18 ms·

New York Senate passes Right to Repair bill

651 points by tk75x 5y ago

ourmandave 5y ago
Normally the next step would be a vote on an identical bill in the state’s Assembly. But Thursday is the last day of session for the NY legislature, and the bill has not yet escaped committee, making a vote by the full Assembly unlikely. The battle for fair repair in New York will continue into next year’s session, with a strong record of success. So eventually... maybe.
- sschueller 5y ago
  We aren't even at the half way point of the year and this is already the end of the years session? In a large state like NY? How does anything get done? This isn't some small town in the middle of nowhere.
  - showerst 5y ago
    The majority of US states only meet a few months a year. Many have two year sessions that start in odd-years, so things that don't get completed in 2021 can get picked up again where they left off in 2022. You'd be surprised both how much they're expected to get done in a few months, and also how little some state legislatures actually pass. State and Federal agencies serve a huge role in the US, partially for this reason.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > We aren't even at the half way point of the year and this is already the end of the years session? We have a part-time legislature. The other half of the year lets our politicians earn a living outside politics (as well as politick--it's an election year.) Our Governor is powerful. If an emergency arises, I believe the Assembly and Senate can be called back into session. But that's rarely required.
  - birdman3131 5y ago
    Texas is every 2 years from what I understand.
  - milesvp 5y ago
    There’s actually a problem here in washington state, and I’d guess in other states as well, that most of the legislators are real estate agents. They’re one of the few common professions that can afford to take off months at a time and still make significant income the rest of the year.
- xroche 5y ago
  Louis Rossmann is more skeptical: Right to Repair bill PASSES in NY state senate! What now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX6BVQe6Tq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX6BVQe6Tq4 TL;DR: Low probability than anything will happen before next year
elliekelly 5y ago
Not really related but ifixit really is fantastic. I’ve fixed so many things I had no business being able to fix on my own thanks to their guides and videos. I wish more people would turn to their site before throwing stuff away.
- joncrane 5y ago
  I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I do wonder about the idea that by making the power source impossible to remove, the phone can be a surveillance device even when the user thinks it's powered off. I wonder what the minds of HN think about this scenario. Is the move towards non-removable batteries perhaps related to this? I also wonder about the movement away from physical headphone jacks....I imagine bluetooth is easier to hack then a physical cable. Edit: thanks for engaging on this. You helped me discount this theory.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Designwise, it's about waterproofing. You have to undersize parts for a watertight fit, which can result in undesirable characteristics when deformation or dropping of a device does happen. There's also an increasing tendency to use the outer shell of a device as a heat-sink/radiator. Adhesives enable this type of design but make it darn near impossible to maintain. I'm not going to say there isn't a mustache twirler somewhere with surveillance plans of grandeur... but unfortunately the truth may be closer to it's cheaper to buy a tube of glue than to get a tub of small, self-tapping screws. That's just my 2 cents from having torn things apart and put them back together to varying degrees of success.
    - hellbannedguy 5y ago
      I'd be ok with certain smart phones as the exemption, but not electronics in computers, home electronics, cars, tractors, etc. And if it's truly about waterproofing, the companies better include water damage in their measly warranties.
      - 5y ago
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
If NY really wants to cut e-waste they should require removable batteries in cellphones and laptops. The move to non-removable batteries always seemed like a thinly veild money grab to me.
- Guest42 5y ago
  It makes everything disposable. I’ve seen a few 200 dollar health devices that fail quickly because they use cheap cr 2032 batteries that can’t be accessed. I miss the days of clip in batteries. I still have a 2013 laptop like that.
  - nashashmi 5y ago
    Agree. Non removable batteries is an aesthetic approach to consumer devices. It has no place in industrial applications. An analogy would be a decorated plastic bag selling seeds at hardware store, Or a brown ugly burlap selling seeds to landscape contractors. One is for consumers. The other is for the expert.
  - tachyonbeam 5y ago
    But this would force your laptop to be a whole 1.8cm thick! Unthinkable!
    - ExtraE 5y ago
      You joke, but LG makes a <3lb (1.36kg) 17” laptop. That’s impressive. (I can’t vouch for its quality, I don’t have one). Samsung makes a 15.6” laptop that weighs 2.6lbs, which is extremely practical. I’m planning on getting one. I wouldn’t be if it had the bulk and weight of a removable battery.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "weight of a removable battery" Why would a removable battery be more heavy? More bulky, probably and with more plastic also a bit more heavy. But not much, as the heavy part is not the plastic.
williesleg 5y ago
That's where it ends. Cuomo is an asshole.
ChicagoBoy11 5y ago
What would be the best argument against this sort of legislation?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  Focus groups show privacy and safety and both arguments are gleefully weaponized by the lobbyists.
  - pembrook 5y ago
