreneur. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365
diego_moita 9y ago
One company deserves a lot of praise for respecting the "right to repair" is Baratza[1], a coffee grinder manufacturer in Seattle. Support for customers is one of their mission statements and they provide not only instructions but also all necessary parts and plenty of videos on You-Tube on how to fix their products. Sometimes they even provide upgrades on parts at no extra cost. No, I am not associated with them in anyway other than being a customer. [1] https://www.baratza.com/ https://www.baratza.com/
- thenomad 9y ago
  Seconded. I have yet to have any problems with my Baratza grinder (which I've certainly had for more than two years) but if I do I've heard time and time again about their excellent support. Also completely unassociated with them in any way.
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Devices are going to last all sorts of times - from a few months to years. Depending on what you pay for it. To legislate that no cheaper versions of things should be available, even making them illegal, seems blind to the issues of those of limited means. It seems like a society pawn saying "I always buy Gucci; I mean why do they even make other brands? Har har!" Demanding a warranty for instance would be a softer approach. But to make cheap, low-lifetime options actually illegal shows some fundamental misconception about how a free market works.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I'm not so sure. You know the saying, "I'm too poor to buy cheap". Cheap crap often ends up being bought again and again, because it breaks so often. I'm not convinced that raising the minimum quality floor would increase prices or make cheap products disappear. I give two reasons for that: one, manufacturing costs are usually only a fraction of the sticker price, and two, supply and demand - people of limited means are a market too, they have some money and want to buy stuff. My biggest worry here is that companies could respond by changing their business model from selling stuff to "hardware as a service" - i.e. since crappy products are disallowed, we'll make only premium products, but we'll only rent them out.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    All true. But what's wrong with renting? Who needs to own a toaster? Why? I've long imagined a lifestyle-as-a-service business. Imagine pledging some (large?) fraction of your income for inclusion in an association that provides housing, transportation, appliances, food choices, vacation rentals etc as a service. A sort of concierge life. Just join and move in!
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I feel this would work only for people who live the exactly average lives. You know, "people made out of ticky tacky, who all look just the same"[0]. The moment you want to make something outside of the catalogue, or outside of the standard schedule, you'll be hitting the limits of service model. That said, I find myself wishing for some of my life to be turned into a service. I'd gladly give away a large fraction of my income in order not to have to bother with most house appliances, food, shopping and clothing. But I suspect different people would prefer a different set of services. The risk is that, as everything becomes a service, there will be no products at all, and you either take a service or live (die?) without it. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA
mikl 9y ago
Clueless legislation. When you look inside a modern smartphone or laptop, you’ll find that all available space is crammed with components or batteries. If you want components to be replaceable, you’d need much more space for doors and hatches, and waterproofing would be all but impossible. Especially when it comes to batteries, this is moronic. Ultrabooks are only possible, because multiple, weirdly shaped battery packs can be installed wherever there’s room inside the casing. This effectively means that hardware producers would need to create a larger, shittier version of their products just for the EU market, and EU citizens would be forbidden from purchasing the good versions of things. I sense a massive wave of parallel imports coming…
- jacquesm 9y ago
  If the price of progress is that we can no longer repair or recycle stuff then it isn't really progress but a mortgage on the future of our children.
  - mikl 9y ago
    Repairing and recycling are very different discussions. To my knowledge, recycling eletronics is no more a problem than it’s always been. Companies like Apple have pretty impressive recycling efforts. And repairability? I don’t see the problem. If my iPhone breaks, I can go visit the Apple store, and they’ll take care of it. Having third-party repair services for some so tiny and complex is just a recipe for warranty problems and headaches.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Repairing and recycling are very different discussions. They're part of the higher level discussion, and recycling should be placed there where repair is no longer feasible (in the context of appliances/machinery).
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Exactly. I would be much more in favour of the (what I call) throwaway economy - because it really is convenient - if I could trust that the stuff I discard is being recycled into new products in an efficient way. As it is, we're still mining raw resources to manufacture new stuff, and the old stuff decomposes itself to uselessness (or poisons the Earth).
bluGill 9y ago
Right to repair means nothing without ability to get parts. I work on embedded products. We have perfectly good working machines that don't need any changes, but the CPU (or some other off the shelf chip) is not going to be made anymore so we have to do an expensive port to a new CPU: EVERYBODY loses. We have to charge more for our products because the cost of engineering is only amortized over a few years. we have ideas for a different machine we could build, but that engineering budget (expertise as much as money) is stuck working on the port. If someone does find a bug we have to fix it in both versions. In the mean time you can find parts for 100 year old cars. Part of that is someone in their garage making them (can you make a replacement chip in your garage given just the old one) but part of that is the molds to make oil filters still exist so they can make another batch on demand.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Hey! You're threatening my livelihood there! Those updates put food on my table (I'm an embedded software guy). So no not EVERYBODY loses.
- 23443463453 9y ago
