3 ms·

I wish all the energy being thrown at "repair" laws would instead go into better warranty laws, which I think is the real underlying issue of which "repairabili

by xoa 7y ago

I wish all the energy being thrown at "repair" laws would instead go into better warranty laws, which I think is the real underlying issue of which "repairability" is only a symptom. An easy to repair device still leaves the consumer paying money, and often ridiculously early (within a year or two even for top end gear). When people spend $500-1k for a smartphone say, I think there is the general expectation it'll work for at least a good 4-5 years under normal usage, and that most people do in fact experience that. But a percentage don't, and then have to take on the entire cost, or else everyone has to overpay heavily through "extended warranties" which are big profit centers that have no clear pricing, are hidden from the sticker price, and create perverse incentives. So basically it's a classic externality problem. Instead the law should simply make sure that "how long a device lasts" matches reasonable expectation. There are many ways to do this, such as saying everything is 6 months minimum for the first $50 and then another month per $15-20 up to a maximum of 5 years, and mandating repair/replace will happen within 2 weeks. The specifics could be hashed out, but the goal should be to makes sure that for the price consumers see advertised they are promised it will than work for a knowable reasonable lifespan for zero extra cost. "Extended/enhanced warranties" should only exist for special commercial/professional use cases, like extreme support periods, specific fast SLA, or advanced RMAs. By law though all standard use should be covered. Then manufacturers can figure out the right mix of strategies to meet those goals. Repairability might be part of that, because they could satisfy their obligations more cheaply. But it's not the only way or the necessarily right way in all cases, like sometimes additional QA or better design upfront (reducing failure rate even if each individual failure or more expensive) would be more important. Or just having large enough margins to eat the cost if they can add enough value in other ways. It's a bad idea to have government mandate the method, what government should do is mandate the goal and the goal should be that products last, at zero additional cost. That way everything can be compared with no digging.