    The "safety!" argument against RTR is disingenuous. Just as the "landfills!" argument in favor of RTR is also disingenuous. Nobody on either side actually believes those things (regardless of how passionately they claim to). They are both fallacious appeals to get disinterested people emotionally wrapped up in the topic. RE: safety, people getting hurt trying to repair stuff happens already and will still happen post-regulation. Right to repair will not result in more injuries. RE: landfills, most people don't throw stuff away because it breaks. They throw things away because newer models are more powerful, faster, smaller, more efficient, or aesthetically "cool." Right to repair will not result in less landfills.
- pembrook 5y ago
  You won't hear any here. HN, while libertarian-leaning on many issues, is overwhelmingly in favor of government regulation on this topic. I'll be downvoted, but here's a few real potential downsides (which exist anytime a small group of people with good intentions THINK they understand a complex issue enough to fix it). All regulation has unintended consequences: Ineffective at stopping E-waste - The main reason people throw electronics away is not because they break, but because they become obsolete. In electronics, the next generation of products is almost always faster, smaller, and more energy efficient. Hence why we have landfills full of old beige computer towers that are fully functional and user-repairable, yet nobody wants. Dampened innovation - When you tell companies they have to build things a certain way, you remove the option for something better to evolve. Once you pass a law, it's almost impossible to get it removed, and who knows what the future will bring (eg. biodegradable electronics, miniaturization on a microscopic scale, etc) Increased costs for consumers - baring the extra engineering/documentation costs (which aren't trivial), any requirements to supply spare parts for X years would be insanely expensive. Forcing companies to create small quantity B2C supply chains and retail channels for consumers to purchase individual parts on obsolete models would be an absolute nightmare. Disincentivized R&D - if you're forced to create manuals that tell your competitors how to clone your products and also let them easily buy all your parts, why invest in creating something unique? You'll just be cloned by an army of chinese competitors even faster. Just sell commodity crap hardware and focus on branding. Entrenching incumbents - incumbent big companies may simply use this regulation as an opportunity to entrench their position in the marketplace. If they can make it harder for upstarts to get off the ground, that's good for them! Anytime a company is coming out in favor of legislation and "restrictions" on their business, beware.
tiffanyh 5y ago
Devils advocate: Why is hardware treated different than software? If I own a perpetual license for some type of software, should I be entitled to “repair” the software I own. (Note: I’m not including SaaS in this since your don’t own that)
- ExtraE 5y ago
  I’m not sure I disagree, but e-waste maybe?
- brixon 5y ago
  You have to first fight the battle that you do not own the software, but that you only have a license to use the software. If you win that, then you can fight for repair.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    In the United States yes, but in Europe there is no such distinction.
mbostleman 5y ago
I appreciate the immediate problem and I guess policy like this is better than nothing. But to me the cause of this is less of a lack of "rights" as it is a lack of competition in the market. I would much rather choose products that have a more open and repairable architecture rather than have additional regulation.
myfavoritedog 5y ago
4. Excludes motor vehicle manufacturers, manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, or motor vehicle dealers and medical devices or a digital electronic product or embedded software found in medical settings. For all the bravado about standing up to powerful interests, this shows you who the most powerful interests are in that space.
- neallindsay 5y ago
  Plus it gives Apple an out as soon as they release a car, which is extremely weird.
  - nolok 5y ago
    If that metric is true doesn't that already give google, lg, samsung, ... an out ? "manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment" is sufficiently large to include everyone we want that law for.
- fitchjo 5y ago
  Am I being a bit naive to think that this has more to do with public safety? In theory, there is some increased level of regulation/review of the car and medical device manufacturers that limits the risk these repairs aren’t done to an appropriate standard? You can make a trade-off between standard of repair and price for your iPhone that only impacts the device, but cars and medical devices not properly repaired could impact a life.
  - joshspankit 5y ago
    You’ve used a grey argument. Apple themselves have argued that one of the reasons they have to limit repair is for public safety (someone could have a battery explode if they pierce it, for example), whereas we could also argue the other side: that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual?
MuffinFlavored 5y ago
Did you know that if you buy a 2021 BMW M5 and paid $120k for it in cash (no financing), then let the warranty expire (or hypothetically signed an opt-in waiver forgoing your powertrain warranty), you still can't flash your own calibration map to increase power into the engine control units? I'm sure there's a ton of good reasons why liability wise. Just seems crazy to me. I guess it's the same when you buy a $1k iPhone and can't run your own unsigned software.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  Surely some of that kind of thing would come down to regulatory compliance like emissions? It would be no good if right beside the BMW dealer was a shack with a dude who "unlocks" your new car's performance by turning it into a soot-spewing disaster (yes I know about coal rolling, but at least right now that's mostly done for jackass reasons not performance reasons). Anyway, it's basically the same thing that's at stake with router radio firmware and RF compliance— yes, you own the device, but the device's hardware has inherent capabilities that if fully unlocked, you would really need additional permits/licensing/oversight to operate in a way that doesn't interfere with other people's devices and wellbeing. Having your device locked down in this regard is a compromise that lets you have it and use it within those parameters while not needing to become a domain expert.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  That sounds... totally reasonable? A badly flashed ECU can trivially wreck your engine. It can make it wear out faster. It can increase emissions. I have no objection with voiding warranty repairs if you reflash an ECU. The important thing is that you should still be able to do it, and still be able to fix the car yourself and get replacement parts.
