27 ms·

> A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will

> A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right 50,000 GBP tool. Louis Rossmann did a video tearing apart France's recent implementation of this from the perspective of an Apple repair technician. Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company that they can basically only replace screens and batteries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO7vdk_X5W4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO7vdk_X5W4

draklor40 6y ago
> Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company that they can basically only replace screens and batteries. This is precisely my point. It has a 7/10 rating yet, serialized parts (probably locked down firmware as well) no availability of parts GLUE. How dafuq is this exactly repairable, by you or I ?
peterlk 6y ago
I think this pretty well sums up the loophole. You have the right to repair... what? If I buy a macbook, do I get to replace the case? keyboard? These seem pretty reasonable. But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? This is obviously a different story - it would be nice, but the part probably isn't manufactured by Apple (maybe it is on the new Silicon?). My point is that at some point, things start to get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to continue blurring these lines. I don't think we can reasonably expect the government to do a deep dive into every product category to work all of this out - what would this look like for cars, where safety is a concern? I think having the law on the books is a move in the right direction, but I don't expect it to have teeth until te can figure out how to actually measure repairability. Maybe the EU could experiment with a supply chain approach like VAT, but for a repairability score? This also sounds fraught...
- zepto 6y ago
  > But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? Are you suggesting the right to repair should include this?
  - starmftronajoll 6y ago
    They seem to be suggesting that the L1 cache is obviously a different story. Source: sentence immediately after the one you quoted
    - zepto 6y ago
      You haven’t answered my question any more than they did. It’s not obvious at all how they think it’s different. It’s obviously harder to repair or replace, but it’s not clear whether they think the goal is to make it repairable.
      - CivBase 6y ago
        To specifically answer your question, I don't think anyone's advocating for users to be provided with parts and schematics to repair a faulty L1 cache on a CPU, or for the CPU to be designed to support that kind of repair. Most "repairs" come in the form of replacing a component. Many products can be divided into components and those components can recursively be broken down into smaller components. At some point, though, a component cannot reasonably be further divided for the purpose of repair and peterlk appears to imply that a CPU is an example of such a component. Indeed, repairing a faulty L1 cache would probably require so much investment that even the manufacturer itself would not be able to justify such a repair. > My point is that at some point, things start to get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to continue blurring these lines. peterlk goes on to point out that manufacturers often use this fact to their advantage by convincing people that it's not practical to componetize bigger, more expensive parts for the sake of repair, such as the main board assembly on a laptop. In reality, component-level board repair is a practical solution for many repair scenarios, provided you can source the necessary components and schematics. We lack objective criteria to determine what parts can reasonably be made "repairable" via componetization and manufacturers abuse that to confuse people. I myself thought component-level board repair was a dead end until I stumbled upon Rossmann's channel. I think both you and peterlk are getting to the same point: we need that criteria if we're going to reach the full potential of the right-to-repair movement.

draklor40 6y ago

> Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company that they can basically only replace screens and batteries. This is precisely my point. It has a 7/10 rating yet, serialized parts (probably locked down firmware as well) no availability of parts GLUE. How dafuq is this exactly repairable, by you or I ?

peterlk 6y ago

I think this pretty well sums up the loophole. You have the right to repair... what? If I buy a macbook, do I get to replace the case? keyboard? These seem pretty reasonable. But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? This is obviously a different story - it would be nice, but the part probably isn't manufactured by Apple (maybe it is on the new Silicon?). My point is that at some point, things start to get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to continue blurring these lines. I don't think we can reasonably expect the government to do a deep dive into every product category to work all of this out - what would this look like for cars, where safety is a concern? I think having the law on the books is a move in the right direction, but I don't expect it to have teeth until te can figure out how to actually measure repairability. Maybe the EU could experiment with a supply chain approach like VAT, but for a repairability score? This also sounds fraught...

zepto 6y ago
> But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? Are you suggesting the right to repair should include this?
- starmftronajoll 6y ago
  They seem to be suggesting that the L1 cache is obviously a different story. Source: sentence immediately after the one you quoted
  - zepto 6y ago
    You haven’t answered my question any more than they did. It’s not obvious at all how they think it’s different. It’s obviously harder to repair or replace, but it’s not clear whether they think the goal is to make it repairable.
    - CivBase 6y ago
      To specifically answer your question, I don't think anyone's advocating for users to be provided with parts and schematics to repair a faulty L1 cache on a CPU, or for the CPU to be designed to support that kind of repair. Most "repairs" come in the form of replacing a component. Many products can be divided into components and those components can recursively be broken down into smaller components. At some point, though, a component cannot reasonably be further divided for the purpose of repair and peterlk appears to imply that a CPU is an example of such a component. Indeed, repairing a faulty L1 cache would probably require so much investment that even the manufacturer itself would not be able to justify such a repair. > My point is that at some point, things start to get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to continue blurring these lines. peterlk goes on to point out that manufacturers often use this fact to their advantage by convincing people that it's not practical to componetize bigger, more expensive parts for the sake of repair, such as the main board assembly on a laptop. In reality, component-level board repair is a practical solution for many repair scenarios, provided you can source the necessary components and schematics. We lack objective criteria to determine what parts can reasonably be made "repairable" via componetization and manufacturers abuse that to confuse people. I myself thought component-level board repair was a dead end until I stumbled upon Rossmann's channel. I think both you and peterlk are getting to the same point: we need that criteria if we're going to reach the full potential of the right-to-repair movement.