Merrill 7y ago
The warranty should be optional, though, since otherwise people who properly care for their phones will be paying to repair/replace phones of people who abuse them.
- xoa 7y ago
  This is silly, as I stated "under normal usage" can perfectly well be a condition of protection (and already is). Fall damage, water, and so on are not manufacturing defects. Signs of abuse (and it's generally quite clear) are grounds for being made ineligible. Furthermore, all mass manufactured products always have a defect rate, period. Quite a few 9s can be chased in manufacturing and QA, but 100% doesn't happen, and when we're talking millions of devices a small rate still adds up to a lot. Gambling that you won't be the one to roll snake eyes and thus subtracting in from the upfront price is simply letting the manufacturer improperly externalize that failure rate cost onto its customers.
  - zrm 7y ago
    But then we're back to it being about repair again. If you drop your phone on the concrete and break it, it's completely reasonable that that isn't covered under warranty, but you still want to be able to repair that phone rather than throw it away.
    - xoa 7y ago
      >but you still want to be able to repair that phone rather than throw it away But I don't agree that this "want" should be a legal requirement. I think it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable that it's possible for someone to cause a level of damage to their property that will destroy said property, leaving it totaled/unsalvageable. In general, where it won't hurt anyone else, that's a matter for individuals. It can be dealt with via insurance, or by buying products that cater to it through higher durability (or conversely just plain being cheaper, spend 1/10 as much and expect to replace them more often). But that involves tradeoffs and costs which are subjective in value, so I don't think it should be the subject of legislation. The principle I'm stating is fully generalizable, it's not an electronics thing it covers everything. Everything you buy should last under regular use for a reasonable lifetime given the price, no tricks with secret information that the manufacturer knows but that the customer does not. That's foundational to functioning markets. But think about what you're saying, how would it apply to the many beautiful but more fragile decorative things many of us like to buy? Many of those make use of hard but brittle materials like glass. It's reasonable to expect they'll perform as advertises in regular environmental conditions, and not just shatter from regular indoor temperature differentials for example. But if they are dropped and smash parts may not be repairable, and that's fine. Also, I want to note that as I said in another reply I can fully see and support an exception for any purely soft restrictions like encrypted components. A company shouldn't be able to prevent you from attempting any repair or modification you like on a product you bought from them. I absolutely support a law requiring that at time of purchase you be offered root hardware keys, root software keys, or both (on some devices I'd want both, on some only software). But I'm not in favor of the more generalized arguments for "repairability" that I've seen, and I think it wastes a big opportunity to try to fix a major market failure in America at least. 90 day/1 year standard warranties are utter bullshit.
heavyset_go 7y ago
I want to repair and modify the hardware that I own whether or not I have a warranty.
- xoa 7y ago
  And I don't want anyone to be able to "repair" or modify certain classes of hardware that I own (though I do want to be able to have root keys for the software side). I don't see why hackability shouldn't be a feature that people can pay for. I can see a solid argument I could get behind for a very minimal requirement that you may request a device-specific bypass for any cryptographic restrictions. Ie., Apple entangles aspects of the hardware for security, but I'd be fine with requiring them to offer owners at time of purchase the choice to have a root hardware signing key for that device only themselves or not. But I would strongly oppose anything further than that, such as changes to the physical hardware itself. "It works for the expected lifetime" should be required, but features within that should be up to creators and customers.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    This doesn't need manufacturer intervention... look at secure boot as it is on x86. You have the option of enrolling your own keys, or not doing it, and can lock down the BIOS. If using a TPM then you get okay assurance that the OS has not been tampered with. Sure, there are exploits for these things, just as there are exploits for iOS.
snagglegaggle 7y ago
Err, why would a mandatory warranty be paid? Under current US law statue of limitations is for 4 years, and in a few states the seller is unable to disclaim any implied merchantability or suitability for a particular purpose. So, effectively, all warranties are 4 years. But you have to go to at least small claims court. Also, if the defect is within 30-90 days, you don't need to do an RMA regardless of what the seller and manufacturer say. The person who took your money has to take it back.
Mathnerd314 7y ago
Warranties are mostly to ensure you don't get sold a brick instead of a phone. Extended warranties are better termed service contracts or product insurance. The prices are high, but that might be because it's self-selecting to the people who break products frequently. I'm not sure how you expect "how long a device lasts" to be defined. Manufacturers do typically design with some lifetime in mind, but it's not clear that has any real world relevance. If I buy a phone and stick it in a drawer it's going to last for a lot longer than its designed lifetime, but if I hook it up to a TV and play Fortnite all day it'll probably last significantly less due to the heat. As far as software updates, although Apple does 3-5 years for iOS, Google has gone from 2 years to only 3 years, and other Android devices still seem to be in the 1-2 year range. So every Android phone is supported for significantly less than the "4-5 years" you seem to expect. And the reason the repair bills are getting such interest is because the authorized manufacturer repair shops are so screwed up. They don't do any component-level repair, because the training and equipment is expensive, so the choices are just replace, replace, replace. tl;dr Mandating a 5-year warranty is just handing out free phones everyone
stcredzero 7y ago
I wish all the energy being thrown at "repair" laws would instead go into better warranty laws This is a very good point. I've noticed that when companies are on the hook for warranty, they tend to make more repairable products. Example: Hilti angle grinder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9xhr0MsAZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9xhr0MsAZw Those models are oriented toward "fleet" contracts. The Hilti grinder in the above video is designed so that all of the gears can be replaced by replacing the "head" section.

by xoa 7y ago

Merrill 7y ago

The warranty should be optional, though, since otherwise people who properly care for their phones will be paying to repair/replace phones of people who abuse them.

