34 ms·
It's your device, you should be able to repair it
- css 5y agoThis article moves the goalposts on what "right to repair" is several times. It generally means that manufacturers should not hide schematics from device users or disallow third party manufacturing of first party parts. However, the author states: > The law doesn't yet cover smartphones and tablets that she says are getting harder to fix. One problem is keeping older devices updated with new software. Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one yourself or run older software on it indefinitely. Further down, the author writes: > But markets have now become flooded with products that are less repairable. > "It requires laws in place that prevent manufacturers from stopping [supporting] a product too early, or making it pretty much impossible to repair it by design." Now the author has shifted "right to repair" to mean mandatory first-party device support and design requirements around repair-ability. We must very carefully define our terms here, because requiring someone else to provide on one's behalf presumes a right to the product of their labor.
- LegitShady 5y ago>Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one yourself. Or maybe unlocking the bootloader? >Now the author has shifted "right to repair" to mean mandatory device support and design requirements around repair-ability. It's part of the conversation on planned obsolescence but you're right that's not strictly part of right to repair. But these companies have been crowing about sustainability for a while now for PR purposes - now they may be legislated to actually provide sustainability in terms of product support and repairability.
- fouric 5y agoI'm not very happy with the quality of the article, overall. It seems useful for a consumer, but obvious, and old-hat, to HN denizens. HN submissions are supposed to be "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", but we've seen dozens of right-to-repair articles by now, and this doesn't bring anything substantially new to the table (unlike the top previous submissions https://hn.algolia.com/?q=right+to+repair https://hn.algolia.com/?q=right+to+repair).
- lsllc 5y agoI think anything publicizing "right to repair" in mainstream media is a good thing. Agreed that for HN denizens, it's nothing new, but most people are just unaware of this topic. Glad to see the BBC running this.
- judge2020 5y agoMaybe, but it’s all over the place and thus might cause confusion for readers who will later see 'right to repair' and think it means that Apple should be forced to send iOS 14 to their iPhone 4S.
- joshspankit 5y agoExactly my point as I read down this thread: For this type of legislation push it is very important to keep the narrative focused on what’s morally and technologically reasonable. Very few people agree that a manufacturer should be forced to spend time and money on supportting a product for life, many (I hope) agree that we should force manufacturers to give us the ability to repair all functions ourselves (or at least not stand in our way), but almost everyone can agree that you should be able to replace something as trivial as a button, a cable, or a screen.
- LocalH 5y agoMaybe they should have to open iOS signing to all versions a device ever received when it becomes EOL? That also has implications with regards to preservation - if you can never install a given version of the OS again, then how can you trust it is properly preserved?
- judge2020 5y agoYou can always install the old version, Apple just doesn't think they can optimize new iOS versions to make old phones work well with the new software (and the bloat/feature creep within).
- spamizbad 5y agoYou are conflating Right to Repair efforts in Europe with those in the US. Naturally, the US laws are more deferential to capital interests and is less consumer-friendly, and simply ask that companies don't ban the sale of components to independent repair shops, firmware lockouts of replacement parts that only the manufacturer can provide, etc.
- css 5y agoWhat does the European definition of "right to repair" entail, then?
- spamizbad 5y agoThe article gives some examples, but I think more broadly the European Right to Repair efforts seem to align the repairability of consumer electronics with what we've come to expect from automobiles.
- anticristi 5y agoThat industry can also use some "right to repair". I can't type www.peugeot.fr and find schematics, propriety diagnostic codes and repair instructions. Granted, these are available from 3rd parties for a rather modest fee.
- mattmanser 5y agoThey've got a whole study about it, if you've got time to read it (I haven't :): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/6487...
- GuB-42 5y agoNot exactly the answer to your question but France recently adopted a repairability score that has to be shown, just like the energy efficency class or nutrition labels. The criteria are: 1- Documentation 2- Ease of disassembly, with a subsection on the necessary tools and a focus on the parts that are most likely to be serviced (for smartphones: battery, screen, ...) 3- Availability of spare parts 4- Price of spare parts relative to the finished product price 5- Extra criteria which depend on the type of item, for a smartphone, software updates are in this category
- corty 5y agoThe general aim of "right to repair" is to extend lifetime of devices. All the things the author mentioned are means to achieve this, and all are necessary: Schematics, repair manuals, deliverable parts for a sufficiently long period and software support ("repair" also includes software defects of course). Sometimes also software extensibility and replaceability, i.e. no signature lockdowns and other DRM measures. There are weak versions of the right to repair that are only suited to enable third-party repair shops, e.g. by making schematics and parts available to "licensed professionals". But that is not what is generally desirable. I agree that the article fails to make this clear.
- Guest42 5y agoRegarding software, I think that pushing updates that essentially kill devices should fall under right to repair. I generally delay my ios updates out of concern whether space and ram will get eaten up. There probably won’t be an os update that enables a new app or feature I’m looking for. I’m not one to run unknown software and with the walled garden can’t really download any executables anyways. Also had win 10 updates kill a laptop in this manner that was then extended another 7 years by switching to Ubuntu.
- corty 5y agoUpdates that kill devices are at best a defect that is the manufacturer's responsibility to fix or pay for. At worst computer sabotage, which is a crime. Unfortunately courts have yet to get "bitey" on this issue. I guess it needs to hit a few more judges until the hammer comes down hard.
- thinkharderdev 5y agoAre there cases now where an update bricks devices that are still supported and the manufacturer doesn't fix it? Genuinely asking as I don't know of any such cases.
- overgard 5y ago
- FridayoLeary 5y agowith all due respects, this article is neither extremely rich or information nor exhaustively researched. Its more like the kind of stuff you hear on BBC radio. Just a few interviews with people whose experiences you might not hear from otherwise.
- qzw 5y agoIsn’t the underlying issue planned obsolescence as a business model? It’s anti-consumer and anti-environment, and maybe we shouldn’t incentivize it as a planet.
- zepto 5y agoThe problem is that planned obsolescence is not in fact everyone’s business model. Apple’s penetration into the US market is not because the iPhone matches Android in terms of sales, it’s because iPhones last longer and get handed down or resold. Apple literally continues to sell years old devices. That isn’t planned obsolescence. A really simple step in the right direction would be mandated labeling showing how many years of software updates the device will get and statistical expected lifetime.
- fsflover 5y ago> That isn’t planned obsolescence. Yes, it is. Even though Apple devices last longer, after the support is ended, I cannot do anything with them. I cannot update, install anything. They effectively become bricks. If this is not planned obsolescence, then what is?
- ska 5y agoIt's only planned obsolescence if the lifetime of a product is artificially shortened by design choices. It's not clear this applies here.
- swiley 5y agomy interpretation is that there should be no artificial barriers. Don't hide schematics, don't lock bootloaders, don't use NDAs to prevent sharing driver code, don't prevent component manufacturers from selling to third parties.
- duped 5y agoI think requiring schematic disclosure and non exclusivity for venders of custom parts is entirely unreasonable with catastrophic first and second order effects. Particularly the latter. We want more contract manufacturing, not less of it. If you take away the ability of companies to negotiate reasonable deals with their venders, they'll just buy them out and vertically integrate.
- joshspankit 5y agoHow about forcing disclosure only for products that are no longer supported by the manufacturer? Not ideal from a repair standpoint, but removes (imo) the argument about the first and second order effects.
