10 ms·

I guess I believe in this "right to repair" movement, but only so far as to ensure that if you're capable of taking your device apart and putting it back togeth

I guess I believe in this "right to repair" movement, but only so far as to ensure that if you're capable of taking your device apart and putting it back together without breaking anything that you don't automatically void some warranty. I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. I'd rather see legislation that ensures when a piece of tech reaches the end of its useful lifetime it can be submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. Why not? > I'd rather see legislation that ensures when a piece of tech reaches the end of its useful lifetime it can be submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user. It is always and exclusively at the cost of the user?
- duado 8y ago
  Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. I’ve never needed to open one of my iPhones and would not want them 1mm thicker to be repairable.
  - Zarath 8y ago
    Maybe you've never needed to open your iphone because it would serve no purpose. If I could upgrade my old iphone by taking it apart, I wouldn't have bought a new one in the first place...
    - abalone 8y ago
      You don’t have to buy a new iPhone to replace the battery, so presumably you’re imagining upgrading the processors, camera, sensors or some other aspect of the iPhone. Those components are so tightly integrated and custom fitted in each iteration of the device that it is technically impossible to “upgrade” them independently.
  - dustindiamond 8y ago
    Do you use a 4s for its minimalist size?
    - duado 8y ago
      SE.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Would you honestly be inconvenienced by the extra 1mm ? You could get the ability to replace your battery or screen on reasonable prices,
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. So, you can still make it mandatory where you don't need to make things bigger?
    - iguy 8y ago
      But who decides? There is going to be a ministry of "did it need to be so compact?" staffed by disinterested experts? I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        That's the opposite of what the comment meant. The suggestion is that where it doesn't change the size/quality you mandate easier disassembly. Next to zero subjectivity.
        iguy 8y ago
        Yes I got that. But my point is that this involves second-guessing every design decision. You propose some new design which is more compact / easier to manufacture / more reliable because it has fewer connectors, and then you take it to the ministry for approval. How do they know whether your changes are justified? Maybe they sketch an easier-to-disassemble variant which is no bigger than yours, and reject your design, but they don't understand the why it will cost you twice as much to assemble that design (in your factory, with your workforce) or why you rejected that kind of connector (your experience with the supplier, or your vibration tests). Can you prove why you made these decisions? Call expert witnesses? This just seems like an impossible minefield to me. I think better to tilt the balance in other ways, like pushing longer guarantees (regardless of whether the best solution is an unbreakable one-piece object, or a repairable one) and forcing recycling (so that the sticker price includes more of the total lifecycle cost).
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > But who decides? Well, I dunno, but that's a question with every law, and thus not exactly an argument by itself? > I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying. But why would there need to be micro-management?
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    I once had a Mazda 6. In order replace the PCV valve one has to remove the manifold. A ten minutes job on any other car was a couple hours in this one. They didn't make it easy just because I have the right to repair it myself. You shouldn't have to deal with an extra mm and all the inconvenience that comes along with it just to support my right to replace the battery.
- kevinherron 8y ago
  > > I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. > Why not? Because, 1) I personally don't care about this. 2) More important than 1, I don't think the law/government has any business deciding this. The market can decide (spoiler: it already has).
  - simion314 8y ago
    Did the free markets ended slavery in US or under-age working? I remember many good things had to be forced with laws and not let to be decided by the big companies.
    - kevinherron 8y ago
      Are you equating the "injustice" of not being able replace the battery in your iPhone with that of slavery?
      - simion314 8y ago
        No, I am invalidating the point of "Free markets" solve things, so you can ignore the slavery and put other things free markets did not solve like pollution,cigarettes etc but I assume someone would bring the excuse that the goverment was at fault all along and free markets were not free.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
      > Did the free markets ended slavery in US In a very oblique manner it did. Industrialization (which was very much a product of free markets) of the Northern States made the economics of slavery untenable in the North. Once people were not as blinded by profits, they could actually see that slavery was a moral evil. In the South, the economics were very different and therefore a lot of rationalizations were formed as to why slavery was not that evil. In addition, Industrialization enabled larger population growth in the North as well as larger production. This is what gave the Union the advantage in manpower and material that allowed the North to win the Civil War.
voxic11 8y ago
I think you are misconstruing the aims of the right to repair movement. Its nothing to do with forcing companies to make it "easy" to repair, but rather about preventing companies from including "features" which serve no purpose besides preventing third party repair. An example would be a tractor that is designed to be cheaply serviceable, but has a feature which disables any replaced parts until a message signed by the the original equipment manufacturer and authorizing the replacement part has been received.
- kevinherron 8y ago
  You're right, I remember this initially, but many discussions about right to repair get hijacked and center around topics like iFixit and their blatantly self-serving anti-Apple campaigns.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    All ad campaigns are blatantly self-serving... so what's the point?