  - idownvoted 5y ago
    > you should still be able to do it, and still be able to fix the car yourself and get replacement parts. So should manufacturers be responsible for providing replacement parts? For all of their products components? For how long? For ever? If say for only 10 years, on what basis would it be 10 years and not 5 or 15?
specialp 5y ago
From someone living in NY and having watched bills like this... Last time this came up it silently died without a vote. This vote is probably symbolic and it will languish in the Assembly forever. It is nice they voted for this overwhelmingly but it has not been "passed" as a law. It just passed step 1/3
whyIsItOk 5y ago
Why do people buy from these companies at all? You know they are doing anti consumer practices, it's not like there is a Monopoly. The only people I feel sympathetic for are iOS programmers who are forced into Apples Walled Prison. The rest of the population have created this problem.
abeppu 5y ago
I think right to repair bills could be important, but I think they should also cover cases where the physical device is fine, but the company is no longer running a service, or sending security updates. In these cases, "repair" should include the ability to run different firmware etc.
- asah 5y ago
  ... different SaaS service, including any security keys?
xroche 5y ago
If I loosely quote Louis Rossmann, one of the issue of right to repair is that more and more companies (Apple leading the trend) are using slightly modified chips from manufacturers, and them make then sign contracts that prevent any part selling to anyone. So technically even you can replace those chips, you can't buy them. And next Apple if putting serial numbers to prevent that even if you get the part, you will have a non-functional device. This bill does not appear to address that. Besides, the "information they need to repair" is also where the devil will be. Companies like Apple provide instructions on how to unscrew the laptop cover with a screwdriver (literally), but won't provide any data sheets.
- nrp 5y ago
  That is largely Apple-specific, as most other OEMs use off the shelf chips. Even in that case though, the distribution doesn’t exist for many components to be available to individuals or repair shops, since the component makers only want to deal with their couple dozen big customers directly.
  - nipponese 5y ago
    On that note, Rossmann is a curious character. He openly and variously despises Apple’s hardware choices and policies, yet to my memory, that’s his shop works on. Are the economics of repairing Apple products that strong or is the man is a true masochist?
    - snuxoll 5y ago
      He runs a shop that supports many employees and himself, so, yes, the economics obviously work in his favor. One doesn’t need to like the choices of a company to offer to service their products.
      - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
        And given that each repair could, in theory, eat into the profit margins that Apple enjoys (either via 1st patty repairs or through a customer not buying a replacement device) it would make logical sense to do so if he dislikes Apple that much
squarefoot 5y ago
Can anyone comment on this please? (from the nysenate.gov link in the article) "This bill require original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to make diag- nostic and repair information for digital electronic parts and equipment available to independent repair providers and consumers if such parts and repair information are also available to OEM authorized repair providers." This seems to imply that if something is being sold as non repairable, it will continue to be, since there would be no authorized repair providers.
- cronix 5y ago
  Your take sounds right. Like if Apple replaces phone screens at an Apple facility, they must also make the screens (and supporting equipment) available to other parties. If they don't replace screens, then they don't have to make them available.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Exactly. Which would make sense in case of spare parts, "we don't make spare parts for us, so we can't distribute them for others", but that would apply also to firmware and technical information, which they have and doesn't require distribution in physical form. I'm afraid that for some time we'll continue to see old phones discarded in landfills because there will be no technical information available allowing developers to port open operating systems, drivers and apps to them.
sam345 5y ago
Can someone please explain exactly what regulations are being proposed and what manufactures will be required to do? Are manufacturer going to be, for example, required to manufacture electronic parts for every old model and keep them available for 10 years as was suggested in one comment? I'm sympathetic but there is no way this is going to work. There are literally thousands of different models of phones, for example, made every year. Ask yourself if it is it really practical to require manufacturers to keep generating parts for every old model? And then multiply that problem countlessly for every other electronic product out there.I don't think this is an area for regulation This is a recipe for shutting down the tech hardware industry. This is an area for customer pressure not regulations. This will be a hugely burdensome on manufacturers and will greatly reduce the amount of innovation and new products. And shut many new products out of the marketplace.
unnouinceput 5y ago
Quote: "At a virtual session, the Senate approved S4104 by a margin of 51 to 12" Who are those 12? Name them and make sure they don't get reelected.

