3 ms·
This proposal is completely unrealistic and dangerous for startups who want to manufacture hardware devices. If this gets through it will make europe unattracti
by b20000 6y ago
This proposal is completely unrealistic and dangerous for startups who want to manufacture hardware devices. If this gets through it will make europe unattractive for hardware companies. It advocates for the accessability of replacement parts, and that devices have to be designed with commonly available and easy to replace parts even though none of that is the responsibility of the device designer / manufacturer, but rather the responsability of parts manufacturers. So this makes it impossible to design devices with cutting edge electronics, which are only made by one company, for example (e.g. an ARM SoC or a display module). There is also the requirement to share details about your hardware design with repair 3rd parties which means you could be forced to reveal your IP. Europe already over-burdens hardware companies with ROHS/WEEE and with organizations who have the exclusive right (by being appointed by the government) to ask for recycling fees (which you need to become a member of, which costs $$$), and with very strict and expensive to fullfill EMC compliance requirements.
- varjag 6y agoEMC compliance in the EU is not particularly different from other regions. RoHS isn't a burden in any measurable way.
- b20000 6y agoI have experience manufacturing hardware devices in europe and in the US ...
- varjag 6y agoI mean you have a point to supply chain and warehousing headache this law could involve if passed as is. But overall hardware development, certification and manufacturing in Europe is just as uneventful as anywhere else. I've done hw development with teams on Taiwan, in Eastern and Northern Europe. We sell our products to all continents and are getting regional approvals as necessary. It is a barrier but rather uniform all over. Fact is hardware development and manufacturing is never going to be as forgiving or cheap as software. There is cost, permanence and obligations when you cross over into physical realm.
- b20000 6y agoOK, so you actually have not personally taken a product through certification, that you yourself developed. I have actually done that, in europe, and I can tell you it was far from "uneventful". If you work for a company with lots of resources to handle all of that process for you, and all you need to do is shuttle a few emails back and forth, then your experience is irrelevant.
- varjag 6y agoNo, I did that for a number of products, I have no idea how you deduced that. At some point I was the only engineer in the company! I can still perfectly recall dating back 15 years how each product was tested and what the issues were. Am always on the lab floor when tests are administered, doing the setup work myself and sometimes fixing the issues as they arise. In the teams, all electronic designs are reviewed and signed off by me. Hate to be blunt, but if you can't push your product past the baseline EMC tests (like 47 CFR 15b or EN55032), your designs have no business being out there in the wild.
- bathtub365 6y agoIf this prevents a new generation of absolute trash electronics designed to end up in a landfill I’m all for it.
- b20000 6y agoUnfortunately, laws like these have other side effects you didn't consider.
- ohmaigad 6y ago> by encouraging standardisation of spare parts for the sake of interoperability and innovation, while upholding product safety requirements; Encouraging is not the same as required. > by giving actors of the repair industry, including independent repairers, and consumers access free of charge to the necessary repair and maintenance information, including information on diagnostic tools, spare parts, software and updates, needed to perform repairs and maintenance, while keeping in mind the imperatives of consumer safety, without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2016/943; > Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. You sound like the companies who are against right of repair by claiming copyright as an issue while changing a battery or a screen in a smartphone has nothing to do with your IP.
- b20000 6y agoI am not against the right of repair. What I am against, is the government introducing laws that make innovation impossible, or extremely difficult, for companies based on europe, with the end result being that they cannot compete with companies based elsewhere, where standards for compliance or certification or not as strict.
- Bayart 6y agoThe regulatory modus operandi of the EU has always been to raise the standards and force others to follow rather than the other way around.
- b20000 6y agoyeah, and we've seen how well that has worked for innovation and entrepreneurship.
- ohmaigad 6y agoUnless the companies based elsewhere don't want to sell their products in the worlds 2nd largest market your argument makes no sense. A product from outside of EU still needs to comply with the EU standards so where is the advantage?