6 ms·

User-replaceable has nothing whatsoever to do with right to repair. Zero, zip, nada. A right to repair law might mandate that any device with a battery also h

User-replaceable has nothing whatsoever to do with right to repair. Zero, zip, nada. A right to repair law might mandate that any device with a battery also have the battery sold, by the manufacturer, for a reasonable period of time. That gives you a practical right to repair the device by replacing the battery, and it's well-defined. "User replaceable" is not well defined. Does it mean you need to be able to do this with no tools at all? If not, what tools make it not 'user replaceable'? That no glue is used? Solder? My watch is literally a cell phone, and I don't welcome law which might make it bulkier or more awkward, to mollify people who want a plastic hinge to pop out their smartphone battery and swap in a new one in the field. The battery in my smartphone (and watch!) can be replaced by the manufacturer. Right-to-repair is about making sure that the owner of a device can do things themselves or from a third party, without licensing from the manufacturer: so selling consumable parts to all comers, providing some manuals maybe. It is not about whether you have the manual dexterity or special tooling to perform the replacement! If you want to optimize around that part being very easy, buy a product where it is, like the Dragonbox Pyra.

bluescrn 5y ago
But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives... (And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire planet's supply of lithium, we should be thinking very carefully about how those batteries will be constructed, replaced, reused, recycled - and ensuring that we don't let capitalism create EVs that after a few years are almost as disposable as few-year-old iPhones...)
- spoonjim 5y ago
  User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. A better solution is that the manufacturer must provide battery replacement services at a cost specified at the time of purchase and only allowed to increase at the rate of inflation.
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    > User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. Acceptable, why turn an entire device into ewaste for a single component dying, especially one with a known limited service life, like a battery. 10 year warranties minimum on all electronics. Regardless of size and fragility. Any electronic device that can't last 10 years in service is unnecessarily contributing to ewaste and should not be allowed. User replaceable batteries to avoid using battery life decay as a means to drive sells of "new" versions, something that causes e-waste. To be honest, don't stop at batteries. Any component in a device that can not last 10 years while retaining atleast 75% of its "ability" must be user serviceable, no exceptions. User serviceable is defined as any service a user can perform where the OEM will replace the device at no charge (not even shipping) if the device breaks during or because of the user servicing it during normal warranty. Replacing a device under warranty resets the 10 year timer. To discourage OEMs halfassing it for 5 years and hoping for low warranty claims. We can not allow companies to treat the earth like a garbage can.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jlokier 5y ago
      The amount of ewaste in something tiny like a pair of Airpods is... tiny. Because they are physically small. Probably Airpods thrown away every 2 years for 50 years is less ewaste than a single laptop, and those don't last 50 years. So does banning Airpod-like devices really make sense as a policy to minimise total ewaste?
    - flukus 5y ago
      How long do the batteries in those things last? If it makes it to 2 years then they're doing much better than any of my wired ear buds where the wire's or contacts usually break and are probably responsible for less waste.
      - mr_toad 5y ago
        Mine are about four years old, I got them not long after they came out. I’ve upgraded my iPhone but I’m still using the AirPods. Battery capacity is probably about 60% of new. They’re easily the longest lasting in ear headphones I’ve used.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. There is some nuance you are missing here. Mandating some design decisions, such as "user replaceable batteries" limits the products that make be made and sold and unfairly adversely affects users with different priorities (such as water proofness, durability or bulk.) However, there are design decisions that we should outlaw because they impose an unreasonable burden on repairability. I think it is reasonable to prohibit companies from attempting to detect non-OEM or refurbished components and bricking devices. I think it is also reasonable to prohibit companies from usong IP laws to legally attack refurbished component suppliers and third party repair services. I think pressure to make devices more repairable could he accomplished by mandatinf inclusion of standardized repairabilitu scores so the consumera have better information available when making purchasinf decisions.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    off topic: interesting that your last sentence has 4 off-by-one-to-the-left (on qwerty) typos on final letters of the words I think these were just typos, but my initial assumption was that a cipher was embedded in this text for a minute.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      Hah, nope. Just fat thumbs and poor proofreading.