651 points by tk75x 5y ago

Normally the next step would be a vote on an identical bill in the state’s Assembly. But Thursday is the last day of session for the NY legislature, and the bill has not yet escaped committee, making a vote by the full Assembly unlikely. The battle for fair repair in New York will continue into next year’s session, with a strong record of success. So eventually... maybe.

sschueller 5y ago
We aren't even at the half way point of the year and this is already the end of the years session? In a large state like NY? How does anything get done? This isn't some small town in the middle of nowhere.
- showerst 5y ago
  The majority of US states only meet a few months a year. Many have two year sessions that start in odd-years, so things that don't get completed in 2021 can get picked up again where they left off in 2022. You'd be surprised both how much they're expected to get done in a few months, and also how little some state legislatures actually pass. State and Federal agencies serve a huge role in the US, partially for this reason.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > We aren't even at the half way point of the year and this is already the end of the years session? We have a part-time legislature. The other half of the year lets our politicians earn a living outside politics (as well as politick--it's an election year.) Our Governor is powerful. If an emergency arises, I believe the Assembly and Senate can be called back into session. But that's rarely required.
- birdman3131 5y ago
  Texas is every 2 years from what I understand.
- milesvp 5y ago
  There’s actually a problem here in washington state, and I’d guess in other states as well, that most of the legislators are real estate agents. They’re one of the few common professions that can afford to take off months at a time and still make significant income the rest of the year.
xroche 5y ago
Louis Rossmann is more skeptical: Right to Repair bill PASSES in NY state senate! What now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX6BVQe6Tq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX6BVQe6Tq4 TL;DR: Low probability than anything will happen before next year

elliekelly 5y ago

Not really related but ifixit really is fantastic. I’ve fixed so many things I had no business being able to fix on my own thanks to their guides and videos. I wish more people would turn to their site before throwing stuff away.