  I would like to point out that this type of legislation, the planned economy, society, regulation, etc, type of legislation is precisely at the center of the difference between the contemporary "left" and "right" in the western world, to be general. Instead of trying to create a system that creates an basic and simple incentive structure that results in the desired outcomes, this type of authoritarian and hubristic attitude that outcomes can simply be decreed and determined is inherently and fundamentally destined to result in nothing less than failure. For example, if we simply required manufacturers to certify parameters for durability and require full refunds within that period for manufacturer defects, the incentive would be to create as durable and long lasting of a product as possible. If we wanted to then push the envelope even further, we could set special lower tax rates for the leader of a segment or product group, e.g., the longest lasting smartphone or TV, etc. So that the incentive to create a longer lasting product is again enforced. We could also then lower taxes for products based on their recycle-ability, i.e., penalize junk Chinese crap while rewarding well engineered and designed products. If you want to do even more, provide something like a 50% reward for reporting of intentional engineered obsolescence and set penalties for products and services that do not last longer than 10% longer than the average for a segment or category. Again, more incentives. Incentives, i.e., systems for persuasion to effect desired outcomes are how humans work; not socialist authoritarianism. I thought we had learned that doesn't work, but I guess this is a new generation that has no sense for the past or history or learning from fundamental mistakes. It's the "we want it, and we want it now" generation, not the let's tweak the parameters and code to produce a desired outcome. I'm always somewhat befuddled that the tech community in particular simply cannot seem to see the correlations between coding and governance, then again, we are all surrounded by horrific, hacky, thoughtless, bruit force, bloated code.
amelius 9y ago
We should move to a service economy. If instead of buying a washing machine, I could buy the service of washing my clothes, the company has an incentive to keep that machine working. As always in politics, getting the incentives right works wonders.
- passivepinetree 9y ago
  Please no. Software as a service is bad enough as it is.
- Jach 9y ago
  You can already buy that service, there are probably dozens of startups that exist or have tried and failed and some established names in certain areas. It might even be a perk in some housing complexes. I think Google even offered/offers it as a work perk. Let those who want a service pay for one, and those who don't not. Let's have a mixed free economy, not a centrally planned one with a bias.
  - amelius 9y ago
    A central aspect of a market to function is transparency. With a service contract, there is more transparency, since you know exactly what the service will cost. Not so with products. Also, let me ask: would you recommend the government to look for a service contract for their fridges/lighting/washing machines? Or would you recommend them to look into buying this equipment? What would be different for companies and consumers?
    - Jach 9y ago
      You know what the service costs, until the contract is up (or the contract can no longer be honored), and unless you do a cost calculation you won't know if you're being gouged. Some people don't care about potential gouging if the price seems fair to them though. I would recommend all entities making purchasing decisions to do so based on some form of economic analysis (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics). The choice of a service contract vs anything else (which may involve other contracts, or may involve purchasing nothing) is the result of the analysis, not some broad sweeping bias. I also wouldn't mind seeing a prediction market for tracking how accurate analysis results tend to be.
objectivistbrit 9y ago
People are focusing on the wrong question. The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks. The question is: who should decide? That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" - which means a ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which they want to buy? A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the "Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for startups to spring up to fill it. None of this requires the government.
- mfringel 9y ago
  You are completely theoretically correct.
- Fej 9y ago
  In a perfect world, consumers have perfect information and understand the subtleties of repairability and all of the unseen costs of disposable products. This is not a perfect world. Government needs to step in because waste is a serious problem that affects everyone, not just the purchasing consumer (and, additionally, to compensate for the fact that consumer ignorance is unavoidable). Contribution to global warming by requiring the purchase of more appliances and devices, for example, is a classic negative externality. One of the core purposes of government is to correct for externalities (according to Adam Smith).
  - sol_remmy 9y ago
    This law being sold as being pro-consumer. It is called "Right to Repair" and not "Right to Restrict Freedom of Choice to Help the Enviroment". Please provide an argument on why this law will benefit consumers. The focus here is not on the environment.
    - 9y ago
pasbesoin 9y ago
My 40 year old microwave just died. Magic Chef, manufactured in October, 1977 in Anniston, GA. Ran like a champ up to its last moment. A faint wiff of overheated electronics, at the end of one run, and upon the next, the magnetron (or klystron, someone told me such an old unit might have?) wouldn't power up. Control panel still works just fine. My previous furnace, a Lennox, was circa 35 years old when it was replaced. The blower motor was failing and I took the advice of the technician to put the money to repair instead towards a new unit. A Rheem, which came with at least two significant (and noisy) defects that took repeated, ineffective visits (with additional expenses) and over a year to finally partially mitigate. What a piece of shit, that "highly regarded" Rheem unit. And the subsequent support for it, under warranty. And, I understand it's expected lifetime is on the order of 15 years. New stuff may be more efficient, but a lot of it is crap for endurance and sometimes even simple convenience. And, I am increasingly comparing the supposed savings (energy, water, etc.) against cost -- both in money and in time and effort -- of maintaining and replacing these... "chintzy" newer models. Sure, slap a sheet of stainless steel on the exterior. Style it up. Inside, it's still kind of a piece of crap. My parents replaced their many years old Kenmore washer with a top of the line top-loader made by LG. (For various reasons, a front-loader didn't work for them.) The clothes consistently come out of the LG wrinkled as well as covered with lint. If you air dry (which makes clothes last longer and not shrink and all sorts of good things), it's a real problem. The suggested work-around passed on by the seller? Run all loads with the "Bulky Items" setting on. What does this do? Fills the drum to the top with water. There go the supposed water savings and some of the energy savings (from the mass of heated water consumed, as well as the additional power to move the extra water around). At least the unit has this setting -- thank goodness! Otherwise, it would be pretty unusable. Someday, someone's going to take the time and effort to research and write up a book full of comparisons between our current household machinery and older generations. And, I suspect, some of the results aren't going to be pretty.
lousken 9y ago
Replaceable batteries in smartphones will return? I might wait for that.
jokoon 9y ago
This would be a true gesture for the environment...

