5 ms·

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 almo

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.
  - bb611 9y ago
    > Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools The tools themselves aren't the issue, the only thing specific to these tools is a complete mapping of proprietary error codes. If manufacturers were forced to release a list of all error codes and their meanings as part of the owner's manual this would be a non-issue.
    - problems 9y ago
      Keep an eye on projects like this: https://github.com/commaai/opendbc https://github.com/commaai/opendbc
- 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.
- problems 9y ago
  I've never had a problem finding replacement parts for phones, tablets and other devices including batteries, screens, power buttons, headphones jacks, etc. All are readily available if you're willing to wait a few weeks for shipping. Maybe a few things aren't "genuine", like finding OEM batteries is pretty tricky with some devices, but the ones you get do the job with no significant issues in my experience - just beware of the risks of faked specs and buy the cheapest rather than paying more for faked spec. The thing about repair is it's often not economically viable, especially if you're paying for labor - for example, I could have payed someone $100 to replace the phone screen on my Nexus 5 - a brand new one on ebay goes for $170. I may as well just buy a new phone or use it as an excuse to upgrade. So in many ways, the repair shops are a bigger impedance to repairs than the parts situation in my opinion. Instead I was able to buy a replacement screen assembly directly out of China for $30 and do the replacement myself for free, it's the only way the repair made economic sense.
Inconel 9y ago
Can anyone with knowledge offer their opinion on how allowing more permissive repairs to something like an iPhone would impact it's security? Would allowing the use of third party replacements parts weaken security? What about genuine Apple parts that can be installed by third parties?
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  If your threat model includes nation states, then no.
kartickv 9y ago
As someone who bought a super-costly iMac that isn't upgradeable, I disagree with you. If the EU were to force Apple to make the iMac just an inch thicker to make it upgradeable, I'd take it. It wouldn't increase the computer's footprint (the space on my table that it consumes). I know upgradeability isn't exactly the same as repairability, but they're close.
- filleokus 9y ago
  You bought it fully aware of the limitations with regards to repairability/upgradeability, and even though I agree with you that it would be nice to upgrade it (even if it's just something as simple as RAM replacement), I feel it's wrong to force Apple to move that trade-off with legislation. It's not as you can't buy a computer thats easily upgradeable (every PC ever almost) if you would like to made that trade-off yourself. (Again I would also like to see an upgradeable iMac / cheaper Mac Pro)
  - kartickv 9y ago
    You seem to be saying market forces will sort it out, but the premise behind legislation is that they haven't. (In my specific case, as an iOS developer, I can't buy anything but a Mac.)
    - filleokus 9y ago
      Well, my point is that everything has a cost, even repairability/upgradeability, either in monetary value, or in lack of some features. With this in mind, then manufacturers have to consider where on that spectrum they want to be. What things to give up in order to provide "optimum" user value. And I think, for many people, that the current limited upgradeability of for example iPads is quite close to the optima. Screens and batteries can be quite easily changed, but you can't upgrade the storage or other internal components. The lack of repairability does not necessarily, in my opinion, show any market force failure. All the failed attempts of modular phones might even show the opposite. And don't take me wrong, I would looove a more upgradeable Mac (also an iOS developer), but I feel that Apple should be allowed to make those choices by themselves. If upgradeability would be so important for me I could always be an .NET-dev.
jumbopapa 9y ago
I really don't think this is a good idea. It will surely make things more expensive for consumers and as a consumer we agree to to buy the product regardless of the repairability. If you want to buy things that are repairable then you need to make it known to the manufacturer that this is something consumers want (i.e. vote with your wallet).
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
They shouldn't take proactive measures to prevent you from opening the device (i.e. gluing it shut), and should in fact take proactive measures not to (i.e. using phillips head screws). There are lots of little things they can do to make it easier without compromising on the design. Despite that, I don't think requiring specialized tools is a problem so long as they are (1) generally available and (2) reasonably priced.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > using phillips head screws Let's hope they don't use those. Simply because there's like 3 or 4 other types out there which look really, really close to a phillips, but aren't. They have slightly different shapes, and use different shaped bits/points on a screwdriver. Some are compatible with each other (but none are compatible with all!) - and others, if you use the wrong driver on the wrong screw, will tend to strip it out, or cam out with damage to either the screw, the tool, or both. There are much better yet still easy to obtain drive profiles out there to use for screws (torx is one of them).