joncrane 5y ago
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I do wonder about the idea that by making the power source impossible to remove, the phone can be a surveillance device even when the user thinks it's powered off. I wonder what the minds of HN think about this scenario. Is the move towards non-removable batteries perhaps related to this? I also wonder about the movement away from physical headphone jacks....I imagine bluetooth is easier to hack then a physical cable. Edit: thanks for engaging on this. You helped me discount this theory.
- salawat 5y ago
  Designwise, it's about waterproofing. You have to undersize parts for a watertight fit, which can result in undesirable characteristics when deformation or dropping of a device does happen. There's also an increasing tendency to use the outer shell of a device as a heat-sink/radiator. Adhesives enable this type of design but make it darn near impossible to maintain. I'm not going to say there isn't a mustache twirler somewhere with surveillance plans of grandeur... but unfortunately the truth may be closer to it's cheaper to buy a tube of glue than to get a tub of small, self-tapping screws. That's just my 2 cents from having torn things apart and put them back together to varying degrees of success.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    I'd be ok with certain smart phones as the exemption, but not electronics in computers, home electronics, cars, tractors, etc. And if it's truly about waterproofing, the companies better include water damage in their measly warranties.
    - 5y ago

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

If NY really wants to cut e-waste they should require removable batteries in cellphones and laptops. The move to non-removable batteries always seemed like a thinly veild money grab to me.

Guest42 5y ago
It makes everything disposable. I’ve seen a few 200 dollar health devices that fail quickly because they use cheap cr 2032 batteries that can’t be accessed. I miss the days of clip in batteries. I still have a 2013 laptop like that.
- nashashmi 5y ago
  Agree. Non removable batteries is an aesthetic approach to consumer devices. It has no place in industrial applications. An analogy would be a decorated plastic bag selling seeds at hardware store, Or a brown ugly burlap selling seeds to landscape contractors. One is for consumers. The other is for the expert.
- tachyonbeam 5y ago
  But this would force your laptop to be a whole 1.8cm thick! Unthinkable!
  - ExtraE 5y ago
    You joke, but LG makes a <3lb (1.36kg) 17” laptop. That’s impressive. (I can’t vouch for its quality, I don’t have one). Samsung makes a 15.6” laptop that weighs 2.6lbs, which is extremely practical. I’m planning on getting one. I wouldn’t be if it had the bulk and weight of a removable battery.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "weight of a removable battery" Why would a removable battery be more heavy? More bulky, probably and with more plastic also a bit more heavy. But not much, as the heavy part is not the plastic.

williesleg 5y ago

That's where it ends. Cuomo is an asshole.

ChicagoBoy11 5y ago

What would be the best argument against this sort of legislation?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
andrei_says_ 5y ago
Focus groups show privacy and safety and both arguments are gleefully weaponized by the lobbyists.
- pembrook 5y ago
  The "safety!" argument against RTR is disingenuous. Just as the "landfills!" argument in favor of RTR is also disingenuous. Nobody on either side actually believes those things (regardless of how passionately they claim to). They are both fallacious appeals to get disinterested people emotionally wrapped up in the topic. RE: safety, people getting hurt trying to repair stuff happens already and will still happen post-regulation. Right to repair will not result in more injuries. RE: landfills, most people don't throw stuff away because it breaks. They throw things away because newer models are more powerful, faster, smaller, more efficient, or aesthetically "cool." Right to repair will not result in less landfills.
pembrook 5y ago
You won't hear any here. HN, while libertarian-leaning on many issues, is overwhelmingly in favor of government regulation on this topic. I'll be downvoted, but here's a few real potential downsides (which exist anytime a small group of people with good intentions THINK they understand a complex issue enough to fix it). All regulation has unintended consequences: Ineffective at stopping E-waste - The main reason people throw electronics away is not because they break, but because they become obsolete. In electronics, the next generation of products is almost always faster, smaller, and more energy efficient. Hence why we have landfills full of old beige computer towers that are fully functional and user-repairable, yet nobody wants. Dampened innovation - When you tell companies they have to build things a certain way, you remove the option for something better to evolve. Once you pass a law, it's almost impossible to get it removed, and who knows what the future will bring (eg. biodegradable electronics, miniaturization on a microscopic scale, etc) Increased costs for consumers - baring the extra engineering/documentation costs (which aren't trivial), any requirements to supply spare parts for X years would be insanely expensive. Forcing companies to create small quantity B2C supply chains and retail channels for consumers to purchase individual parts on obsolete models would be an absolute nightmare. Disincentivized R&D - if you're forced to create manuals that tell your competitors how to clone your products and also let them easily buy all your parts, why invest in creating something unique? You'll just be cloned by an army of chinese competitors even faster. Just sell commodity crap hardware and focus on branding. Entrenching incumbents - incumbent big companies may simply use this regulation as an opportunity to entrench their position in the marketplace. If they can make it harder for upstarts to get off the ground, that's good for them! Anytime a company is coming out in favor of legislation and "restrictions" on their business, beware.