387 points by SwellJoe 9y ago

The right to repair is a good step, but I think the better approach to fight short product lifespans would be much longer and mandatory guarantees on products. A mandatory 5-year guarantee on laptops and 10 years on washing machines or dryers doesn't sound unreasonably.

wyager 9y ago
The way this would work is that laptop prices would be massively inflated to pay for the expected multiple repairs that 90% of consumers wouldn't even want, given the choice. I buy a new laptop every two years or so; I shouldn't be forced to subsidize people on a slower upgrade cycle.
- skrause 9y ago
  Or to stay competitive on price the manufacturers will try to build longer lasting products instead of just rising prices to pay for repairs.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  What if it meant these laptops had better second-hand value? (Like Macs do)
agumonkey 9y ago
Brands would probably start by turning the process into some kind of hell. We're partly responsible for the status of things, too many consumers aim for cute and thin instead of modular. Today we could have some form of standard form factors that allows to swap parts and make opening machines easy.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  No one disputes that the sellers would prefer to make more profit. But we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist society (yet). The article is about the EU preparing legislation that would require this sort of guarantee. A functioning government would not allow them to turn the process into a hellish ordeal.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    I find this notion naive. It's been the case forever. It's still hard to get decent phone support (meanwhile they're always right there if you ask to stop your membership). The issue is that there's no efficient backpressure mechanism in place when these systems are in place. People just waste time, money and then half of them surrender because no one listens or it's worthless to wait for a proper solution.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I agree. Any ideas on how to create some additional forms of backpressure?
      - agumonkey 9y ago
        Not really, I haven't thought about this particularly yet. It should be the normal function of a political structure. IMO I'd be more willing to try a flatter system where users, forming a similar emotional class, could share and help themselves in case of need. So promoting this behavior culturally should be done, and maybe enough.
    - kalleboo 9y ago
      I never had trouble getting things replaced under the Swedish 2-year repair law.
pmlnr 9y ago
ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you can extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5, but they are significantly more expensive than a laptop in [random local PC store]. The first step would be to make people understand that the shiny new is most probably nothing better - not in power, keyboard, etc - than a 3-4 years old business rugged one (there are always exceptions, we're talking generic category here), so just go and get a used, perfectly functioniong business tank instead.
- runeks 9y ago
  > ThinkPads, Elitebooks, Latitudes already fall under the category where you can extend the - normally 3 years warranty - to 5 [..] I think this is a great solution. I don't see the purpose of preventing people from purchasing the laptop with a 3-year warranty by mandating a 5-year warranty. Why not just let the people who prefer the 5-year warranty pay for it?
  - baq 9y ago
    Because this isn't about individuals. It's all about the whole society and the environment it's in. See also tragedy of the commons.
- Jach 9y ago
  Yup. But sometimes sourcing an old thing at a good price is hard. It's further made difficult by misguided environmentalism like e.g. cash for clunkers that end up removing a ton of functioning old stuff from the market and forcing extra manufacture and purchase of new stuff.