- AdrianB1 5y agoWhen I was born all electric and electronic appliances came with a complete diagram in the box. I don't understand how disclosing the schematic has any negative impact of any sort. Also the vendor contracts in these cases are based on volume discounts which are not affected by non-restricted sale to other parties.
- duped 5y agoWell two points on that: - Repair schematics and diagrams are not necessarily complete schematics and may be abridged or missing some details - Modern electronics are significantly more complex than when you were a child, unless you were born yesterday. Schematics for designs are barely useful for assembly today, let alone repair. They are primarily design documentation.
- 5y ago
- danogentili 5y agoThese are all absolutely valid and sane points. Instead of arguing on the exact definition of right to repair, we should all fight for the right to truly OWN our devices, where OWN := we have the legal right to do anything we want with the hardware AND with the software (because you can't really distinguish the two, now that all CPUs come with embedded TPMs running parallel closed OSes with ring -inf permissions).
- salawat 5y agoAnd they should be required by law to come with the respective datasheets and specs required to do so. You don't de facto have one without the other.
- ryandrake 5y agoI'd argue that when a security vulnerability is made public, patching the operating system with an update is a form of repair. The device is as broken as my Gen-1 iPad that can no longer browse the web safely. If the manufacturer stops releasing such updates, AND actively prevents the user from developing and applying their own updates, then they are preventing repair.
- dnh44 5y agoTo be fair that first gen iPad is too slow to browse the web at all unless it's a really lean site like HN.
- joshspankit 5y agoBut if we (users) choose to only browse lean sites with our first-gen iPads, why should we (society) say “stop doing that”?
- thinkharderdev 5y agoI don't think that it is correct to say that anyone is telling you anything. Apple has decided that they will drop support for devices after a certain period of time because the development effort of maintaining support is too costly given the number of users with the old hardware. If I could be emperor for a day I would just mandate that when they drop support an old device, they have to provide a way for users still owning that device to have unlimited ability to load and run any software on it. That way if you really want to keep using your first-gen iPad then you can support it yourself. But it doesn't seem right to mandate that someone else continue to spend effort supporting idiosyncratic choices of all users.
- ryandrake 5y agoWhile I agree with your "emperor for a day" solution, I'd like to point out that wanting to use a device I paid for longer than two years after I bought it is not an idiosyncratic choice. Apple's last OS update for the device (iOS 5.1.1) was a mere 2 years after the device's initial release. This is IMO totally unreasonable. I have a PC next to me that's 20 years old which still functions and runs a very recent Linux distribution.
- harimau777 5y agoRe: Legacy software support How does this work with physical products such as cars? Is there a statute of limitations for automobile recalls?
- userbinator 5y agoCompanies like Tesla are trying to change things, but for most of a century it was the norm that the manufacturer would make parts available for purchase, and even if they had stopped doing so, there is a huge aftermarket industry around repair and customisation. The aftermarket has become so big, that you can probably build an entire car of the 50s to early 70s entirely out of aftermarket parts. Even body panels and frame rails are available.
- II2II 5y agoPerhaps the author kept moving the goalpost since we have lost so much over the years. Take that legacy software. For many technologies the software is not distinguishable from the hardware to the end user, yet faulty software could present a security risk or even pose physical danger. At the same time, vendors are dropping support for software at an accelerated rate while making it impossible to use third party fixes or replacements. This is not about having the latest features or being able to run the latest apps. It is about having the device being an asset rather than a liability.
- segmondy 5y agoAre they also going to force "the right to sell" instead of rent? Nothing is stopping companies from renting instead of selling their products. We already see that with software, no one is trying to sell software these days, it's all subscriptions. It could happen with hardware, in which case you don't have the right to repair since it never belonged to you.
- merlincorey 5y agoThis is the crux of the argument to me - if I own the device, why do some companies act like I am just renting it?
- beefalo 5y agoMost cell phones are leased already today
- Karunamon 5y agoNo they're not. Leasing implies a limited, fixed term. Financing and leasing are two different transactions.
- michaelmrose 5y agoThat is only untrue because owning the phone would be disadvantageous to them. It's vastly more advantageous for them if you own it and are obliged to pay them for it because you own both pieces if it breaks.
- criddell 5y agoIf we are going to allow software patents on the basis that software is a device, then laws affecting physical devices should apply to software as well.
- joshspankit 5y agoI’m curious but don’t know what laws you’re suggesting. Could you dig a bit deeper?
- criddell 5y agoI was thinking about right to repair laws. What's the analog for schematics when you are talking about a software device? It's going to be something like source code or API documentation.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago> Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? This is really the same thing, i.e. comprehensive hardware documentation. If the hardware is well-documented then third parties can use the documentation to create hardware drivers and continue to support e.g. Android/Linux on that hardware even after the OEM stops providing supported software. This is true even of iPhones; there is no technical reason you shouldn't be able to port Android or any other OS to iPhone hardware given adequate hardware documentation. People are attempting to port Linux to M1 Macbooks even without adequate hardware documentation, though of course the lack of documentation is a severe impediment and the efforts consequently have yet to produce a usable port.
- cbmuser 5y agoThat’s usually because these people don’t have the slightest clue how industrial mass-production for consumer goods work. They constantly think it’s always about the customer, it isn’t. The products are almost always optimized for costs, nothing else. If a manufacturer uses glue instead screws, they don’t do that to make it harder to repair. They prefer glue because it’s cheaper. The same applies for cheap components over high quality ones. Want to increase the possibility of getting a durable and repairable product? Well, prepare to spend ten times as much.
- rasz 5y agoNo, its not optimized for cost. Manufacturing is optimized for _profit_. >they don’t do that to make it harder to repair you mean cryptographically linking lcd screen to motherboard is done for cost, not to stop third parties from being able to repair it?
- emkoemko 5y agonot just electronics, John Deer tractors and farming machines... all the parts have encrypted links that only John Deer repair shops can sync new parts... soon your car won't let you change your tire without it not turning on, unless you buy their "tire"
- giantrobot 5y agoIt's done for security because the screens are primary input devices and linked to the biometric sensors. Without protections for genuine components anyone could replace your screen with one that had a hardware key logger and compromised biometric sensors. The security of the system is as weak as the weakest component. Your phone has access to tons of personal data, for some people just about all of their personal data. It's in every user's best interest to have secure hardware since it's inherently mobile and easily lost or stolen, easier than a desktop locked in a house. But no I'm sure it's just some conspiracy to make iPhones disposable. That makes way more sense.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
- quotemstr 5y agoWhy are you surprised? This is the common pattern of tech activism: start with a kernel of a legitimate grievance, grow it into a whole crop of outrage, and harvest that outrage to make new rules that actually make everything a bit worse. Designing for repairability has costs both monetary and functional. Why should everyone have to pay these costs on the say-so of a few people whose main claim to legitimate authority is their social media follower count? I believe this push for repairability is bad and that it will lead to bad outcomes for consumers. The market ought to be what tells us what product features are really important.
- AdrianB1 5y agoYou are right, but then let's make it mandatory for the end user to safely recycle all the components from their devices; they should not be allowed to sale or donate old devices, but have to recycle every piece of it. The purpose? Safe disposal. If you don't want to extend the life of the devices, keep it forever or safely dispose it.
