Very glad to see some consideration of this sort of thing. That said I'd really like a minimally crafted law to start that created new options for consumers whi

Very glad to see some consideration of this sort of thing. That said I'd really like a minimally crafted law to start that created new options for consumers while also recognizing the value the existing situation brings, as well as tying corporate power to responsibility which seems like it'd do a better and more flexible job of getting finding the right dynamic balances in the market. Dealing with externalities is always really important as well. Using as Apple as an example: - In terms of cryptographic chain, I'd like to see it mandated there be an option at buy time to allow owner access to software root key store, hardware root key store, or both. Many people would be best served in their threat models by the current situation of leaving Apple in charge, which also means they can't be socially engineered or pressured into offering access. It also unionizes diffuse buying power into one actor with different incentives than other powerful actors. It is unlikely that Apple's advertising privacy changes vs Facebook say could have happened in a fully open environment for example since Facebook has enough pull to get people to sideload whether they like it or not. Others would really like full stack access. And many would fall into one bucket or the other. Those less technical in areas with poor Apple support options might still want the software side of things as a walled garden but be able to allow arbitrary 3rd party hardware repairs. Conversely, I at least would like full software side control, but I'm more concerned about evil maid attacks than I am about the rare need to go to an Apple store for a hardware repair. There isn't really a one-size-fits-all here, but that doesn't have to be mandated either. - In terms of power and responsibility, I think that'd be a great way to handle repair, and it has the advantage of not singling out just "big companies". If a product creator wants to maintain full hardware and software control, it should also have to fully support the product. If after X years it no longer wishes to offer support, it should also be required to give up control (in terms of necessary crypto keys and documentation). Then everyone gets to decide where the right balance is in terms of support. An open source startup doing a risky new product also avoids being on the hook for much support if things go pear shaped because everything is fully available to the community. At the opposite end a company like Apple could maintain total control for 10 years if they wanted, but only if they offered 10 years of updates and hardware repair or replacement. At any point they could get off the hook for that, but then they'd have to let owners take it over themselves. No having cake and eating it too. And everything in between. An Android OEM only wants to support a phone for 18 months? Fine (maybe, within below), but no locked bootloader after that, they need to have full docs for it etc. There would be room for all kinds of brands fitting all kinds of needs and price points. - The above said, I do think there is an externality/information asymmetry situation when it comes to warranty repair. There is a general expectation amongst the public is that there is some tie between buying something decent and how long it will last. Imagine if an iPhone said "this product will break after two years four months" on the label at buy time, that'd pretty radically change the market reaction to it. But some small percentage of people get screwed, and the standard warranty doesn't match expectation at all. Essentially the consumers are all gambling, and the side with the best information on risk keeps it to themselves and gets to sell "extended warranties" at enormous profit. The sticker price doesn't accurately reflect all the potential costs. That shouldn't be allowed. Standard warranty coverage should either be longer period, or have some sort of tie to pricing/tier. If someone wants something ultra dirt cheap and disposable that should be ok, but if someone buys something where a reasonable expectation would be it lasts 4-6 years at least that should be part of the price. Or if nothing else, there should be a requirement that all repair/replacement data is public with a clear standardized "% failure by year for first 5 years" infographic or something of that nature. Special warranties should only be for truly extended business support periods, or stuff like advanced replacement or SLAs. When people compare prices, they should be able to have upkeep factor into that easily. Hidden pricing is the bane of good markets.