maaaats 9y ago

EU is also working on mandatory two year expected lifetime on many products. As in, if a product is in a category expected to last more than two years (eg most products except perishable items), if it breaks down through no fault of the consumer, the producer will have to fix or replace it. This extends beyond whatever guarantees/warranties provided by the producers. I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.

hvidgaard 9y ago
I think there is a middle ground here. I'm okay with items lasting at least 2 with 3 expected as long as it is repairable by third parties without OEM parts. So they'd have to release schematics ect. There is 0 reason I should not be able to replace seals and motors in my washing machine, and the electronics should last 20 years or more. Unless of course it is engineered it to fail and they should just release schematics so an independend shop can replace the crappy parts with something more durable.
jackvalentine 9y ago
An option is to include a 'reasonableness' test like is in the Australian Consumer Law[1]. 1) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
wyager 9y ago
I think this is bad. Sometimes I want a cheap Chinese piece of crap that breaks in 3 months because I only need to use it one or two times. I shouldn't be forced to shell out for a high-quality BIFL model if that doesn't correspond to my needs.
- purplethinking 9y ago
  This type of legislation is not about you, it's about the environment. Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.

yummybear 9y ago

How are planned obsolescense implemented in practice?

simias 9y ago
Mostly by very tight tolerances on certain components that causes them to fail prematurely. The difference between planned obsolescence and just cheapening out on the BOM is mostly in the eye of the beholder. There's also the classic "software driven obsolescence", such as pushing a software upgrade that performs poorly on older hardware. Again, you could argue that maintaining older versions of the software is costly for the vendor and it makes sense for them to push their newer, shinier version. I think in many cases "planned obsolescence" is not so much about some evil corporate type saying "let's have this thing break on purpose two years from now" but rather some greedy corporate type saying "let's make this thing as cheap as possible".
honestoHeminway 9y ago
Plastic bearings, where a metal one would last half a eternity. Capacitators near heatsources. Subconciously annoying the consumer, by making a product via software update laggy and unresponsive.
IshKebab 9y ago
It isn't. What really happens is cost reduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_reduction). Basically the design is changed to make it as cheap as possible to manufacture, while still lasting the guarantee period. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability Examples of what you might do: * Change the design to relax tolerances. * Switch from nuts/bolts to other fixings like glue, snap-fit, screws into plastic, etc. * Reduce the thickness of plastic parts that rarely fail * Switch to cheaper materials, e.g. metal->plastic * Integrate electronics into fewer places / components / PCBs. I have a theory that first generation products last longer than recent ones because they haven't had a chance to make them crap yet (though this may also be selection bias). None of it is really done to screw the customer over, rather to maximise profit. You can't compete on reliability nearly as easily as on price. It takes many years and lots of reviews for customers to learn the reliability of a product. It will probably be obsolete by the time its reliability is clear to the average person, so really only huge long-lived brands can compete on reliability. Cost is easy to compare.

