6 ms·

He goes over some fun and inspirational stories about that yes. But it's much more than that: "In a lot of people's minds power over others equates to money an

by dgb23 5y ago

He goes over some fun and inspirational stories about that yes. But it's much more than that: "In a lot of people's minds power over others equates to money and profits. Hey, is it your computer, or is it some companies' computer?" He talks about companies trying to control and inhibiting repair and modification and compares it to the liberating and creative experience that he had and how that lead to him building the apple. He also compares the situation to a previous phone monopoly and how standardization and freedom lead to innovation. The message is really strong and important and goes beyond what I assumed is going on with this movement. The Right to Repair isn't just about being able to fix things yourself. It is about fundamental freedoms that enable creativity, innovation and efficiency.

em-bee 5y ago
in other words, the Right to Repair movement is doing for hardware what the Free Software and Open Source movement is doing for software.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  It's partly this. It's also partly about restoring the kind of rights one is supposed to get under the first-sale doctrine: ownership over the thing that you have bought.
  - II2II 5y ago
    The right to repair has nothing to do with open source and it is probably best to avoid conflating it with open source. It is going to be difficult enough to pass legislation to enable the access to components and schematics, as well as to prevent the implementation of technical barriers intended to make independent repair (and modifications) illegal. The reason why we reached this abysmal state of affairs has more to do with consumer apathy, a set of property rights for producers that were naively reasonable, and a twisting of laws that were intended for other purposes. Put in other terms, the Apple II was not open source. The schematics were freely available, at least some of the ROM's source code was available, there were no barriers to repair (if I recall correctly, there were no custom chips/components), and people were free to modify the hardware. Yet you could not make copies, straight-up or modified, without being sued by Apple. A cleanroom approach would have to be taken to make something compatible. The world seemed to be okay with that. Things like schematics and code served supported repairability, which was an expectation of consumers back then, so the vendor voluntarily provided it. That being said, a true open source approach to hardware would have still been frowned upon back then.
    - bengale 5y ago
      The conflation of right to repair with other things might make the whole enterprise impossible. It's currently very difficult to claim support for something when the goalposts keep moving. I'm very much in support of companies being required to provide schematics, where reasonable. Also I see no reason why they should be able to stop manufacturers selling parts to repair shops. I don't think that forcing design choices, such as modular components, easily replaceable batteries, requiring certain ports and things like that are a good idea. These ideas should stand on their own, if there is a market for it then let people make that choice for themselves, including the downsides that come with it. I think if right to repair can't get a handle on what's being advocated for then things like phones and laptops will be left out of any major legislation.
      - larossmann 5y ago
        Here's an interview I did with National Review where I discussed this topic. I'll include the exercpt that applies to your concern below. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-expert-takes-on-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-exp... "So one example of what Right to Repair is not: The European Union, I believe, was looking to mandate that Apple use USB-C instead of Lightning, because USB-C is a standard and Lightning is not a standard. I don’t want people to think that has anything to do with Right to Repair because it doesn’t; that’s completely separate. I’m not looking to tell Apple, “You need to use this type of charge port. I want you to use micro USB. I want you to use USB-C. I want you to use this.” No, what we’re saying is, regardless of what you use to charge your phone — you could use a banana to charge it — just give us access to be able to purchase that charge port so that if the charge port in the phone breaks, we can fix it for customers rather than tell them, “Your phone is now a brick.” So I think that is a good example of what Right to Repair is not: We’re not looking to say, “You need to use this port. You need to do this.” Just don’t intentionally lock people out of the ability to fix it once you’ve chosen how to design it." ------- Right to repair has a fine handle on what is being advocated for, and it is spelled out in the legislation. I don't think people read it though. In the EU, it is different than in the US. I do not support legislation that forces design choices on modularity or using specific ports. That's EU Right to Repair, but I have no business on that since I don't live there. US right to repair is about making things available. Use microUSB, USB-C, mini-usb, parallel port.. so long as it's made available for purchase to repair shops/users.
  - SomeGoon 5y ago
    So why is it partly? Are you saying that Free Software Movement isn't also about having ownership over your own devices? Because it absolutely is about that - no manufacturer should be able to tell what you can and cannot do with your own device. That includes what kind of OS you're able to run, what kind of programs, how much data you're sending to them, etc. Controlling your software is still stealing ownership from you because when you can't control what software are you running, you can't control what your device is doing.
    - em-bee 5y ago
      what he means with partly is that a part of the right to repair movement is about restoring a right that was already define in law, namely that when you buy something, you own it, and you can do whatever you want with it (including repairing or modifying it) the Free Software movement is about the same, but a right to repair and modify software was never defined as a law. so the difference is that the Free Software movement is about gaining new rights, that we didn't have, while right to repair is about restoring rights that we already had, and that have been taken away.
      - SomeGoon 5y ago
        Ok - I get it now, fair point.
- kevincox 5y ago
  I think it depends who you ask. There are definitely people that want to go this far. They would like to see full schematics and part listings. However I think most of the people don't need the specifications in "the preferred form for modification". They simply want to stop companies from taking steps against repairs. They don't necessarily want help doing the repairs, they just don't want to be thwarted. For example - Outlaw contracts that forbid part manufacturers from selling parts to third parties. - Outlaw "chip paring" features such as would give errors if you replaced a screen because it was the "wrong" screen. - Remove restrictions on repair shops such as limits on number of parts and allowed types of repairs.
- suyash 5y ago
  great analogy

by dgb23 5y ago

em-bee 5y ago

in other words, the Right to Repair movement is doing for hardware what the Free Software and Open Source movement is doing for software.

