3 ms·

It 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 mecha

It 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 ago
  I 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 ago
      Assuming 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).
      - omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
        The money can do that, but it can also go to their bottom line instead, or even be used to lobby against stuff like Right to Repair. Who knows, the amount Apple has spent lobbying may have allowed them to create a more repairable iphone without increasing consumer prices.
        jpttsn 5y ago
        I don’t think that’s how it works. Apple makes about 38% on hardware, right? Suppose I pay $100 “extra” for an iPhone thanks to limited repairability. Without that $100, Apple would have to find $38 somewhere else. As I don’t value repairability, all the options seem worse. Maybe it would make me $100 happier at the cost of $38 to Apple’s “bottom line”. But I don’t think they would like that investment strategy.
        omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
        It's gone beyond that. Apple matches parts in their phones so that only Apple can replace certain things, which I believe increases the cost of their products a little. https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/complete-control-apple-accused-of-overpricing-restricting-device-repairs-1.4859099 https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/complete-control-apple-a... At the same time, restricting how and what customers can repair is good for future phone/etc sales, which I imagine it's why they're doing it.
ziml77 5y ago
Man that would be amazing. I don't see that ever happening, but it would be great to not be stuck with hardware that is unusable or near unusable because the manufacturer abandoned it or went under. Though it would be important that all functionality be able to remain intact if they hand over the tools. In the most technical sense the hardware is still usable even if you have to write new firmware from scratch, but practically it's useless without having something to work from and enhance/bugfix.

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 ago
I 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 ago
    Assuming 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).
    - omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
      The money can do that, but it can also go to their bottom line instead, or even be used to lobby against stuff like Right to Repair. Who knows, the amount Apple has spent lobbying may have allowed them to create a more repairable iphone without increasing consumer prices.
      - jpttsn 5y ago
        I don’t think that’s how it works. Apple makes about 38% on hardware, right? Suppose I pay $100 “extra” for an iPhone thanks to limited repairability. Without that $100, Apple would have to find $38 somewhere else. As I don’t value repairability, all the options seem worse. Maybe it would make me $100 happier at the cost of $38 to Apple’s “bottom line”. But I don’t think they would like that investment strategy.
        omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
        It's gone beyond that. Apple matches parts in their phones so that only Apple can replace certain things, which I believe increases the cost of their products a little. https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/complete-control-apple-accused-of-overpricing-restricting-device-repairs-1.4859099 https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/complete-control-apple-a... At the same time, restricting how and what customers can repair is good for future phone/etc sales, which I imagine it's why they're doing it.

ziml77 5y ago

Man that would be amazing. I don't see that ever happening, but it would be great to not be stuck with hardware that is unusable or near unusable because the manufacturer abandoned it or went under. Though it would be important that all functionality be able to remain intact if they hand over the tools. In the most technical sense the hardware is still usable even if you have to write new firmware from scratch, but practically it's useless without having something to work from and enhance/bugfix.