filleokus 9y ago

Is this really a good idea? Sure, "right to repair" and longer lifespans might sound good. But think of all the advancements made by people like Apple with almost all of their products that would be prohibitively hard to do under this legislation. How would you design a iMac where the user could easily fix broken parts (without using a suction cup to remove the whole front glass) or a superthin Macbook Pro where no parts could be fastned by glue, like the batteries. Not to mention the iPhone. I imagine that by demanding easy user repair would make everything look like the bulky Lenovo machines. I don't believe that Apple design their stuff with the intention to make it hard to repair for end users, but rather that they make trade-offs that improve other things with the cost of making user repairs hard. But I might be wrong...

skummetmaelk 9y ago
I think most people see eye to eye with you on this, at some point a product is just so tightly integrated that it is almost impossible to repair without specialised equipment. That is completely fine. However, I think the main purpose here is to make spare parts available for the people who really want to try. Designing for repairability in mind is such a vague concept that Apple & Co. will be able to legally weasel out of it anyway.
q3k 9y ago
Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem. The problem is lack of genuine replacement parts, lack of (legally available) schematics and other technical documentation, and software/firmware that prevents repairs by bricking devices [1]. [1] - https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-error-53-class-action-lawsuit/ https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/11/apple-facing-error-53-c...
- mason240 9y ago
  >Access to specialized equipment by repair shops is not a problem. This is already not true for independent auto repair shops. Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools can cost them tens of thousands each and often they don't have the same level of tools as the dealers.

Shivetya 9y ago

I have a feeling that in some cases less efficient manufacturing and more individually replaceable parts will be more damaging to the environment. what worries me most is who is to decide what parts of a product must be user replaceable or replaceable at all? Does the piece have to comprise a certain percentage of the device or will the separate it down to only specific components? Components being battery, screen, and logic board.

kbart 9y ago
How can upgrading RAM or changing a broken fan in a laptop be more damaging to the environment than replacing the whole laptop? I just don't follow your logic.

jaclaz 9y ago

Related previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14700784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14700784

amiga-workbench 9y ago

Nice to hear, wish companies and consumers would stop chasing the thinness meme at all costs and get their priorities straight. Removing socketed components to save a few cents off the BoM and a couple of mm off the thickness is a revolting trade-off.

rdl 9y ago

It might be nice for some products to have this designed into them, but the transition will be tough. It might mean redesigning a product well before the end of a natural product cycle. It will almost certainly raise costs (and thus prices) at transition. Last big EU effort like this was RoHS, which actually lowered product lifespans and reliability substantially. Even if it is overall a net good, the winners here will be those selling to EU people but exempt from the regulation during the transition (US, Canadian, etc retailers); once all the costs have been paid by EU consumers to the point that it makes sense to voluntarily adopt elsewhere, then global production might shift overall to selling these kind of devices only. So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate ways.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> So, essentially a subsidy by the EU to the rest of the world in two separate ways. Maybe, but as an EU citizen, I'd actually like them to do that - as long as I can hope it'll make a lasting change on the market. The market doesn't always find good solutions by itself; often it takes a powerful actor to push it in the right direction.
kbart 9y ago
As an European, I don't mind that as long it works and makes the world a little bit cleaner. Your RoHS example was spot on why this works as even cheap Chinese knock offs are usually RoHS compliant now.
- rdl 9y ago
  Indicate RoHS compliance, at least :)

squarefoot 9y ago

Ths is good, but let's see how it clashes with copyright laws since "repairing" an obsolete electronic appliance might involve its reverse engineering and at least distributing information on how to do so if not complete binaries containing parts of the original firmware along with other parts which were hacked or developed from scratch. I expect some opposition by the usual suspects lobbied by the industry.

pdkl95 9y ago
Making additional copies of a copyrightable work is not the intent of repair, even if copies of some of the parts art made during the repair process. Intent matters in law, and a repair should only leave the same single copy. Trying to prevent someone from repairing a product (as or private act or as a for-profit service) is not a right granted by copyright. Preventing repair is a misuse of copyright, which allows copyright infringers to avoid liability[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse [2] Lasercomb America v. Reynolds
kevin_b_er 9y ago
The EU doesn't have the DMCA foothold that allows ownership of your personal belongings by a copyright holder, but it will be interesting to see how the copyright cartel reacts to people owning the things they buy vs the cartel.

gasof 9y ago

Would this also apply to software products?