  - isoskeles 8y ago
    As self-serving as it is, iFixit is doing a social good IMO. If it weren't for them, I would have spent more money replacing or having someone else repair my iPhone. So I don't care if they make money off of it, they save me more money in the long-run, and they prevent a larger number of phones and other devices being cycled through the economy before necessary. If that means punching up at Apple, so be it. Apple can take the hit. Planned obsolescence is a very shitty and cynical strategy on the part of manufacturers, and anyone fighting against it is on the right side.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > iFixit is doing a social good IMO Agree. > anyone fighting against it is on the right side Don't. For example, Louis Rossmann recently kicked up a storm when he claimed that Apple used the customs to seize his "genuine" battery shipments (which was widely reported in the media and gave him significant publicity), except it turned out that he left out the fact that the parts were unauthorized: https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossmann_admits_to_using_parts_from_a/ https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman.... Self-serving PR stunts that consist of misinformation and depend on the subsequent media outrage don't help "the right side".
simion314 8y ago
So I assume there may be at least 2 distinct issues: 1 preventing people to repair their hardware with software locks, not selling parts, not providing documentation, copyrighting schematics, repairs manuals and doing all you can to not allow third parties to fix hardware. 2 building thins that are impossible or hard to repair because you don't care about the fact that for a broken key you have to replace half the laptop because your profits are high enough and making a more repairable device is too much work , more expensive or not as cool looking. IMO point 1 should be illegal, I should be able to buy parts for my laptop,computer,phone,car or other device and have a specialist repair my device. Point 2 is more debatable, some manufacturers could abuse this to force you buy new things when the warranty expires rather then you replace the broken component. At least forcing the companies to pay the correct price for proper recycling without hidden externalities would help on this point.
- sorenn111 8y ago
  I disagree with some of your sub points from point 1. Selling parts, providing documentation, and building repair manuals are forcing behaviors form companies. Compelling them to do provide a service or product that they would not otherwise provide. Legislation that prevents certain actions is great, but I'm wary of any compulsion from governments to companies and individuals. If you want to take stuff apart, Go for it! But Apple should not be required to write, edit, and sell manuals that it does not want to.
  - simion314 8y ago
    But why should Apple be special? As an example for cars most countries have laws that force them to provide you parts years after the car is no longer sold, don't you think that having companies not selling you parts make them have to much control over you? 1 So let me know why should some companies not sell parts? 2 why not share the pdf with schematics and diagnostic software or punish people that share them(is not cost)
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      IIRC there are also laws that after a certain time anyone is allowed to produce and cell (certain?) car parts to ensure that cars that are on the road can still be repaired and serviced. Same should be applied to electronics (and a wide range of other consumer goods).
kurtisc 8y ago
In our quest to increase recycling we seem to have forgotten that the original phrase was 'reduce, reuse, recycle'. For example, the manufacturer doesn't have to waste the energy to recycle the case if the case can be reused by making the battery user-serviceable.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  Won't somebody please think of the shareholders? How will they be able to make insane profits if people aren't replacing??
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    Perennially relevant cartoon from the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    We must prevent repairs in order to maximize shareholder profit in order for the wealth to trickle down in order to allow consumers to replace their nonserviceable goods.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      How trickle-down economics works: First, the shareholders get all the profits. Then what? ...that's it.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        The trick is to shove money at the shareholders faster than they can bank or consume it - this way, the overflow will spill down to the lower tiers of society. /s
pessimizer 8y ago
I'm almost the diametric opposite of that; I believe that manufacturers shoud be compelled to build things to be easy to take apart, replaceable, and upgradeable, if that can be done at a net-zero cost, and should be subsidized by the state if it can't, possibly with tax breaks. But I don't believe that they should be required to keep it under warranty in that case. I'm fine with a company putting a warranty seal on a device if they don't want people to touch the insides.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
RandomBacon 8y ago
> automatically void some warranty. That's already illegal[0] in the US. However that won't stop companies from from telling 99.9% of its customers that aren't aware of the law, that their warranty is void. [0] Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
whoopdedo 8y ago
> submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user. Who defines "useful lifetime" though? The manufacturer would then be even more compelled to make engineer planned obsolescence since no one wants to be on the hook for having to take back products 10, 20, or even 40 years from now. But keeping electronics operational for multiple decades is one of the goals of right-to-repair. With your proposal we'd have nothing but short lifetime disposable electronics. We should be focusing on solutions that create less waste, not more.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. Why not? > I'd rather see legislation that ensures when a piece of tech reaches the end of its useful lifetime it can be submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user. It is always and exclusively at the cost of the user?

