4 ms·
> The concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated. I agree. But no one asks for that. It is my understanding that
by pbasista 6y ago
> The concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated.
I agree. But no one asks for that.
It is my understanding that the "right to repair" initiative, as presented by Louis Rossmann, only asks that the people who are willing to do the repair themselves are able to get the replacement parts, the tools (e.g. custom screwdrivers, flash programmers ...) and the expertise (e.g. schematics, binary or API specifications, ...) necessary to perform it. It does not ask that the repair should require no skills.
> and at some point it just doesn't scale
To the best of my knowledge, the mentioned "right to repair" initiative does not ask that it should be possible to e.g. repair a tractor using only bike shop tools. It merely asks that an independent tractor repair shop should be able to do it. And for that it would need parts, tools and expertise to be available.
> it's pretty risky
Yes. If repairs are performed without proper parts, without proper tools and without proper expertise, they are risky. That is also one of the reasons why the right to repair asks for those to be available.
===
There is an argument that limiting the availability of parts, tools and expertise would limit the number of people attempting to perform the repairs. That would, in theory, in turn limit the number of people that would perform those repairs without the necessary skills, which might potentially be dangerous to the customers.
However, I am not sure if such limiting measures, when applied, have the desired outcome. I think that the demand for repairs is primarily driven by the rate at which the particular kind of devices need it. It is not going to magically go down just because parts, tools and expertise are unavailable.
Consider the availability of schematics for MacBooks, for example. They are not available officially. But it is possible to get them via shady channels. The operation of such channels is risky because it is often illegal. But it is nevertheless being done because there is a large demand for it.
That is why I think that limiting the availability of parts, tools and expertise would not have the desired effect of less people attempting the repairs. It seems more likely to me that the number of people who would be attempting the repairs would remain roughly the same. But since the parts, tools and expertise would be coming via shady channels, they may not be of the sufficient quality. As a result, even some of the people who have the sufficient skills would not be able to provide the repairs of the high-enough quality to be indistinguishable from the repairs provided by the manufacturer.
Therefore, I think that such availability-limiting measures make sub-optimal repairs more frequent, which is exactly the opposite of the goal they are trying to achieve.
- dbg31415 6y ago> Consider the availability of schematics for MacBooks, for example. They are not available officially. But it is possible to get them via shady channels. The operation of such channels is risky because it is often illegal. But it is nevertheless being done because there is a large demand for it. If you buy a BMW, you drive all around town and get told by auto places, "Hey I don't work on BMWs." You end up taking it to a dealer, or an approved repair place. I don't see why a phone or tractor or anything else should be different. If you want something that's got modular parts / open schematics... make that a consideration when buying. It comes off as, "We want a premium product, but we don't want to pay a premium repair price or use approved parts... rather just sort of have it be an Apple case with Bubba's MacBook Repair & Tackle Shop approved parts... and Bubba can warranty the labor." Oof. Apple is pretty up front with their products, if you buy an Apple product odds are if it ever needs to be serviced you'll have to take it to an Apple Store. AND... the kicker... they have great service. A schematic isn't enough. Like you'd have to provide order of operations for disassembly (at least some training), odds are tolerances for glue / tape removal, etc. Doesn't seem unreasonable for Apple to say, "Hey we make a premium product, and we're the only ones with expertise in the care of that product. If you don't want an Apple laptop, you're free to buy Bubba's DIY Laptop built with 100% Organic Duct Tape!" And plenty of PCs went that route in the 90s / 00s. Open architecture was a selling point.
- pbasista 6y ago> they have great service Apple typically does not perform component-level repairs. They tend to replace larger parts like motherboards, display assemblies or cases piece for piece, which is cheap and quick for them and expensive for the customer. And it also typically means that the customer will lose their data. I am not sure on what basis can such a service be considered "great". On top of that, Louis Rossmann has published multiple videos showing the sheer incompetence of Apple's official Genius Bar service. For example: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns (Apple's suggested "solution" to a bent pin issue was to replace the logic board and the top case) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RlVC3xwJN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RlVC3xwJN0 (Apple is unable to resolve an issue with the SSD, bends a display cable pin in the process and tells the customer that there might be a motherboard issue) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyxmFucVy7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyxmFucVy7M (Apple spends $ 10,000 while troubleshooting an "issue" of backlight being turned all the way down)