- quotemstr 5y agoModern landfills are safe disposal sites. Recycling can be economically incentivized where it makes sense.
- tachyonbeam 5y agoI don't think Apple or Google have to open source every part of their software. They just have to make it possible for us to install alternative operating systems on their computing platforms. That would allow giving older devices new life by putting Linux on them, for example. A fully unlocked iPhone 6 with Linux on it could be very useful.
- globular-toast 5y agoOnly if they're selling a computer. I've never wanted my phone to be a computer (although I don't mind if it is).
- tachyonbeam 5y agoGood for you. You don't have to install Linux on your phone, but it would be better for the planet (eg: recycling) if we all could.
- omgwtfbyobbq 5y agoIt is goalpost moving, but I also agree with the author. If a device is no longer supported by a company, or that company goes under, there should be some mechanism to make any software needed to modify software on the device available. Take the essential ph-1 as an example. Now that the company is gone, if a device bricks during an update, that's it. Having the firehose file would make it possible to unblock it, but without it, a bricked phone is just spare parts (less the main board).
- hilbert42 5y ago"a bricked phone is just spare parts (less the main board)." The main board should be just as repairable as any other device. If that requires changes to copyright law, the DMCA and or even WIPO treaties then that will eventually happen. It's not that many years ago—certainly well within my lifetime—that 'deep' repairs of this kind were not only commonplace but actually encouraged by manufacturers. (If you want examples then I'll provide some). By such action, we would only be returning to the status quo as it was some 40 or more years ago. (To detractors of this comment, I accept and understand that you never lived through that time to see it in action, if you had then very likely you'd have a changed point of view.)
- jpttsn 5y agoI like the better performance of computers now. If lower repairability is a way to pay for that, that’s great.
- hilbert42 5y ago"If lower repairability is a way to pay for that, that’s great.' You are implying the two concepts are incompatible. There is no reason why they should be other than a manufacturer's planned obsolescence strategy, which is what the Right to Repair movement is all about and fighting to fix.
- jpttsn 5y agoAssuming there's planned obsolescence, it will make the manufacturer money. This money lets them build better products, stay in business longer, et.c. If Apple made a repairable iPhone with the same profit margins and specs, I'm guessing it would have to be more expensive. I would have to pay for this, even though I don't want to repair my stuff (I just buy new stuff when it breaks).
- msla 5y ago> Now the author has shifted "right to repair" to mean mandatory first-party device support and design requirements around repair-ability. I'm sure mandatory first-party device support is better for the manufacturer than giving people the idea they should be able to control what software runs on their device. I wonder if that stance is a lack of imagination on the author's part or something more deliberate.
- alexvoda 5y agoElectronics used to come with full schematics as part of the documentation. As an example, this (1) is how the manual looks for a ~1970-1974 stereo record player I have. You have diagrams of the boards and lists of parts as in individual caps, etc. We should strive to move in that direction, not away from it. Permanently locked bootloaders, DRM for componets, etc. are a move in the oposite direction. To move the overton window even a little bit towards where it was before, the demands have to be disproportionate. I say those demands are still reasonable. We should demand that any device and any component in any device be second source-able (just like AMD was a second source for early x86 chips). And for that matter since I am from Europe, any component should be second source-able from Europe. If IP transfers worked for China, they should work elsewhere. (1) https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1012672/Pioneer-C-5600dfv.html https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1012672/Pioneer-C-5600dfv....
- jimmaswell 5y agoI wonder how big the manual would have to be for a smartphone with the equivalent of those old stereo diagrams.
- tratax 5y agoMaybe not that big, unfortunately a lot of the connections will end up going to that SoC that does most of the work and is probably obsolete by the time you want to repair it.
- thereddaikon 5y agoLook up board view files. Those are the kinds of schematics people are talking about. Louis Rossman uses them on his Youtube channel to do board level repairs of Macs and iOS devices. They are not all you need copy a device outright, contrary to what some people in the comments think. But they are sufficient for you to track down faulty components and de-solder them.
- maxerickson 5y agoCan't you do that without imposing it on everyone else? I care about consumption (I'm on my 2nd laptop since ~2003), but I don't particularly want to pay $15,000 to replace this one with one that is worse.
- marcosdumay 5y ago> Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Well, I would say it includes publishing the software interface of your hardware, and not making it impossible to replace the software. Those are the main roadblock on updating old tablets and phones. I do really read those lines as fighting closed boot loaders, DRM on real goods, dependencies on the manufacturer's servers, and all kinds of purposeful hindrances that are so popular between the large industries nowadays. I would really not include the "design for repairability" and software upgrades into the idea. But one does not need to include those to agree with the article.
- spinningslate 5y ago>Well, I would say it includes publishing the software interface of your hardware, and not making it impossible to replace the software. 100% this. Case in point: I have two 'old' apple devices: a 2009 mac mini and an ipad c.2011. Apple doesn't provide updates for either any more. For the mini, that's not a problem: it's running Debian just fine, and kept up to date. The ipad is a different story. Physically it's still in perfectly good nick: it's a well-built device. Software, though, is a different matter. Progressively fewer websites render properly with the outdated version of safari; the number of installable apps is down to a faint trickle. It's broken. Doesn't matter that it's broken because the software is outdated rather than a hardware component has given up. It doesn't do what it was intended for, and there's no way to repair it. I've no issue with apple - or any other manufacturer - deciding there's a lifetime beyond which they're not willing to support the device. But they shouldn't be allowed to brick it. At the point it goes out of manufacturer support, there should be the option to 'unlock' and install 3rd party software. Of course it'll impact Apple's revenues. At least to some extent; plenty people will still want "shiny new". And it'll need 3rd party software to be available. But that's a whole new market opportunity. More fundamentally, it's simply unconscionable to consign devices to the scrap heap because the manufacturer built a time bomb into the software.
- m4rtink 5y agoAsking the manufacturers to not pull dirty tricks with the bootloader (AKA Tivoization) does not sound to me like asking much of them and could cut quite a bit of ewaste as old devices are reused with new software. Of course many would try to block that as it cuts into their planned obsolescence roadmaps...
- shoto_io 5y agoI don’t know why we shouldn’t let the market handle this. If people want everything to be repairable then why isn’t there a phone which solve that issue? Maybe people don’t care that much after all.
- emkoemko 5y agoi not sure what your talking about... people get their phones fixed all the time, its just the companies make it very difficult or not possible at all when you can't get access to parts, or you have companies like Apple who prevent you importing parts even if the parts are ripped out of broken devices. Then you have Apple who lie they say you can't recover your data or repair your device, yet you go to a repair shop and you get your data back and phone fixed...
- shoto_io 5y agoBut that’s my point. Why do buy a phone from company like that? Just stop buying from them and buy from another manufacturer instead and the problem will be solved.
- emkoemko 5y agookay true, but you think its fine for Apple to prevent you from taking out say your broken camera and replace it with a working one? or a LCD... or any part? You think its fine for say John Deer to prevent you from repairing your own tractor? if any part is replaces with exactly the same part but your tractor won't turn on because the "encryption link" is not correct? would you be fine with your car preventing you from changing your tire? unless you get them to do it and only install their "tires"?