tiffanyh 5y ago

Devils advocate: Why is hardware treated different than software? If I own a perpetual license for some type of software, should I be entitled to “repair” the software I own. (Note: I’m not including SaaS in this since your don’t own that)

ExtraE 5y ago
I’m not sure I disagree, but e-waste maybe?
brixon 5y ago
You have to first fight the battle that you do not own the software, but that you only have a license to use the software. If you win that, then you can fight for repair.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  In the United States yes, but in Europe there is no such distinction.

mbostleman 5y ago

I appreciate the immediate problem and I guess policy like this is better than nothing. But to me the cause of this is less of a lack of "rights" as it is a lack of competition in the market. I would much rather choose products that have a more open and repairable architecture rather than have additional regulation.

myfavoritedog 5y ago

4. Excludes motor vehicle manufacturers, manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, or motor vehicle dealers and medical devices or a digital electronic product or embedded software found in medical settings. For all the bravado about standing up to powerful interests, this shows you who the most powerful interests are in that space.

neallindsay 5y ago
Plus it gives Apple an out as soon as they release a car, which is extremely weird.
- nolok 5y ago
  If that metric is true doesn't that already give google, lg, samsung, ... an out ? "manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment" is sufficiently large to include everyone we want that law for.
fitchjo 5y ago
Am I being a bit naive to think that this has more to do with public safety? In theory, there is some increased level of regulation/review of the car and medical device manufacturers that limits the risk these repairs aren’t done to an appropriate standard? You can make a trade-off between standard of repair and price for your iPhone that only impacts the device, but cars and medical devices not properly repaired could impact a life.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  You’ve used a grey argument. Apple themselves have argued that one of the reasons they have to limit repair is for public safety (someone could have a battery explode if they pierce it, for example), whereas we could also argue the other side: that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual?

MuffinFlavored 5y ago

Did you know that if you buy a 2021 BMW M5 and paid $120k for it in cash (no financing), then let the warranty expire (or hypothetically signed an opt-in waiver forgoing your powertrain warranty), you still can't flash your own calibration map to increase power into the engine control units? I'm sure there's a ton of good reasons why liability wise. Just seems crazy to me. I guess it's the same when you buy a $1k iPhone and can't run your own unsigned software.

mikepurvis 5y ago
Surely some of that kind of thing would come down to regulatory compliance like emissions? It would be no good if right beside the BMW dealer was a shack with a dude who "unlocks" your new car's performance by turning it into a soot-spewing disaster (yes I know about coal rolling, but at least right now that's mostly done for jackass reasons not performance reasons). Anyway, it's basically the same thing that's at stake with router radio firmware and RF compliance— yes, you own the device, but the device's hardware has inherent capabilities that if fully unlocked, you would really need additional permits/licensing/oversight to operate in a way that doesn't interfere with other people's devices and wellbeing. Having your device locked down in this regard is a compromise that lets you have it and use it within those parameters while not needing to become a domain expert.
Daishiman 5y ago
That sounds... totally reasonable? A badly flashed ECU can trivially wreck your engine. It can make it wear out faster. It can increase emissions. I have no objection with voiding warranty repairs if you reflash an ECU. The important thing is that you should still be able to do it, and still be able to fix the car yourself and get replacement parts.
- idownvoted 5y ago
  > you should still be able to do it, and still be able to fix the car yourself and get replacement parts. So should manufacturers be responsible for providing replacement parts? For all of their products components? For how long? For ever? If say for only 10 years, on what basis would it be 10 years and not 5 or 15?