duado 8y ago
Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. I’ve never needed to open one of my iPhones and would not want them 1mm thicker to be repairable.
- Zarath 8y ago
  Maybe you've never needed to open your iphone because it would serve no purpose. If I could upgrade my old iphone by taking it apart, I wouldn't have bought a new one in the first place...
  - abalone 8y ago
    You don’t have to buy a new iPhone to replace the battery, so presumably you’re imagining upgrading the processors, camera, sensors or some other aspect of the iPhone. Those components are so tightly integrated and custom fitted in each iteration of the device that it is technically impossible to “upgrade” them independently.
- dustindiamond 8y ago
  Do you use a 4s for its minimalist size?
  - duado 8y ago
    SE.
- simion314 8y ago
  Would you honestly be inconvenienced by the extra 1mm ? You could get the ability to replace your battery or screen on reasonable prices,
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Making something that’s easy to take apart often makes it bigger, because interfaces need to be modularized. So, you can still make it mandatory where you don't need to make things bigger?
  - iguy 8y ago
    But who decides? There is going to be a ministry of "did it need to be so compact?" staffed by disinterested experts? I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      That's the opposite of what the comment meant. The suggestion is that where it doesn't change the size/quality you mandate easier disassembly. Next to zero subjectivity.
      - iguy 8y ago
        Yes I got that. But my point is that this involves second-guessing every design decision. You propose some new design which is more compact / easier to manufacture / more reliable because it has fewer connectors, and then you take it to the ministry for approval. How do they know whether your changes are justified? Maybe they sketch an easier-to-disassemble variant which is no bigger than yours, and reject your design, but they don't understand the why it will cost you twice as much to assemble that design (in your factory, with your workforce) or why you rejected that kind of connector (your experience with the supplier, or your vibration tests). Can you prove why you made these decisions? Call expert witnesses? This just seems like an impossible minefield to me. I think better to tilt the balance in other ways, like pushing longer guarantees (regardless of whether the best solution is an unbreakable one-piece object, or a repairable one) and forcing recycling (so that the sticker price includes more of the total lifecycle cost).
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > But who decides? Well, I dunno, but that's a question with every law, and thus not exactly an argument by itself? > I'd love more things to be fixable but this kind of micro-management sounds terrifying. But why would there need to be micro-management?
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  I once had a Mazda 6. In order replace the PCV valve one has to remove the manifold. A ten minutes job on any other car was a couple hours in this one. They didn't make it easy just because I have the right to repair it myself. You shouldn't have to deal with an extra mm and all the inconvenience that comes along with it just to support my right to replace the battery.
kevinherron 8y ago
> > I don't believe manufacturers should have to build things to be easy to take apart, to be replaceable or upgradeable, or anything else along those lines. > Why not? Because, 1) I personally don't care about this. 2) More important than 1, I don't think the law/government has any business deciding this. The market can decide (spoiler: it already has).
- simion314 8y ago
  Did the free markets ended slavery in US or under-age working? I remember many good things had to be forced with laws and not let to be decided by the big companies.
  - kevinherron 8y ago
    Are you equating the "injustice" of not being able replace the battery in your iPhone with that of slavery?
    - simion314 8y ago
      No, I am invalidating the point of "Free markets" solve things, so you can ignore the slavery and put other things free markets did not solve like pollution,cigarettes etc but I assume someone would bring the excuse that the goverment was at fault all along and free markets were not free.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    > Did the free markets ended slavery in US In a very oblique manner it did. Industrialization (which was very much a product of free markets) of the Northern States made the economics of slavery untenable in the North. Once people were not as blinded by profits, they could actually see that slavery was a moral evil. In the South, the economics were very different and therefore a lot of rationalizations were formed as to why slavery was not that evil. In addition, Industrialization enabled larger population growth in the North as well as larger production. This is what gave the Union the advantage in manpower and material that allowed the North to win the Civil War.

voxic11 8y ago

I think you are misconstruing the aims of the right to repair movement. Its nothing to do with forcing companies to make it "easy" to repair, but rather about preventing companies from including "features" which serve no purpose besides preventing third party repair. An example would be a tractor that is designed to be cheaply serviceable, but has a feature which disables any replaced parts until a message signed by the the original equipment manufacturer and authorizing the replacement part has been received.