- judge2020 5y ago
  An extreme example of this would be the CPU - should it be repairable as well? What if the SRAM cache needs to be replaced? Should they be forced to backtrack and make that a slotted component in the next generation of motherboards, costing performance for user repairability? Or is the list of components arbitrarily determined by some administration-appointed regulatory agency?
  - porknubbins 5y ago
    This is taking it to an absurd extreme though, which is not really how laws work. We would be better off with a right to repair on some sort of reasonable macro scale and letting a few court cases figure out where the line is, because its definitely not nano scale chip features.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      My point is that no congresspeople would sign off on a law that would stifle innovation to such a degree. Customers should be given the tools to make better decisions regarding the repairability of products if they so choose to factor that into their purchasing decision, but if it means outright stopping purely positive improvements like faster CPUs then it's both harmful to consumers and not a law that would pass congress. A lesser extreme is the southbridge/northbridge and how CPUs are becoming SoCs. If that fails, you pretty much have to buy a new CPU, when previously you could technically replace it if you wanted. Would have such a version of the R2R law prevented this?
      - meshaneian 5y ago
        A reasonable compromise would probably be to require that discrete parts be available for sale, hopefully with some reasonable price standard, not requiring that devices be designed to have more parts. If it's economical for the manufacturer to move to a SoC, fine. They should at least let people buy them. Any R2R law should incentivizes manufacturers not to make disposable unrepairable products, because business is about making money, generally opposed to acting responsibly in the best interests of the public and the world. Again, opinion.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  Louis Rossman has a distinction about this - the difference between right to repair and user-replacable. I can't find the video but the argument is this: Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. Louis, as an independent repairman, has spent 10s of thousands of dollars on the appropriate tools to repair these devices at an incredibly small scale. The problem comes when he needs to buy a replacement part he is physically unable to get the part. Apple, in some cases, will forbid the supplier from selling the part to anyone but Apple. It's not a question of difficulty. Louis is equipped with every tool and all the time of the world, but Apple is directly impeding his ability to repair customer devices by refusing him access to the parts. That is in large part what his bill aims to change - not to force Apple to go back to 90s style clip on batteries.
  - schwartzworld 5y ago
    > Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. The vast majority of apple customers have Stockholm syndrome, or at least don't know what they're missing. The first gen MacBook pro had a battery that just popped out and could be replaced. It extended the life of the computer, and was practical because you could carry an extra battery for long trips. You could say their customer wanted to lose the battery, but I doubt that's true. More likely, people who dislike the user hostile design stop being customers.
- greyhair 5y ago
  Fiddly doesn't cover devices that need to be environmentally sealed. People want devices that can survive a drop into water or even devices designed to be submerged. Making a device with environmentally sealed, and having hatches, covers, etc., is very difficult. Without making the product really bulky. My guess is people just want to be able to take their device to a repair shop and have the battery replaced. My biggest gripe is that you cannot find OEM batteries from the manufacturer. The batteries I have replaced (through some effort) have been generally a disappointment. Particularly laptop batteries. The replacement market for laptop batteries is a scam.
MrStonedOne 5y ago
User replaceable means you can replace it during warranty and have the OEM repair/replace it if you broke anything while replacing it.
- h4waii 5y ago
  Um, user replaceable means just that -- the user can replace it, nothing of warranty and nothing about an OEM replacing if you broke something while replacing it.