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.
- bb611 9y ago
  > Manufacturer specific computer diagnostic tools The tools themselves aren't the issue, the only thing specific to these tools is a complete mapping of proprietary error codes. If manufacturers were forced to release a list of all error codes and their meanings as part of the owner's manual this would be a non-issue.
  - problems 9y ago
    Keep an eye on projects like this: https://github.com/commaai/opendbc https://github.com/commaai/opendbc
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.
problems 9y ago
I've never had a problem finding replacement parts for phones, tablets and other devices including batteries, screens, power buttons, headphones jacks, etc. All are readily available if you're willing to wait a few weeks for shipping. Maybe a few things aren't "genuine", like finding OEM batteries is pretty tricky with some devices, but the ones you get do the job with no significant issues in my experience - just beware of the risks of faked specs and buy the cheapest rather than paying more for faked spec. The thing about repair is it's often not economically viable, especially if you're paying for labor - for example, I could have payed someone $100 to replace the phone screen on my Nexus 5 - a brand new one on ebay goes for $170. I may as well just buy a new phone or use it as an excuse to upgrade. So in many ways, the repair shops are a bigger impedance to repairs than the parts situation in my opinion. Instead I was able to buy a replacement screen assembly directly out of China for $30 and do the replacement myself for free, it's the only way the repair made economic sense.

Inconel 9y ago

Can anyone with knowledge offer their opinion on how allowing more permissive repairs to something like an iPhone would impact it's security? Would allowing the use of third party replacements parts weaken security? What about genuine Apple parts that can be installed by third parties?

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
If your threat model includes nation states, then no.

kartickv 9y ago

As someone who bought a super-costly iMac that isn't upgradeable, I disagree with you. If the EU were to force Apple to make the iMac just an inch thicker to make it upgradeable, I'd take it. It wouldn't increase the computer's footprint (the space on my table that it consumes). I know upgradeability isn't exactly the same as repairability, but they're close.

filleokus 9y ago
You bought it fully aware of the limitations with regards to repairability/upgradeability, and even though I agree with you that it would be nice to upgrade it (even if it's just something as simple as RAM replacement), I feel it's wrong to force Apple to move that trade-off with legislation. It's not as you can't buy a computer thats easily upgradeable (every PC ever almost) if you would like to made that trade-off yourself. (Again I would also like to see an upgradeable iMac / cheaper Mac Pro)
- kartickv 9y ago
  You seem to be saying market forces will sort it out, but the premise behind legislation is that they haven't. (In my specific case, as an iOS developer, I can't buy anything but a Mac.)
  - filleokus 9y ago
    Well, my point is that everything has a cost, even repairability/upgradeability, either in monetary value, or in lack of some features. With this in mind, then manufacturers have to consider where on that spectrum they want to be. What things to give up in order to provide "optimum" user value. And I think, for many people, that the current limited upgradeability of for example iPads is quite close to the optima. Screens and batteries can be quite easily changed, but you can't upgrade the storage or other internal components. The lack of repairability does not necessarily, in my opinion, show any market force failure. All the failed attempts of modular phones might even show the opposite. And don't take me wrong, I would looove a more upgradeable Mac (also an iOS developer), but I feel that Apple should be allowed to make those choices by themselves. If upgradeability would be so important for me I could always be an .NET-dev.

jumbopapa 9y ago

I really don't think this is a good idea. It will surely make things more expensive for consumers and as a consumer we agree to to buy the product regardless of the repairability. If you want to buy things that are repairable then you need to make it known to the manufacturer that this is something consumers want (i.e. vote with your wallet).

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

They shouldn't take proactive measures to prevent you from opening the device (i.e. gluing it shut), and should in fact take proactive measures not to (i.e. using phillips head screws). There are lots of little things they can do to make it easier without compromising on the design. Despite that, I don't think requiring specialized tools is a problem so long as they are (1) generally available and (2) reasonably priced.

cr0sh 9y ago
> using phillips head screws Let's hope they don't use those. Simply because there's like 3 or 4 other types out there which look really, really close to a phillips, but aren't. They have slightly different shapes, and use different shaped bits/points on a screwdriver. Some are compatible with each other (but none are compatible with all!) - and others, if you use the wrong driver on the wrong screw, will tend to strip it out, or cam out with damage to either the screw, the tool, or both. There are much better yet still easy to obtain drive profiles out there to use for screws (torx is one of them).