kevinherron 8y ago
You're right, I remember this initially, but many discussions about right to repair get hijacked and center around topics like iFixit and their blatantly self-serving anti-Apple campaigns.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  All ad campaigns are blatantly self-serving... so what's the point?
- isoskeles 8y ago
  As self-serving as it is, iFixit is doing a social good IMO. If it weren't for them, I would have spent more money replacing or having someone else repair my iPhone. So I don't care if they make money off of it, they save me more money in the long-run, and they prevent a larger number of phones and other devices being cycled through the economy before necessary. If that means punching up at Apple, so be it. Apple can take the hit. Planned obsolescence is a very shitty and cynical strategy on the part of manufacturers, and anyone fighting against it is on the right side.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > iFixit is doing a social good IMO Agree. > anyone fighting against it is on the right side Don't. For example, Louis Rossmann recently kicked up a storm when he claimed that Apple used the customs to seize his "genuine" battery shipments (which was widely reported in the media and gave him significant publicity), except it turned out that he left out the fact that the parts were unauthorized: https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossmann_admits_to_using_parts_from_a/ https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman.... Self-serving PR stunts that consist of misinformation and depend on the subsequent media outrage don't help "the right side".

simion314 8y ago

So I assume there may be at least 2 distinct issues: 1 preventing people to repair their hardware with software locks, not selling parts, not providing documentation, copyrighting schematics, repairs manuals and doing all you can to not allow third parties to fix hardware. 2 building thins that are impossible or hard to repair because you don't care about the fact that for a broken key you have to replace half the laptop because your profits are high enough and making a more repairable device is too much work , more expensive or not as cool looking. IMO point 1 should be illegal, I should be able to buy parts for my laptop,computer,phone,car or other device and have a specialist repair my device. Point 2 is more debatable, some manufacturers could abuse this to force you buy new things when the warranty expires rather then you replace the broken component. At least forcing the companies to pay the correct price for proper recycling without hidden externalities would help on this point.

sorenn111 8y ago
I disagree with some of your sub points from point 1. Selling parts, providing documentation, and building repair manuals are forcing behaviors form companies. Compelling them to do provide a service or product that they would not otherwise provide. Legislation that prevents certain actions is great, but I'm wary of any compulsion from governments to companies and individuals. If you want to take stuff apart, Go for it! But Apple should not be required to write, edit, and sell manuals that it does not want to.
- simion314 8y ago
  But why should Apple be special? As an example for cars most countries have laws that force them to provide you parts years after the car is no longer sold, don't you think that having companies not selling you parts make them have to much control over you? 1 So let me know why should some companies not sell parts? 2 why not share the pdf with schematics and diagnostic software or punish people that share them(is not cost)
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    IIRC there are also laws that after a certain time anyone is allowed to produce and cell (certain?) car parts to ensure that cars that are on the road can still be repaired and serviced. Same should be applied to electronics (and a wide range of other consumer goods).

kurtisc 8y ago

In our quest to increase recycling we seem to have forgotten that the original phrase was 'reduce, reuse, recycle'. For example, the manufacturer doesn't have to waste the energy to recycle the case if the case can be reused by making the battery user-serviceable.

mfoy_ 8y ago
Won't somebody please think of the shareholders? How will they be able to make insane profits if people aren't replacing??
- smacktoward 8y ago
  Perennially relevant cartoon from the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- Sharlin 8y ago
  We must prevent repairs in order to maximize shareholder profit in order for the wealth to trickle down in order to allow consumers to replace their nonserviceable goods.
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    How trickle-down economics works: First, the shareholders get all the profits. Then what? ...that's it.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      The trick is to shove money at the shareholders faster than they can bank or consume it - this way, the overflow will spill down to the lower tiers of society. /s

pessimizer 8y ago

I'm almost the diametric opposite of that; I believe that manufacturers shoud be compelled to build things to be easy to take apart, replaceable, and upgradeable, if that can be done at a net-zero cost, and should be subsidized by the state if it can't, possibly with tax breaks. But I don't believe that they should be required to keep it under warranty in that case. I'm fine with a company putting a warranty seal on a device if they don't want people to touch the insides.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

RandomBacon 8y ago

> automatically void some warranty. That's already illegal[0] in the US. However that won't stop companies from from telling 99.9% of its customers that aren't aware of the law, that their warranty is void. [0] Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act

whoopdedo 8y ago

> submitted back to the manufacturer and properly recycled at no cost to the user. Who defines "useful lifetime" though? The manufacturer would then be even more compelled to make engineer planned obsolescence since no one wants to be on the hook for having to take back products 10, 20, or even 40 years from now. But keeping electronics operational for multiple decades is one of the goals of right-to-repair. With your proposal we'd have nothing but short lifetime disposable electronics. We should be focusing on solutions that create less waste, not more.