rajeshmr 9y ago

This is highly welcome! I wish all the governments introduce this legislation 'coz we are losing our beautiful planet and its resources to capitalistic greeds. We should by all means, extend the life of products to efficiently utilize resources.

zabana 9y ago

To me what's actually ridiculous is that this is even subject to debate. Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be assumed. Also, this raises a lot of frightening questions with regards to ownership (and its transfer) and how it's perceived by the Apples and Samsungs of this world. Realistically, if we let this slide, it could open up the door for many more abusive violations of rights, but I digress.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
runeks 9y ago
> Consumers should not have to fight for their right to repair, it should be assumed. Shouldn't my right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts also be assumed? The problem with creating rules is that you don't really fix anything, you just force those who disagree to accept your preference (e.g. replaceable parts, at the higher cost this incurs). Most people purchase devices with non-replaceable parts because they prefer the low price that comes with mass-production versus being able to repair it. Why take away this ability?
- renesd 9y ago
  There is no "right to purchase an electronic device without replaceable parts". You just made that up. But I'll answer your question anyway. Because it's a giant waste that is destroying the planet, and is economically irresponsible and noncompetitive? Why should the arseholes who produce things that break in one year have a competitive advantage over companies that do the right thing by their customers and by the planet?
  - friedman23 9y ago
    There is also no right to have companies build products that are easy to repair. The EU and a bunch of internet activists made this up. You have the right to try to repair something. If it was built so that it was hard to repair, well you shouldn't have bought it in the first place. Almost all rights are "made up". Anyway, I really hope this law passes because it will fuck up even more small businesses in the EU and drive them to the US.

Osiris30 9y ago

See the previous discussion on HN - "recraiglist" and "They Used To Last 50 Years" (1) - a well-circulated blog post by a successful used home appliance repair & trading entrepreneur. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909365

diego_moita 9y ago

One company deserves a lot of praise for respecting the "right to repair" is Baratza[1], a coffee grinder manufacturer in Seattle. Support for customers is one of their mission statements and they provide not only instructions but also all necessary parts and plenty of videos on You-Tube on how to fix their products. Sometimes they even provide upgrades on parts at no extra cost. No, I am not associated with them in anyway other than being a customer. [1] https://www.baratza.com/ https://www.baratza.com/

thenomad 9y ago
Seconded. I have yet to have any problems with my Baratza grinder (which I've certainly had for more than two years) but if I do I've heard time and time again about their excellent support. Also completely unassociated with them in any way.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

Devices are going to last all sorts of times - from a few months to years. Depending on what you pay for it. To legislate that no cheaper versions of things should be available, even making them illegal, seems blind to the issues of those of limited means. It seems like a society pawn saying "I always buy Gucci; I mean why do they even make other brands? Har har!" Demanding a warranty for instance would be a softer approach. But to make cheap, low-lifetime options actually illegal shows some fundamental misconception about how a free market works.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I'm not so sure. You know the saying, "I'm too poor to buy cheap". Cheap crap often ends up being bought again and again, because it breaks so often. I'm not convinced that raising the minimum quality floor would increase prices or make cheap products disappear. I give two reasons for that: one, manufacturing costs are usually only a fraction of the sticker price, and two, supply and demand - people of limited means are a market too, they have some money and want to buy stuff. My biggest worry here is that companies could respond by changing their business model from selling stuff to "hardware as a service" - i.e. since crappy products are disallowed, we'll make only premium products, but we'll only rent them out.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  All true. But what's wrong with renting? Who needs to own a toaster? Why? I've long imagined a lifestyle-as-a-service business. Imagine pledging some (large?) fraction of your income for inclusion in an association that provides housing, transportation, appliances, food choices, vacation rentals etc as a service. A sort of concierge life. Just join and move in!
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I feel this would work only for people who live the exactly average lives. You know, "people made out of ticky tacky, who all look just the same"[0]. The moment you want to make something outside of the catalogue, or outside of the standard schedule, you'll be hitting the limits of service model. That said, I find myself wishing for some of my life to be turned into a service. I'd gladly give away a large fraction of my income in order not to have to bother with most house appliances, food, shopping and clothing. But I suspect different people would prefer a different set of services. The risk is that, as everything becomes a service, there will be no products at all, and you either take a service or live (die?) without it. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA

mikl 9y ago

Clueless legislation. When you look inside a modern smartphone or laptop, you’ll find that all available space is crammed with components or batteries. If you want components to be replaceable, you’d need much more space for doors and hatches, and waterproofing would be all but impossible. Especially when it comes to batteries, this is moronic. Ultrabooks are only possible, because multiple, weirdly shaped battery packs can be installed wherever there’s room inside the casing. This effectively means that hardware producers would need to create a larger, shittier version of their products just for the EU market, and EU citizens would be forbidden from purchasing the good versions of things. I sense a massive wave of parallel imports coming…

jacquesm 9y ago
If the price of progress is that we can no longer repair or recycle stuff then it isn't really progress but a mortgage on the future of our children.
- mikl 9y ago
  Repairing and recycling are very different discussions. To my knowledge, recycling eletronics is no more a problem than it’s always been. Companies like Apple have pretty impressive recycling efforts. And repairability? I don’t see the problem. If my iPhone breaks, I can go visit the Apple store, and they’ll take care of it. Having third-party repair services for some so tiny and complex is just a recipe for warranty problems and headaches.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Repairing and recycling are very different discussions. They're part of the higher level discussion, and recycling should be placed there where repair is no longer feasible (in the context of appliances/machinery).
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Exactly. I would be much more in favour of the (what I call) throwaway economy - because it really is convenient - if I could trust that the stuff I discard is being recycled into new products in an efficient way. As it is, we're still mining raw resources to manufacture new stuff, and the old stuff decomposes itself to uselessness (or poisons the Earth).

bluGill 9y ago

Right to repair means nothing without ability to get parts. I work on embedded products. We have perfectly good working machines that don't need any changes, but the CPU (or some other off the shelf chip) is not going to be made anymore so we have to do an expensive port to a new CPU: EVERYBODY loses. We have to charge more for our products because the cost of engineering is only amortized over a few years. we have ideas for a different machine we could build, but that engineering budget (expertise as much as money) is stuck working on the port. If someone does find a bug we have to fix it in both versions. In the mean time you can find parts for 100 year old cars. Part of that is someone in their garage making them (can you make a replacement chip in your garage given just the old one) but part of that is the molds to make oil filters still exist so they can make another batch on demand.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Hey! You're threatening my livelihood there! Those updates put food on my table (I'm an embedded software guy). So no not EVERYBODY loses.
23443463453 9y ago
I would like to point out that this type of legislation, the planned economy, society, regulation, etc, type of legislation is precisely at the center of the difference between the contemporary "left" and "right" in the western world, to be general. Instead of trying to create a system that creates an basic and simple incentive structure that results in the desired outcomes, this type of authoritarian and hubristic attitude that outcomes can simply be decreed and determined is inherently and fundamentally destined to result in nothing less than failure. For example, if we simply required manufacturers to certify parameters for durability and require full refunds within that period for manufacturer defects, the incentive would be to create as durable and long lasting of a product as possible. If we wanted to then push the envelope even further, we could set special lower tax rates for the leader of a segment or product group, e.g., the longest lasting smartphone or TV, etc. So that the incentive to create a longer lasting product is again enforced. We could also then lower taxes for products based on their recycle-ability, i.e., penalize junk Chinese crap while rewarding well engineered and designed products. If you want to do even more, provide something like a 50% reward for reporting of intentional engineered obsolescence and set penalties for products and services that do not last longer than 10% longer than the average for a segment or category. Again, more incentives. Incentives, i.e., systems for persuasion to effect desired outcomes are how humans work; not socialist authoritarianism. I thought we had learned that doesn't work, but I guess this is a new generation that has no sense for the past or history or learning from fundamental mistakes. It's the "we want it, and we want it now" generation, not the let's tweak the parameters and code to produce a desired outcome. I'm always somewhat befuddled that the tech community in particular simply cannot seem to see the correlations between coding and governance, then again, we are all surrounded by horrific, hacky, thoughtless, bruit force, bloated code.

amelius 9y ago

We should move to a service economy. If instead of buying a washing machine, I could buy the service of washing my clothes, the company has an incentive to keep that machine working. As always in politics, getting the incentives right works wonders.