- Sohcahtoa82 5y agoYou're not making a convincing argument when the person you're arguing with is coming from the "free market" angle. Someone arguing in favor of allowing market forces to solve the problem truly do think it's fine for Apple and John Deere to do those things. The solution for lack of repairability isn't to enact legislation to force them to make their products more repairable, it's to stop buying Apple and John Deere. To a point, they're right, but relying on market solutions assumes rational consumers, which we have anything but. I think back about 7 years when I bought a Motorola Droid Turbo. Back then, consumers were asking for phones with longer-lasting batteries and screens that wouldn't shatter because you sneezed. This phone was exactly what consumers were asking for, with it's monstrous 3950 mAh battery, and a screen that could survive a 100-foot drop onto pavement (Saw a video of it!), but most people had never even heard of it, and still bought their iPhones and Samsung Galaxy phones which couldn't even survive a waist-high drop onto the sidewalk without cracking the screen. Consumers are not rational, and so the market will never be rational, and relying on market solutions does not always work.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoIt's clearly written by an author who isn't very technically or legally savvy, however it gets the point across to the general public about the importance. We can let the pros determine the goalposts but clearly what we're doing now and letting manufacturers get away with is insufficient.
- passivate 5y ago>Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one yourself or run older software on it indefinitely. You're argument is with the author, and his interpretation, not with "right to repair". What "right to repair" is or isn't , is not decided by the author of this article. There are various organizations that are loosely related with a few shared ideals. >We must very carefully define our terms here, because requiring someone else to provide on one's behalf presumes a right to the product of their labor. Not really. Anyone can propose anything in an article, and they must be free to do so. Its upto us as a collective to think over ideas and proposals and then push for policy proposals that align. Ultimately the terms will be defined in legislation, not on bbc.com
- kbenson 5y ago> Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Any right to repair law that doesn't also include provisions to ensure you can run your own code on the device is hobbled. How "repairable" is a device that is cloud based but they disabled the cloud service? I don't care that manufacturers support the software beyond what they've contractually signed up for, but I do care that I'm not left holding a brick afterwards by design. As long as the capability exists to put other firmware that exists on the device, or write my own, I'm protected from that, at least in the general case. If nobody has provided that firmware and I can't do it myself, that's still a situation I think it many times better than the alternative.
- michaelmrose 5y agoPerhaps compulsory software updates at least as far as security issues for a reasonable time frame after selling a particular device as new to stores. I'd say 5 years to go with the 5 year warranty against defects in manufacture. This would discourage waste and improve the second hand market. So moto, samsung, et all would be obligated to provided fixes for 5 years after they sold the last unit. If an oem can't meet that obligation just forbid their import. We presume a right to the product of other people's labor for the privilege of doing business here all the time. See every product in existence.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y agoAs a user, the only "moving of goalposts" I see with regard to "software updates" is that as a consumer if I buy the device with software installed (including whatever latent defects that software may contain) the manufacturer believes it has the right to continually install updates. I did not buy the updates (new software). That was not part of the deal. I did not sign up for a subscription. I purchased a piece of hardware. And yet, there is an expectation, for lack of a better word, that I will "update", long after purchase, after the buyer's relationship with the manufacturer ends (no warranty in effect). Of course, these updates are always to benefit the manufacturer, by retaining an ability to track buyers after purchase. Surveillance capitalism. I have no desire for any developer to have to do more work after the date of purchase to "fix" or "support" software. What I want is all the work to be done before selling the device. Quality control. Is this really too much to ask. I am not interested in purchasing what are effectively "works-in-progress".
- userbinator 5y agoNow "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one yourself or run older software on it indefinitely. If your IBM PC dies, you can definitely create a functionally exact clone based on publicly available information, and in fact many have done so, either virtually or physically. IMHO if the manufacturer ceases to provide support, then it must open up the documentation and design, or allow all reverse-engineering of it.
- OrwellianChild 5y agoMore importantly, you can buy a new Intel chip to replace the one that failed, swap them out, and go about your day. Thinking about the gap between the lifecycle experience on the PC side vs. the Mac side is a good way to understand the difference between an ecosystem open to repair and one closed to it.
- tims33 5y agoRepairability seems like a good goal for sustainability. The challenge on electronics is determining what is a reasonable and useful life for a product. Should an iPhone SE or a knockoff Android last and be repairable for a decade? My worry is the regulation will get this wrong. Moderate rules are probably the best way to start.
- LegitShady 5y ago> Moderate rules are probably the best way to start. These changes almost never happen. Whatever change you put the first time is likely the only change that will happen. Starting off with a compromise for fear of 'getting it wrong' is the easiest way to make sure you get it wrong.
- tims33 5y agoThat is a fair point. I just have visions of becoming cumbersome and limiting.
- viktorcode 5y agoI don't think that repairability is better for sustainability in general, if we are speaking about electronics. Making an electronic device more repairable would make it more complex (again, not in every case, but in general). Where before a manufacturer could just solder numerous components to a single board, now will be arrays of sockets each of which is a new point of possible failure. Glue will be replaced by magnets, clips, etc. which is great for repair, but again, makes device more complex. And still most people will get rid of them after a few years of use. Consumerism is the top enemy of sustainability. Right to repair is a complex endeavour. There will be no simple solutions.
- scrose 5y ago> I don't think that repairability is better for sustainability in general Sorry, but what? Being able to repair a device means that you can (and usually will) be able to prevent demand spiking for a brand new device that uses as many or more materials than the last. For starters, imagine a world where vehicles were not repairable. I'd argue that any mass-produced thing benefits from repairability.
- dec0dedab0de 5y agoA bit of a tangent, but I'm really surprised one of the android vendors hasn't focused on the niche of easy to repair phones. Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of the latest i-sung devices. extra hot swappable batteries and the like. I know the ostensible reasons waterproofing, planned obsolescence, looking cool, and being light weight. Though I suspect the real reason is they're just chasing the big players and are afraid to be different. It just doesn't make sense to me from a business perspective, if you know you can't compete in the general market, why not carve out a smaller market and serve that one well. An example of this is the Jitterbug phone.
- fancyfredbot 5y agoHave you seen the fairphone? It's exactly this. The first one let you replace all components without any tools. The latest one needs a screwdriver (which it comes with). You can upgrade a fairphone 3 to a fairphone 3+ yourself just by buying the updated components. It's pretty cool! But it isn't cheap. https://shop.fairphone.com/en/ https://shop.fairphone.com/en/
- maxerickson 5y agoIs there a market for it? $200 Android devices with a big battery and decent performance and so on are out there, so I wonder how many people are worried enough about a swappable battery. Jitterbug makes the phone to sell their service, so it's not directly comparable (it does demonstrate that the devices aren't that expensive to produce).
- dec0dedab0de 5y agoI was using a Moto G8 Power for exactly that reason, but I still think 3 days of battery life is just not enough. The phone could have easily been 4 times the size without being too big for me. Then the screen cracked and I made it worse trying to fix it because I dont have the patience to properly melt glue. Now I'm using a CAT phone which has cool features, and is supposedly stronger, but mostly the same problems.
- 5y ago
- ilogik 5y agoa good video about what the right to repair is and isn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68
- bogwog 5y agoThis is a really good video, it lays everything out clearly and explains it well. I even threw $50 at Louis's gofundme. It's always bizarre to me to see regular people arguing against right to repair in online discussions. Literally the only parties who benefit from planned obsolescence is device manufacturers, and it happens at the customer's expense 100% of the time. Either these people are dumb, or (most likely) they don't actually understand what "right to repair" means, or at the very least are confused about it.