xoa 7y ago
This is silly, as I stated "under normal usage" can perfectly well be a condition of protection (and already is). Fall damage, water, and so on are not manufacturing defects. Signs of abuse (and it's generally quite clear) are grounds for being made ineligible. Furthermore, all mass manufactured products always have a defect rate, period. Quite a few 9s can be chased in manufacturing and QA, but 100% doesn't happen, and when we're talking millions of devices a small rate still adds up to a lot. Gambling that you won't be the one to roll snake eyes and thus subtracting in from the upfront price is simply letting the manufacturer improperly externalize that failure rate cost onto its customers.
- zrm 7y ago
  But then we're back to it being about repair again. If you drop your phone on the concrete and break it, it's completely reasonable that that isn't covered under warranty, but you still want to be able to repair that phone rather than throw it away.
  - xoa 7y ago
    >but you still want to be able to repair that phone rather than throw it away But I don't agree that this "want" should be a legal requirement. I think it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable that it's possible for someone to cause a level of damage to their property that will destroy said property, leaving it totaled/unsalvageable. In general, where it won't hurt anyone else, that's a matter for individuals. It can be dealt with via insurance, or by buying products that cater to it through higher durability (or conversely just plain being cheaper, spend 1/10 as much and expect to replace them more often). But that involves tradeoffs and costs which are subjective in value, so I don't think it should be the subject of legislation. The principle I'm stating is fully generalizable, it's not an electronics thing it covers everything. Everything you buy should last under regular use for a reasonable lifetime given the price, no tricks with secret information that the manufacturer knows but that the customer does not. That's foundational to functioning markets. But think about what you're saying, how would it apply to the many beautiful but more fragile decorative things many of us like to buy? Many of those make use of hard but brittle materials like glass. It's reasonable to expect they'll perform as advertises in regular environmental conditions, and not just shatter from regular indoor temperature differentials for example. But if they are dropped and smash parts may not be repairable, and that's fine. Also, I want to note that as I said in another reply I can fully see and support an exception for any purely soft restrictions like encrypted components. A company shouldn't be able to prevent you from attempting any repair or modification you like on a product you bought from them. I absolutely support a law requiring that at time of purchase you be offered root hardware keys, root software keys, or both (on some devices I'd want both, on some only software). But I'm not in favor of the more generalized arguments for "repairability" that I've seen, and I think it wastes a big opportunity to try to fix a major market failure in America at least. 90 day/1 year standard warranties are utter bullshit.

heavyset_go 7y ago

I want to repair and modify the hardware that I own whether or not I have a warranty.

xoa 7y ago
And I don't want anyone to be able to "repair" or modify certain classes of hardware that I own (though I do want to be able to have root keys for the software side). I don't see why hackability shouldn't be a feature that people can pay for. I can see a solid argument I could get behind for a very minimal requirement that you may request a device-specific bypass for any cryptographic restrictions. Ie., Apple entangles aspects of the hardware for security, but I'd be fine with requiring them to offer owners at time of purchase the choice to have a root hardware signing key for that device only themselves or not. But I would strongly oppose anything further than that, such as changes to the physical hardware itself. "It works for the expected lifetime" should be required, but features within that should be up to creators and customers.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  This doesn't need manufacturer intervention... look at secure boot as it is on x86. You have the option of enrolling your own keys, or not doing it, and can lock down the BIOS. If using a TPM then you get okay assurance that the OS has not been tampered with. Sure, there are exploits for these things, just as there are exploits for iOS.

snagglegaggle 7y ago

Err, why would a mandatory warranty be paid? Under current US law statue of limitations is for 4 years, and in a few states the seller is unable to disclaim any implied merchantability or suitability for a particular purpose. So, effectively, all warranties are 4 years. But you have to go to at least small claims court. Also, if the defect is within 30-90 days, you don't need to do an RMA regardless of what the seller and manufacturer say. The person who took your money has to take it back.

Mathnerd314 7y ago

Warranties are mostly to ensure you don't get sold a brick instead of a phone. Extended warranties are better termed service contracts or product insurance. The prices are high, but that might be because it's self-selecting to the people who break products frequently. I'm not sure how you expect "how long a device lasts" to be defined. Manufacturers do typically design with some lifetime in mind, but it's not clear that has any real world relevance. If I buy a phone and stick it in a drawer it's going to last for a lot longer than its designed lifetime, but if I hook it up to a TV and play Fortnite all day it'll probably last significantly less due to the heat. As far as software updates, although Apple does 3-5 years for iOS, Google has gone from 2 years to only 3 years, and other Android devices still seem to be in the 1-2 year range. So every Android phone is supported for significantly less than the "4-5 years" you seem to expect. And the reason the repair bills are getting such interest is because the authorized manufacturer repair shops are so screwed up. They don't do any component-level repair, because the training and equipment is expensive, so the choices are just replace, replace, replace. tl;dr Mandating a 5-year warranty is just handing out free phones everyone

stcredzero 7y ago

I wish all the energy being thrown at "repair" laws would instead go into better warranty laws This is a very good point. I've noticed that when companies are on the hook for warranty, they tend to make more repairable products. Example: Hilti angle grinder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9xhr0MsAZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9xhr0MsAZw Those models are oriented toward "fleet" contracts. The Hilti grinder in the above video is designed so that all of the gears can be replaced by replacing the "head" section.