bluescrn 5y ago

But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives... (And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire planet's supply of lithium, we should be thinking very carefully about how those batteries will be constructed, replaced, reused, recycled - and ensuring that we don't let capitalism create EVs that after a few years are almost as disposable as few-year-old iPhones...)

spoonjim 5y ago
User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. A better solution is that the manufacturer must provide battery replacement services at a cost specified at the time of purchase and only allowed to increase at the rate of inflation.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  > User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist. Acceptable, why turn an entire device into ewaste for a single component dying, especially one with a known limited service life, like a battery. 10 year warranties minimum on all electronics. Regardless of size and fragility. Any electronic device that can't last 10 years in service is unnecessarily contributing to ewaste and should not be allowed. User replaceable batteries to avoid using battery life decay as a means to drive sells of "new" versions, something that causes e-waste. To be honest, don't stop at batteries. Any component in a device that can not last 10 years while retaining atleast 75% of its "ability" must be user serviceable, no exceptions. User serviceable is defined as any service a user can perform where the OEM will replace the device at no charge (not even shipping) if the device breaks during or because of the user servicing it during normal warranty. Replacing a device under warranty resets the 10 year timer. To discourage OEMs halfassing it for 5 years and hoping for low warranty claims. We can not allow companies to treat the earth like a garbage can.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlokier 5y ago
    The amount of ewaste in something tiny like a pair of Airpods is... tiny. Because they are physically small. Probably Airpods thrown away every 2 years for 50 years is less ewaste than a single laptop, and those don't last 50 years. So does banning Airpod-like devices really make sense as a policy to minimise total ewaste?
  - flukus 5y ago
    How long do the batteries in those things last? If it makes it to 2 years then they're doing much better than any of my wired ear buds where the wire's or contacts usually break and are probably responsible for less waste.
    - mr_toad 5y ago
      Mine are about four years old, I got them not long after they came out. I’ve upgraded my iPhone but I’m still using the AirPods. Battery capacity is probably about 60% of new. They’re easily the longest lasting in ear headphones I’ve used.
shkkmo 5y ago
> But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable. There is some nuance you are missing here. Mandating some design decisions, such as "user replaceable batteries" limits the products that make be made and sold and unfairly adversely affects users with different priorities (such as water proofness, durability or bulk.) However, there are design decisions that we should outlaw because they impose an unreasonable burden on repairability. I think it is reasonable to prohibit companies from attempting to detect non-OEM or refurbished components and bricking devices. I think it is also reasonable to prohibit companies from usong IP laws to legally attack refurbished component suppliers and third party repair services. I think pressure to make devices more repairable could he accomplished by mandatinf inclusion of standardized repairabilitu scores so the consumera have better information available when making purchasinf decisions.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  off topic: interesting that your last sentence has 4 off-by-one-to-the-left (on qwerty) typos on final letters of the words I think these were just typos, but my initial assumption was that a cipher was embedded in this text for a minute.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Hah, nope. Just fat thumbs and poor proofreading.
judge2020 5y ago
An extreme example of this would be the CPU - should it be repairable as well? What if the SRAM cache needs to be replaced? Should they be forced to backtrack and make that a slotted component in the next generation of motherboards, costing performance for user repairability? Or is the list of components arbitrarily determined by some administration-appointed regulatory agency?
- porknubbins 5y ago
  This is taking it to an absurd extreme though, which is not really how laws work. We would be better off with a right to repair on some sort of reasonable macro scale and letting a few court cases figure out where the line is, because its definitely not nano scale chip features.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    My point is that no congresspeople would sign off on a law that would stifle innovation to such a degree. Customers should be given the tools to make better decisions regarding the repairability of products if they so choose to factor that into their purchasing decision, but if it means outright stopping purely positive improvements like faster CPUs then it's both harmful to consumers and not a law that would pass congress. A lesser extreme is the southbridge/northbridge and how CPUs are becoming SoCs. If that fails, you pretty much have to buy a new CPU, when previously you could technically replace it if you wanted. Would have such a version of the R2R law prevented this?
    - meshaneian 5y ago
      A reasonable compromise would probably be to require that discrete parts be available for sale, hopefully with some reasonable price standard, not requiring that devices be designed to have more parts. If it's economical for the manufacturer to move to a SoC, fine. They should at least let people buy them. Any R2R law should incentivizes manufacturers not to make disposable unrepairable products, because business is about making money, generally opposed to acting responsibly in the best interests of the public and the world. Again, opinion.
nemothekid 5y ago
Louis Rossman has a distinction about this - the difference between right to repair and user-replacable. I can't find the video but the argument is this: Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. Louis, as an independent repairman, has spent 10s of thousands of dollars on the appropriate tools to repair these devices at an incredibly small scale. The problem comes when he needs to buy a replacement part he is physically unable to get the part. Apple, in some cases, will forbid the supplier from selling the part to anyone but Apple. It's not a question of difficulty. Louis is equipped with every tool and all the time of the world, but Apple is directly impeding his ability to repair customer devices by refusing him access to the parts. That is in large part what his bill aims to change - not to force Apple to go back to 90s style clip on batteries.
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  > Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. The vast majority of apple customers have Stockholm syndrome, or at least don't know what they're missing. The first gen MacBook pro had a battery that just popped out and could be replaced. It extended the life of the computer, and was practical because you could carry an extra battery for long trips. You could say their customer wanted to lose the battery, but I doubt that's true. More likely, people who dislike the user hostile design stop being customers.
greyhair 5y ago
Fiddly doesn't cover devices that need to be environmentally sealed. People want devices that can survive a drop into water or even devices designed to be submerged. Making a device with environmentally sealed, and having hatches, covers, etc., is very difficult. Without making the product really bulky. My guess is people just want to be able to take their device to a repair shop and have the battery replaced. My biggest gripe is that you cannot find OEM batteries from the manufacturer. The batteries I have replaced (through some effort) have been generally a disappointment. Particularly laptop batteries. The replacement market for laptop batteries is a scam.

MrStonedOne 5y ago

User replaceable means you can replace it during warranty and have the OEM repair/replace it if you broke anything while replacing it.

h4waii 5y ago
Um, user replaceable means just that -- the user can replace it, nothing of warranty and nothing about an OEM replacing if you broke something while replacing it.