- addicted 5y agoWhat's also hard to understand is that right to repair is not a new concept. The auto industry has it. I don't think anyone can argue that the auto industry or its customers have suffered from the fact that we have an entire ecosystem built around 3rd party repair and services that often provide better, quicker, and more easily accessible support and services.
- metalforever 5y agoOh no don’t give them ideas
- quijoteuniv 5y agoI do not really understand the negativity on the comments. Seems everyone can agree on the “right to repair” (it is politically correct) but underneath there seems to be and undermining resentment.
- scientismer 5y agoIt's socialism, yet again - government dictating to companies how they have to design and build their products. Only 0,00001% of people want to be able to repair their own stuff, but we all will have to pay for the extra hoops companies will be forced to jump through for political correctness. If you think people want repairable products, build them. If you are correct, people will buy them, rather than the products of the competition. Why do you need government rules for that? There are even companies trying to build repairable smartphones, and some people (the 0,00001%) are buying them.
- operator-name 5y agoIt looks like there is a lot of conflation between the right to repair and repairability of products. They're related but distinct issues. A lot of dissent seems to be around forced repairability.
- Chris2048 5y agoI think RTR is the wrong fight - things like controlling the actions of software running on your computer, and right to an API into that software are as, if not more, important. And on the mobile front, moving towards "apps" is the epitome of this (f you reddit). Hardware is a harder problem, but meaningless if everything is locked down, or practically disadvantageous to modify, at a software level - corps can leverage software complexity by making those that go off-piste have to manage it all (e.g app-stores).
- varispeed 5y agoI fear this is going to turn into some ambiguous law that only big companies will be able to navigate through and you and me still won't be able to repair anything, because it will be deemed "unsafe". There also has to be many years of commissions, banquets, meetings, dinners, bonuses before all civil servants feasting on tax payer money will come up with something.
- brap 5y agoMaybe they should stop wasting their time (and our money) and simply let us decide for ourselves whether or not we want to buy a device?
- TchoBeer 5y agoThat's the status quo, where the government doesn't intervene in issues of repair.
- operator-name 5y agoI'm cautiously optimistic, I've been following Louis Rossmann's efforts and Massachusetts recently passed their right to repair bill (https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI). If other industries can do it why can't we?
- balozi 5y agoA persistent question in my mind is why do customers buy unrepairable products, from smart phones and high-tech tractors. Why is the market failing? Or is it working perfectly?
- endisneigh 5y agoHow many customers do you think will even attempt to repair their own device? That's the answer to your question.
- viro 5y agoBecause as "tech people" we live in an echo chamber. where we conflate our specialized knowledge as "easy with just a quick google". But in reality my Aunt that can barely troubleshoot her computer(avg person) probably shouldn't be risking an $800 device to save $80 on a repair. So when she buys a phone why would she care about the repairability of a product, she's just going to take it to a professional anyways.
- Tyr42 5y agoBut it can drive down the cost of going to a specialist if your device has parts available, etc.
- bcrosby95 5y agoThe whole point behind right to repair is allowing 3rd party professionals to repair products. Apple doesn't do board repair. They make you buy new, whole components. So when your laptop breaks, instead of spending $120 to fix it they say you need to buy a new $1,000 component and with labor that's more than the price of a new laptop.
- zepto 5y agoI buy ‘unrepairable’ iPhones. I actually have repaired iPhones myself in the past, including screens and batteries. That turned out to be a waste of time because the replacement parts failed in a much shorter time than the originals The reason I continue to buy iPhones is that more recent models don’t typically need to be repaired. I would much rather have a phone that doesn’t fail easily than one that can be easily repaired.
- endisneigh 5y agoI wonder how the right to repair intersects with security. On one extreme, full right to repair is full access to all source code, schematics and documents related to the phone and all of its hardware and software. It would necessarily also give you the ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install software without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for security. However the other extreme, no access to anything is tantamount to no access at all, which is clearly secure, but isn't useful nor practical. Is the government really capable of properly defining the line?
- rank0 5y ago> On one extreme, full right to repair is full access to all source code, schematics and documents related to the phone and all of its hardware and software. It would necessarily also give you the ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install software without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for security. Open source code and device schematics shouldn't be a significant security threat. If device security is reliant on obscurity, you have improper security controls. Frankly, that should be on the device manufacturer, and not the consumer. As for the second point, I should be able to install whatever software I want on my device...as its mine.
- endisneigh 5y ago> Open source code and device schematics shouldn't be a significant security threat. You don't see how a completely open device could be insecure? > As for the second point, I should be able to install whatever software I want on my device...as its mine. This is a valid opinion, but the whole point of contention is whether you can do anything with a device simply because you've purchased it, as opposed to what has been exposed for you to do.
- rank0 5y agoNo an open device does not automatically mean insecure. Proper security controls should work even if the schematics are open. If they don’t, that is a security defect whose ownership falls under the manufacturer.
- antattack 5y agoGiven opposition to 'right to repair' from corporations, some of it on valid grounds IMO, I would be fine with the following compromise: If company does not want to provide resources needed for consumer to repair a device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the consumer for free or a small fee.
- ncallaway 5y ago> If company does not want to allow consumer to repair a device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the consumer for a small fee. I would modify that: If a company restricts a consumer from repairing a device (either explicitly in warranty policies, or implicitly by producing devices that are hard to repair, restricting part availability, or not having manuals available), then the company must (not should) provide an extended warranty for all damage scenarios at cost.
- fsflover 5y ago> hen the company must (not should) provide an extended warranty for all damage scenarios at cost. So would you agree on $1 million fee per customer? (which is what companies would probably ask if you made such law)
- Koshkin 5y ago> devices that are hard to repair Define easy? (Modern electronics, for instance, is highly integrated, full of miniature surface-mounted components etc., and so the "repair process" might as well be simply selling you a replacement for the whole thing.)
- leoedin 5y agoPCs and even most laptops have been very repairable for decades. You can still run Windows or Linux on a 10+ (20+?) year old laptop without an issue. The idea that a 5 year old laptop would be unusable or not get the latest version of Windows is unacceptable. Yet phones cost similar amounts and have nowhere near the repairability. A decade ago you could argue that it wasn't that important - specs were changing so quickly that new phones became obsolete too quickly. But now it's a maturing technology, older devices are perfectly good and we still don't have an ecosystem which encourages longevity and re-use. This is eminently doable - phones are essentially integrated computers. The only reason phones are locked and PCs aren't is historical. If phone manufacturers aren't willing to do it themselves, we should legislate before even more e-waste is generated.
- Koshkin 5y ago> or not get the latest version of Windows Not sure about this one: the continued support for older versions - yes, but the latest? Nobody can give you such promise (unless they explicitly do, for one reason or another).
- OkGoDoIt 5y agoI can easily install the latest version of windows 10 on even a 10 year old computer. But more importantly, I can still install Windows 7 on a 10-year-old computer if I want to. And it will still work, and most programs will still run on it. Or I can install an alternate operating system like Linux. Whereas with my iPhone, I literally can’t install an old version of the operating system or an alternate os, no matter how old or new the device. And if I do happen to have a device that still has an old operating system, most apps refuse to run because the API surface area changes constantly. And if you have old versions of apps, they mostly all phone home to check versions now and won’t run until you update them. It’s a never ending cycle and you have no control over it.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoI have a 10 year old desktop and a 12 year old laptop that both run the latest Windows 10 with no issues.