specialp 5y ago

From someone living in NY and having watched bills like this... Last time this came up it silently died without a vote. This vote is probably symbolic and it will languish in the Assembly forever. It is nice they voted for this overwhelmingly but it has not been "passed" as a law. It just passed step 1/3

whyIsItOk 5y ago

Why do people buy from these companies at all? You know they are doing anti consumer practices, it's not like there is a Monopoly. The only people I feel sympathetic for are iOS programmers who are forced into Apples Walled Prison. The rest of the population have created this problem.

abeppu 5y ago

I think right to repair bills could be important, but I think they should also cover cases where the physical device is fine, but the company is no longer running a service, or sending security updates. In these cases, "repair" should include the ability to run different firmware etc.

asah 5y ago
... different SaaS service, including any security keys?

xroche 5y ago

If I loosely quote Louis Rossmann, one of the issue of right to repair is that more and more companies (Apple leading the trend) are using slightly modified chips from manufacturers, and them make then sign contracts that prevent any part selling to anyone. So technically even you can replace those chips, you can't buy them. And next Apple if putting serial numbers to prevent that even if you get the part, you will have a non-functional device. This bill does not appear to address that. Besides, the "information they need to repair" is also where the devil will be. Companies like Apple provide instructions on how to unscrew the laptop cover with a screwdriver (literally), but won't provide any data sheets.

nrp 5y ago
That is largely Apple-specific, as most other OEMs use off the shelf chips. Even in that case though, the distribution doesn’t exist for many components to be available to individuals or repair shops, since the component makers only want to deal with their couple dozen big customers directly.
- nipponese 5y ago
  On that note, Rossmann is a curious character. He openly and variously despises Apple’s hardware choices and policies, yet to my memory, that’s his shop works on. Are the economics of repairing Apple products that strong or is the man is a true masochist?
  - snuxoll 5y ago
    He runs a shop that supports many employees and himself, so, yes, the economics obviously work in his favor. One doesn’t need to like the choices of a company to offer to service their products.
    - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
      And given that each repair could, in theory, eat into the profit margins that Apple enjoys (either via 1st patty repairs or through a customer not buying a replacement device) it would make logical sense to do so if he dislikes Apple that much

squarefoot 5y ago

Can anyone comment on this please? (from the nysenate.gov link in the article) "This bill require original equipment manufacturers (OEM) to make diag- nostic and repair information for digital electronic parts and equipment available to independent repair providers and consumers if such parts and repair information are also available to OEM authorized repair providers." This seems to imply that if something is being sold as non repairable, it will continue to be, since there would be no authorized repair providers.

cronix 5y ago
Your take sounds right. Like if Apple replaces phone screens at an Apple facility, they must also make the screens (and supporting equipment) available to other parties. If they don't replace screens, then they don't have to make them available.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  Exactly. Which would make sense in case of spare parts, "we don't make spare parts for us, so we can't distribute them for others", but that would apply also to firmware and technical information, which they have and doesn't require distribution in physical form. I'm afraid that for some time we'll continue to see old phones discarded in landfills because there will be no technical information available allowing developers to port open operating systems, drivers and apps to them.

sam345 5y ago

Can someone please explain exactly what regulations are being proposed and what manufactures will be required to do? Are manufacturer going to be, for example, required to manufacture electronic parts for every old model and keep them available for 10 years as was suggested in one comment? I'm sympathetic but there is no way this is going to work. There are literally thousands of different models of phones, for example, made every year. Ask yourself if it is it really practical to require manufacturers to keep generating parts for every old model? And then multiply that problem countlessly for every other electronic product out there.I don't think this is an area for regulation This is a recipe for shutting down the tech hardware industry. This is an area for customer pressure not regulations. This will be a hugely burdensome on manufacturers and will greatly reduce the amount of innovation and new products. And shut many new products out of the marketplace.

unnouinceput 5y ago

Quote: "At a virtual session, the Senate approved S4104 by a margin of 51 to 12" Who are those 12? Name them and make sure they don't get reelected.