passivepinetree 9y ago
Please no. Software as a service is bad enough as it is.
Jach 9y ago
You can already buy that service, there are probably dozens of startups that exist or have tried and failed and some established names in certain areas. It might even be a perk in some housing complexes. I think Google even offered/offers it as a work perk. Let those who want a service pay for one, and those who don't not. Let's have a mixed free economy, not a centrally planned one with a bias.
- amelius 9y ago
  A central aspect of a market to function is transparency. With a service contract, there is more transparency, since you know exactly what the service will cost. Not so with products. Also, let me ask: would you recommend the government to look for a service contract for their fridges/lighting/washing machines? Or would you recommend them to look into buying this equipment? What would be different for companies and consumers?
  - Jach 9y ago
    You know what the service costs, until the contract is up (or the contract can no longer be honored), and unless you do a cost calculation you won't know if you're being gouged. Some people don't care about potential gouging if the price seems fair to them though. I would recommend all entities making purchasing decisions to do so based on some form of economic analysis (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_economics). The choice of a service contract vs anything else (which may involve other contracts, or may involve purchasing nothing) is the result of the analysis, not some broad sweeping bias. I also wouldn't mind seeing a prediction market for tracking how accurate analysis results tend to be.

objectivistbrit 9y ago

People are focusing on the wrong question. The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks. The question is: who should decide? That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" - which means a ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which they want to buy? A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the "Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for startups to spring up to fill it. None of this requires the government.

mfringel 9y ago
You are completely theoretically correct.
Fej 9y ago
In a perfect world, consumers have perfect information and understand the subtleties of repairability and all of the unseen costs of disposable products. This is not a perfect world. Government needs to step in because waste is a serious problem that affects everyone, not just the purchasing consumer (and, additionally, to compensate for the fact that consumer ignorance is unavoidable). Contribution to global warming by requiring the purchase of more appliances and devices, for example, is a classic negative externality. One of the core purposes of government is to correct for externalities (according to Adam Smith).
- sol_remmy 9y ago
  This law being sold as being pro-consumer. It is called "Right to Repair" and not "Right to Restrict Freedom of Choice to Help the Enviroment". Please provide an argument on why this law will benefit consumers. The focus here is not on the environment.
  - 9y ago

pasbesoin 9y ago

My 40 year old microwave just died. Magic Chef, manufactured in October, 1977 in Anniston, GA. Ran like a champ up to its last moment. A faint wiff of overheated electronics, at the end of one run, and upon the next, the magnetron (or klystron, someone told me such an old unit might have?) wouldn't power up. Control panel still works just fine. My previous furnace, a Lennox, was circa 35 years old when it was replaced. The blower motor was failing and I took the advice of the technician to put the money to repair instead towards a new unit. A Rheem, which came with at least two significant (and noisy) defects that took repeated, ineffective visits (with additional expenses) and over a year to finally partially mitigate. What a piece of shit, that "highly regarded" Rheem unit. And the subsequent support for it, under warranty. And, I understand it's expected lifetime is on the order of 15 years. New stuff may be more efficient, but a lot of it is crap for endurance and sometimes even simple convenience. And, I am increasingly comparing the supposed savings (energy, water, etc.) against cost -- both in money and in time and effort -- of maintaining and replacing these... "chintzy" newer models. Sure, slap a sheet of stainless steel on the exterior. Style it up. Inside, it's still kind of a piece of crap. My parents replaced their many years old Kenmore washer with a top of the line top-loader made by LG. (For various reasons, a front-loader didn't work for them.) The clothes consistently come out of the LG wrinkled as well as covered with lint. If you air dry (which makes clothes last longer and not shrink and all sorts of good things), it's a real problem. The suggested work-around passed on by the seller? Run all loads with the "Bulky Items" setting on. What does this do? Fills the drum to the top with water. There go the supposed water savings and some of the energy savings (from the mass of heated water consumed, as well as the additional power to move the extra water around). At least the unit has this setting -- thank goodness! Otherwise, it would be pretty unusable. Someday, someone's going to take the time and effort to research and write up a book full of comparisons between our current household machinery and older generations. And, I suspect, some of the results aren't going to be pretty.

lousken 9y ago

Replaceable batteries in smartphones will return? I might wait for that.

jokoon 9y ago

This would be a true gesture for the environment...