- temp667 5y agoThe irony is despite all this right to repair stuff, apple makes some of the more long lasting devices in terms of usability. Their software updates keep coming, their phones are actually surprisingly waterproof (plenty of great rescue stories here). If you have parents who are older, you know how this works - they keep their devices much longer in my experience. Yes, they glue the crap out of everything, solder stuff down instead of hacking bigger sockets and plug in chips with pins etc so do everything they are not supposed to. But the end result is darn long lasting and useful. If someone thinks users will trade out for these right to repair devices go for it. Android has TONS of folks playing in that space. But I'd say let Apple try things there way - a phone that just maintains great resale value because it's a bit harder to get screwed buying one - it alerts you if the scammers swap out the battery for a crap one even which used to be one annoying issue buying used iphones that made me stop buying used.
- oneplane 5y agoWhile calling things 'right to repair' is a nice easy wording for the lifecycle problem, it doesn't really show the complexity of the problem at hand. There are plenty of things you can do as a manufacturer to make things repairable, but there are just as many things that you can't do without creating major issues in other areas. Say you are a company that has a brand identity strongly linked to a certain aesthetic and a law now bans that because you are no longer allowed to glue on textiles on your product as a neat design choice. (yes, this has obvious/glaring problems on its own) What's the solution here? Ban a certain taste or preference for the certain many in the name of making it better for an uncertain few? This might also impact production processes in this example when you have a 'compromise'; i.e. you are required to sell spare parts because in the mind of policy makers "if they can mount that part in the factory, why couldn't they sell it separately". Say you have a design that is now optimised for production and the method with which a fabric or textile part is added is by preparing a bunch of glue on the spot where the textile goes, then laying a sheet of textile on top of that, and then using a specifically shaped melting device to melt it into the glue, and another cutting device to neatly cut all the excess off, and all of this while under a specific amount of pressure, maybe some inert gas etc. This is how industrial production works, and one of the few ways it works at all (at scale). But that would not be possible since it isn't repairable enough according to some people in certain echo chambers. So now we would have to ban an entire class of production and design methods... and that's just one example. The goal is relatively simple, and there will definitely be an impact that is worth attaining. But it's unlikely to be as simple as "provide us all the specs, datasheets and parts". Just as unlikely that it could be "provide us with the private key to your PKI so we can sign our own firmware". (which ironically is practically banned by the FCC on all devices with wireless communication modules - technically it's just an implementation you can restrict to a data table in a driver for a PHY, but practically this is much cheaper as a manufacturer to just blanket-sign and be done with it, which isn't fun for us hackers, but isn't surprising at all.) And not signing or encrypting things is a whole class of problems on its own. We're basically screwed, and since we're often on shared systems (like telecommunication networks, or physical roads and buildings, or we share the fuels and oils across many consumers) it's not as simple as 'do whatever you want' either. It's tough.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
- oth001 5y agoEven if it's a Tesla.
- libeclipse 5y ago> The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) says extending the life of smartphones and other electronics by just one year would be the equivalent of taking two million cars off the road, in terms of CO2 emissions. Looking at you, Apple. https://uk.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed https://uk.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed
- Google234 5y agoWhy are you looking at Apple? They do the great job providing updates.
- libeclipse 5y agoThey intentionally make it more difficult to repair devices so that users buy new ones instead, all the while doing stunts like removing charging cables to "help the environment". It's pure hypocricy.
- overgard 5y ago> 'It's your device, ... Sadly, while that /should/ be true, I'm not sure that on any practical level it is anymore. There's about a 1000 ways the manufacturer, carrier, os developer, etc., can make your device entirely useless without you having much of any recourse, because while they can't physically take the device from you, they can stop providing you service.
- joshspankit 5y agoThis is exactly why “Right to repair” rose up to claw that ownership back. If we don’t create laws, at some point down the road we will go from “not much recourse” to literally none. What if Apple created a phone with no ports that was filled with epoxy as the last step in assembly? What if powering it on at all meant logging in to your apple account? They could in every meaningful way take that device away from you at the run of a single function.
- scientismer 5y agoIf that would happen, and it bothers you, just don't buy an Apple phone. Problem solved.
- joshspankit 5y agoIf that happens and there are no laws, it will affect more and more products. Don’t buy a laptop? A car? A building? A slab of wood? Yes, my examples are borderline unreasonable, but we’re already at the level of unreasonable products being licensed instead of owned (Tractors, DSLRs).
- scientismer 5y agoUnless your country goes full socialism and there is only the government as provider for all those things, competing companies can provide you with repairable products. If people actually want them (which I doubt), why shouldn't companies provide them? With the tractors and DSLRs, again, if you don't like their licensing model, don't buy them. If nobody buys them, they will probably change their licensing model.
- whereis 5y agoCounterpoint: We're all safer by using devices that can't be repaired/tampered with by end users.
- 34679 5y agoThat's not always true. Take the case of a company that determines the cost of fixing a flaw is worse for profits than letting the flaw continue into production. Remington famously allowed a flawed trigger in one of their rifles for decades, even after being made aware of it and its 5 cent fix by the designer of the rifle, before it went on sale. https://www.guns.com/news/2016/11/18/trove-of-internal-documents-show-remington-knew-about-flawed-trigger https://www.guns.com/news/2016/11/18/trove-of-internal-docum...
- ball_of_lint 5y agoSafer how exactly?
- whereis 5y agoHarder to hack with device in hand, e.g. by replacing with compromised components or accessing secure data
- rasz 5y agoLike owners of John Deere tractors? The ones who all got DOXXED?
- johncessna 5y agoThis was the argument used by the auto industry, it was wrong then and still is wrong.
- bogwog 5y agoYeah, just look at all the people that die every year because they bought a used car that was repaired/tampered with by an end user /s
- forgotmypw17 5y agowhere is the unsafety of using a 10 year old ebook or 20 year old web client (for self-hosted sites)?
- Epskampie 5y agoI’ve recently started repairing more of my own stuff, and it’s actually really fun. I’ve replaced the clickers and scroll sensor on my Razer mouse, resoldered bad connections on our failed washing machine, and removed a piece of dust that was behind a layer right in the center of my new monitor. You feel more proud of a product you’ve repaired yourself. In these repairs i noticed that information (manuals, but also being able to discuss on forums) and parts are crucial, so i’m glad to see that those are the things encoded in law. A further measure could be forbidding forced (hardware level) linking of parts.
- operator-name 5y agoDepending on your product (more like manufacturer) I couldn't agree more. Plenty of failures are small, localised and with some learning easily fixable! Replacing the frayed cable on a good pair of headphones, usb cable on a functning mouse or even broken display as part of a laptop. I recently decided to take the more challenge task of repairing a swelling battery in a phone. I didn't have to worry about the back glass as it was already swollen such that the glass had cracked. It was surprisingly easy to take apart, remove the screws and little legos[0] get to the battery. Closing it up was extremely rewarding, as if I'd completed some hard surgery and was stitching just up the patient. [0]: https://youtu.be/ZRDLw5ortyU https://youtu.be/ZRDLw5ortyU
- Proven 5y agoNonsense. Yes, you may repair it if you want, that's never been the issue. But then don't come back asking for free service or free replacement parts when you can't fix it or when it breaks next time. The manufacturer has no moral or other obligation to provide help, info or assistance beyond conditions under which I've sold the device or equipment. If you don't like a deal, find yourself a better one.