nicoburns 5y ago
It's partly this. It's also partly about restoring the kind of rights one is supposed to get under the first-sale doctrine: ownership over the thing that you have bought.
- II2II 5y ago
  The right to repair has nothing to do with open source and it is probably best to avoid conflating it with open source. It is going to be difficult enough to pass legislation to enable the access to components and schematics, as well as to prevent the implementation of technical barriers intended to make independent repair (and modifications) illegal. The reason why we reached this abysmal state of affairs has more to do with consumer apathy, a set of property rights for producers that were naively reasonable, and a twisting of laws that were intended for other purposes. Put in other terms, the Apple II was not open source. The schematics were freely available, at least some of the ROM's source code was available, there were no barriers to repair (if I recall correctly, there were no custom chips/components), and people were free to modify the hardware. Yet you could not make copies, straight-up or modified, without being sued by Apple. A cleanroom approach would have to be taken to make something compatible. The world seemed to be okay with that. Things like schematics and code served supported repairability, which was an expectation of consumers back then, so the vendor voluntarily provided it. That being said, a true open source approach to hardware would have still been frowned upon back then.
  - bengale 5y ago
    The conflation of right to repair with other things might make the whole enterprise impossible. It's currently very difficult to claim support for something when the goalposts keep moving. I'm very much in support of companies being required to provide schematics, where reasonable. Also I see no reason why they should be able to stop manufacturers selling parts to repair shops. I don't think that forcing design choices, such as modular components, easily replaceable batteries, requiring certain ports and things like that are a good idea. These ideas should stand on their own, if there is a market for it then let people make that choice for themselves, including the downsides that come with it. I think if right to repair can't get a handle on what's being advocated for then things like phones and laptops will be left out of any major legislation.
    - larossmann 5y ago
      Here's an interview I did with National Review where I discussed this topic. I'll include the exercpt that applies to your concern below. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-expert-takes-on-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-exp... "So one example of what Right to Repair is not: The European Union, I believe, was looking to mandate that Apple use USB-C instead of Lightning, because USB-C is a standard and Lightning is not a standard. I don’t want people to think that has anything to do with Right to Repair because it doesn’t; that’s completely separate. I’m not looking to tell Apple, “You need to use this type of charge port. I want you to use micro USB. I want you to use USB-C. I want you to use this.” No, what we’re saying is, regardless of what you use to charge your phone — you could use a banana to charge it — just give us access to be able to purchase that charge port so that if the charge port in the phone breaks, we can fix it for customers rather than tell them, “Your phone is now a brick.” So I think that is a good example of what Right to Repair is not: We’re not looking to say, “You need to use this port. You need to do this.” Just don’t intentionally lock people out of the ability to fix it once you’ve chosen how to design it." ------- Right to repair has a fine handle on what is being advocated for, and it is spelled out in the legislation. I don't think people read it though. In the EU, it is different than in the US. I do not support legislation that forces design choices on modularity or using specific ports. That's EU Right to Repair, but I have no business on that since I don't live there. US right to repair is about making things available. Use microUSB, USB-C, mini-usb, parallel port.. so long as it's made available for purchase to repair shops/users.
- SomeGoon 5y ago
  So why is it partly? Are you saying that Free Software Movement isn't also about having ownership over your own devices? Because it absolutely is about that - no manufacturer should be able to tell what you can and cannot do with your own device. That includes what kind of OS you're able to run, what kind of programs, how much data you're sending to them, etc. Controlling your software is still stealing ownership from you because when you can't control what software are you running, you can't control what your device is doing.
  - em-bee 5y ago
    what he means with partly is that a part of the right to repair movement is about restoring a right that was already define in law, namely that when you buy something, you own it, and you can do whatever you want with it (including repairing or modifying it) the Free Software movement is about the same, but a right to repair and modify software was never defined as a law. so the difference is that the Free Software movement is about gaining new rights, that we didn't have, while right to repair is about restoring rights that we already had, and that have been taken away.
    - SomeGoon 5y ago
      Ok - I get it now, fair point.
kevincox 5y ago
I think it depends who you ask. There are definitely people that want to go this far. They would like to see full schematics and part listings. However I think most of the people don't need the specifications in "the preferred form for modification". They simply want to stop companies from taking steps against repairs. They don't necessarily want help doing the repairs, they just don't want to be thwarted. For example - Outlaw contracts that forbid part manufacturers from selling parts to third parties. - Outlaw "chip paring" features such as would give errors if you replaced a screen because it was the "wrong" screen. - Remove restrictions on repair shops such as limits on number of parts and allowed types of repairs.
suyash 5y ago
great analogy