- ben-schaaf 5y ago> Yes, you may repair it if you want, that's never been the issue. The problem is precisely that you can't repair it even with all the skill in the world, because the schematics aren't documented, the components aren't for sale and the components are software locked to the device. That's what right to repair is. Just like you can repair your own car by buying the components and doing the work yourself you should be allowed to do this for everything you buy. No one is asking manufacturers to repair your device for free or give you components for free.
- rasz 5y agoUK, Europe, Canada, Argentina, its as if the journalist went out of his way not to mention US and Louis Rossmanns direct ballot initiative fighttorepair.org
- gohbgl 5y agoAs far as there exist unjust laws that prevent people from repairing their devices, by all means, get rid of them (IP laws especially). But by all means, do not add more regulation.
- rasz 5y ago“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what has regulation ever done for us?”
- forgotmypw17 5y agohear, hear http and www and html are one of the most effective technologies keeping long-lived devices usable and useful. it's why i've made a point of testing in netscape 2.0 and up.
- foldr 5y agoWhat about reliability? Battery aside, the components in a smartphone could all be built to last 10 years. Regulations on component lifetimes might have a much more beneficial effect than repairability requirements. A well engineered smartphone or laptop shouldn’t need repairs within the reasonable expected lifetime of the device. But at the moment, manufacturers aren’t incentivized or required to target 10 year lifetimes. I see it as a bit like ETOPS. You can fly across the Atlantic on two engines as long as those engines are super reliable. Similarly, you should be allowed to build unrepairable devices if you can show, say, an expected lifetime of 10 years for 99% of units.
- Google234 5y agoA 10 year old device can barely render a webpage now and has a shitty screen and is generally inferior and every way to a new one. No one wants to use a flip phone now.
- foldr 5y agoYes, that’s my point. If devices reliably lasted 10 years, repairability would be moot. (Your timeline is off, though. Flip phones were already well on the way out in 2011. An iPhone 4S from 2011 would still be usable, just about.)
- jjtheblunt 5y agoA thought: some things have long been accepted to need experts or expensive tooling for their repair. So you never read something like "It's your ruptured spinal disk, you should be able to repair it.". I wonder if hardware vendors claim this is analogous.
- CivBase 5y ago"Right to repair" also means you can take it to an expert of your choosing. I don't know how to fix many problems my Honda and I could certainly take it to a Honda dealer if/when I encounter such problems, but I'm also happy to take it to someone else who has the knowledge and tools to fix it for me.
- jryan49 5y agoIf you want to help support right to repair (in US) consider donating to Louis Rossmann's GoFundMe for right to repair: https://www.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer https://www.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed?u...
- operator-name 5y agoI'd highly reccomended his video "What is right to repair? An introduction for curious people." as it clears up many misconceptions about right to repair: https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k
- OrwellianChild 5y agoLinus Tech Tips did an excellent rundown of the topic last week and advocates for Rossmann's fundraiser as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68
- emptyadam 5y agoI joined this website to say this.
- IronWolve 5y agoLouis explains its a david vs goliath situation, tech companies pay lobbyists to argue against right to repair. Small working repair shops cant afford to travel to these meetings, and not get paid. This is why the fund raiser, the public needs lobbyists to represent them against the corporate lobbyists. Its also bad that these companies are funding/donating to politicians to go against the publics interest.
- joshspankit 5y agoFor a really stellar example, see the Washington Right to Repair hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBR8IvXVwsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBR8IvXVwsE (Lewis at 15:10) At one point a senator asks why someone should be restricted from replacing a fan on a broken Xbox, the lobbyist said (paraphrasing) "I hear what you're saying and am not listening, but let's do the real talking in private" Here's a breakdown of the exchange between the senator and the lobbyist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd3Qa9tlA3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd3Qa9tlA3o
- skriticos2 5y agoSo what benefit would the right to repair bring? Even if all the schematics were published, parts be more standardized and built in a way that things are easier to maintain, would it really make a difference? People want the shiny new PS5 no matter how repairable the PS3 is. Maybe in a few decades the technology development slows to a point where this might be reasonable, but today people think on how to get their hands on the new M2 chip even before the M1 is fully rolled out. Then there is mechanical degradation, most components degrade over time and start to cause problems. The longer you wait, the more problems (basically the same as with cars). Most people who can afford will go for a median timeline where the devices work reliably and then dump them no matter what. So unless we make them last for decades reliably (not likely in the near future) this is not a viable thing to strive for. Then there is software support. Vendors continuously improve the software and add new hardware capabilities to stay competitive, because everyone else is doing it. So if we wanted to keep stuff working, we'd have to strangle competitive innovation and mandate a specific cap on technology for a given time. So I think that's all not reasonable. Instead we should strive to make the stuff we produce recyclable (like really), so that the materials can become the new shiny stuff that people crave for. But stuff is not designed to be recyclable at all and if you look at the global recycling industry (or fantasy really, so little is recovered) you can picture a giant dumpster we leave for the next generations.
- Epskampie 5y agoRecycling and repairability are not mutually exclusive, more often quite the opposite. Also, there are many devices where i don’t care for newer models, like the dishwasher.
- 1970-01-01 5y agoPlease don't forget how jailbreaking your iPhone was illegal only 9 years ago, and jailbreaking the iPad wasn't legal until 2015!
- thereddaikon 5y agoAnd how it has to be renewed every few years because its only legal due to regulatory fiat instead of federal law.
- toastal 5y agoI think about this all the time. Why is it my bank's business if my device has root access? Most apps will deny you entry if root is detected, while happily I can log in to the website just fine. If a website is better sandboxed and safer, why aren't the website ever optimized for mobile and lacking feature that could be done with web technology?
- djoldman 5y agoI believe that this right to repair stuff is really a reflection of a superceding market breakdown: oligopolistic power. Consumers want to do what they like with the things they own and some want the information needed to repair those things. Some companies don't have to offer this information or can get away with locking down their devices because they are immune from competition. This immunity is generally acquired by having the best product but then maintained by an abuse of market share. The solution is to encourage competition somehow. If someone made a tractor that could compete with John Deere, John Deere might be forced to entice consumers with the feature of repairability.
- passivate 5y ago>Some companies don't have to offer this information or can get away with locking down their devices because they are immune from competition. Oh it is much worse that this. These 'Some' companies actively block repair shops from purchasing spare parts so they can repair end-users' devices.
- djoldman 5y agoAgreed it can be much worse. From the econ standpoint it's a rational move. Once you capture the users you do whatever you like. I'm a little surprised a quality (magical like how Google used to be) search engine hasn't popped up.
- dvdkon 5y agoI agree, more competition would be the ideal solution, but I'm not sure we can achieve that goal without drastic changes. In my opinion, having competition on details like "does it have a headphone jack?" or "is it repairable?" requires competing manufacturers to be able to create near-identical products that only differ in those details, with the price delta reflecting only that one difference and not other complex market conditions. However, creating such "clones" is something our copyright and patent system is designed to prevent. There's some merit to it: preventing clones will force more global diversity. But in the common situation where the user has already decided on one area of the market ("I want iOS and a great camera"), these systems force the user into one choice, not letting them choose in important details. The way I see it, we either tear up all IP laws to allow for drastically lower costs of entry and hope that solves the problem (and other ones too), or we pass laws requiring some minimum standard of repairability. Or maybe a little bit of both (aggressive unbundling laws?).
- mjparrott 5y agoWon't repairable phones be bulkier? I would think its hard to be able to have as compact / integrated / low-toleranced of a design if you make more exposed screws, clips and replaceable seals etc.
- operator-name 5y agoFirstly repairability and the right to repair are distinct issues. Surface Pro X and Galaxy Buds are great examples that show just compactness and relative repairability can coexist.
- bogwog 5y agoNo. Also, "right to repair" doesn't mean manufacturers have to change their product designs in any way. iPhones today aren't hard to repair because they're thin, they're hard to repair because Apple ships DRM that checks the serial numbers of all the parts, so that it will refuse to work if you try to replace something. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY7DtKMBxBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY7DtKMBxBw
- DaniloDias 5y agoI’m 20 years into my career and my perspective on this topic has changed from being a supporter of RTR to being generally tepid. Most IoT is shit because they compete on very thin margins. This presents a problem for folks who consider both security and customer ownership rights- what is the more important priority? Right to repair, or Authenticity of software? 1.) I currently index on authenticity of software. It should not be easy for someone to augment your firmware with spying ability. 2) there is a plentiful ecosystem of inexpensive suppliers for homebrew types that want to build their own purpose built devices. This wasn’t the case historically. In the past, I felt like you didn’t have an economical alternative path. Now you do, so why is it so important to demand the ability to Jerry rig someone else’s appliance? 3) I don’t think RTR is compatible with secure boot, antirollback, etc. I do believe in RTR for laptops, John deer tractors and cars. But I find it a waste of time for inexpensive iot gear. Am I alone? Would appreciate others perspective.
- jaworek 5y agoThere is currently a fundraiser for direct ballot initiative in the US. https://www.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer https://www.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed?u... It was created by Louis Rossmann who has a Mac repair shop in NY. He talks a lot about it on his YT channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup Linus Tech Tips did a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68&t=5s
- CivBase 5y agoDespite being a big fan of right to repair, I really didn't like this article. It gave me the impression that the only way to fix things is to impose regulations on manufacturers in the form of design restrictions and support requirements. IMO, that's not at all what right to repair should be focusing on. I disagree with any regulation which would force a manufacturer to compromise on the design of a device just for the sake of ease-of-repair or to provide parts or repair services. However, there are some practices which I do think should be illegal as part of right to repair law. Here are some examples: 1) Manufacturers should not be allowed to use serialization to prevent a device from working with replacement parts. It's okay for a device to user serialization to detect if the part has been replace and if the replacement is known to be compatible, but it's not okay for the device to refuse to work with a replacement part outright simply because the part ID is different. 2) Manufacturers should not be allowed to make exclusivity deals for parts with third party vendors. Apple should not be allowed to make a deal with Intersil that gives them exclusive rights to purchase the ISL9120 chip used in their Mac Books. This restriction should not extend to parts designed by the manufacturer whose production is merely contracted out to a third party. 3) Manufacturers should not be allowed to restrict sharing of schematics, specifications, or other legally acquired product information. If someone takes the time to map out the traces and identify the components on a circuit board, then they should be allowed to share that information without fear of legal threats. 4) Genuine used good should not be seized by customs under the pretext of them being "counterfeit". 5) Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to restrict the purchase of replacement parts using "authorized repair" programs. If they're going to offer parts for repair, they should be available for purchase with no strings attached. Others have already pointed it out, but Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel and Fight to Repair website have some great information on the problems faced by independent repair. https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup https://www.fighttorepair.org/ https://www.fighttorepair.org/
- toss1 5y agoOn a site called Hacker News, I'm surprised to see so much criticism of a right to repair. What is hacking, if not the act of digging into the guts of a mechanism or device? What is open source, but providing the ability for anyone to read, modify, and rebuild their software? I'd expect nothing less than full-throated support for the right to dig into things. Sadly, it seems that many here are more supportive of the right to lock things. Perhaps because they are employed in the rent-seeking parts of the industry that want everything to be a subscription? "It is very difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it". [edit: to be sure, I understand that surface mount technology, adhesive bonding, direct-soldered-in batteries, etc., are genuinely useful advances, and make certain component-level repairs at least impractical. I would not propose to require that these be undone. But, we should be able to have whatever level of access is physically possible, without unnecessary locks the perform no useful user function, so we can try whatever we want. Anything less is surrendering ourselves to rent-seeking. ]
- theqult 5y agoLaughs in European <3
- joshgoldman 5y agoVery unfortunate but predictable that people here mostly defend Apple on this
- soheil 5y agoShould you have the right to repair the CPU inside your machine? Does that mean the manufacturer must design and manufacture the CPU in a way for you to be able to repair it? Where does one draw the line as things get more and more complex? Sadly, we don't live a horse and buggy world anymore where you could just get a new horse or fix a wheel if it stopped working.
- iotku 5y ago> Should you have the right to repair the CPU inside your machine? Sure, if a component in a CPU failed there shouldn't be any deliberate effort by the manufacturer to restrict it's replacement/repair (especially by entirely artificial means). > Does that mean the manufacturer must design and manufacture the CPU in a way for you to be able to repair it? That's unenforceable, but it is preferable for environmental reasons that manufacturers consider the reapairability of their products where possible. What isn't acceptable is deliberately ensuring parts aren't available or are designed explicitly not to work with compatible or identical replacements. >Where does one draw the line as things get more and more complex? If something is actually unrepairable it shouldn't be too much of a burden on manufacturers because there would be no interest in purchasing replacement components for something that is actually irreparable. >Sadly, we don't live a horse and buggy world anymore where you could just get a new horse or fix a wheel if it stopped working. Bad faith argument. Even so, the main argument in right to repair isn't "Oh my gosh everything is so hard and modern nobody can do anything if only we were still repairing something easy like wagons". The argument is that we should have the right for repairs to occur without unreasonable impediments.
- KtLinLin 5y agoကျနော်သည် အင်တာနက် နှေးကွေးနေပါသဖြင့် ပြန်လည်ပြုပြင်လိုပါသည် ကျေးဇူးတင်ပါသည်
- chriselles 5y agoJohn Deere and their tractor dealer network have been fighting and delaying farmer owner tractor right of repair efforts for years. John Deere seems to be using the tactic that the tractor owner has the right to repair, but stalling on providing the ability/accessibility to repair. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7m8mx/john-deere-promised-farmers-it-would-make-tractors-easy-to-repair-it-lied https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7m8mx/john-deere-promised-f... It’s worth watching much higher value products sold/serviced by dealer networks(tractors/auto/trucks/powersports) very heavily reliant on service/repair revenue compared to electronic device manufacturers that are far less reliant. Printer manufacturers that use the razor blade loss leader business model to profit from consumables is another similar fight over genuine printer cartridge “lock in” versus aftermarket/refills.
- krzepah 5y agoI've got another one : It's your device, you shouldn't be locked out of it because of some update that now requires you to authenticate to whatever online service they have the fantastic idea of coming up with.