6 ms·

The example is of course egregious ($600 for a software update for a wire that got wet, basically). I fully support being able to repair your own stuff but I ha

by cletus 5y ago

The example is of course egregious ($600 for a software update for a wire that got wet, basically). I fully support being able to repair your own stuff but I have no idea how you regulate this so companies don't gouge "owners" for aftermarket services. Earlier today there was a thread about e-bike battery prices (tl'dr they're ridiculous expensive). I really wish rechargeable batteries had interchangeable form factors like normal batteries. I can't help but feel that if AA batteries were invented today there's no way there'd be a standard form factor. But this issue is complicated. As much as first-party parts and accessories cost too much, there can be deadly consequences with shoddy third party products [1]: > In July, a Chinese woman died after being electrocuted from a charging iPhone 5. Later that week, another man in China suffered a similar injury from a charging iPhone 4, leaving him comatose. In both cases, the victims were using an unofficial third-party adapter to charge their device. So how do you guarantee something third-party will do what it claims to? If you use bad RAM chips in a Macbook, the consumer is going to blame Apple not whoever supplied cheap, shoddy parts (for the record, I hate soldered in RAM). As an aside, I was unsurprised to see in this article this is a small farm. The harsh truth is that family farms and small farms in general are a dying way of life and just aren't competitive with industrial-scale agriculture. You can't fight the incoming tide forever. [1]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/28/thai-man-dies-after-alleged-electrocution-from-charging-iphone-4s- https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/28/thai-man-dies-aft...

imgabe 5y ago
Apple can make the customer whole and then go sue the 3rd party manufacturer. Apple has far more resources and clout to hold manufacturers accountable than any one customer. “Don’t make crappy parts or Apple will send a team of lawyers to bankrupt you” would be a credible threat.
- shagie 5y ago
  I don't see it working out well for Apple to become the USB charger and cord enforcer for the world. If this is a counterfeit Apple charger, then yes. If this is a charger that was purchased from Apple as the distributor, then yes. However, if this was a 3rd party charger purchased from a street vendor or online merchant (that has difficulties with counterfeit products) that could be used for anything from the cat water fountain pump to an Apple iPhone - then no.
userbinator 5y ago
So how do you guarantee something third-party will do what it claims to? You don't. There's something called freedom and personal responsibility. Unfortunately the corporations and governments seem quite determined to take them away from us.
consp 5y ago
> Earlier today there was a thread about e-bike battery prices (tl'dr they're ridiculous expensive) Small rant about those since I missed the earlier thread today: It's even worse. They are stupidly expensive yes, but even if you source them yourself they will cost you another 100 dollar/euro/pound to "enable". It's DRM for batteries and serves no real purpose except price gouging. If you rip out the 18650 cells (which are in almost all detachable models which is the majority) and replace them you have to re-enable the device. If the battery somehow drains "completely" and you are able to get it out of safe mode, which is quite possible since the battery isn't actually dead, you have to go to a dealer and pay the surcharge as well. There are plenty of good second hand models available which are useless due to the battery DRM since the price of the battery will be about 3-5 times the bike. > So how do you guarantee something third-party will do what it claims to? If you use bad RAM chips in a Macbook, the consumer is going to blame Apple not whoever supplied cheap, shoddy parts (for the record, I hate soldered in RAM). Just like when your car goes to a garage and doesn't work afterwards: the person who 'fixed' it. I can't get it in my head why people think this will be different for other things than cars.
AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
> I have no idea how you regulate this This is my concern too, but, I think way more broadly than you. I love the idea of right to repair. I agree on a fundamental level, this is your device, you bought it, you own it, you should be able to do with it as you please. What I don't agree with is creating additional regulatory or legislative burdens on companies. I have a number of concerns with doing so, but, philosophically I don't see it as the government's right to unduly interfere in apple (or samsung, or john deere's) right to sell me a product I want to buy. More directly, I am worried about right to repair stifling innovation and competition. I could easily see a regulatory body require all phone's have user-replaceable batteries and that is not something which I fundamentally want in a phone. It has tradeoffs which I don't want to make. That said, I think companies like Apple refusing to sell genuine replacement parts at any price is egregious. However, I also think the government forcing private companies to disclose things like engineering or repair manuals which contain secret/trade information is equally egregious. All of this is a long way around to saying that while I love the concept of right to repair, the devil is in the details and I haven't seen anyone really enumerate the details of what they'd actually like to put into law. Am I wrong and is there anyone with actual proposed legislation?
kube-system 5y ago
> I really wish rechargeable batteries had interchangeable form factors like normal batteries. They largely do. For example, the famous 18650 which powers all kinds of devices from power banks to laptops to cars. If what you’re referring to is their common inclusion into proprietary battery packs, there are some technical reasons for that difference, like cell balancing, safety protections, etc. While it could be possible to engineer some (but not all) of these concerns out of the equation, you’d end up with a more expensive larger and heavier product.
erosenbe0 5y ago
In the USA we have Underwriters Laboratories to certify for you if your electronic widget is up to safety standards. Look on some of your widgets and you will see a UL logo in a circle. There is also a way to check the authenticity. The federal government for example won't purchase various types of widgets unless they meet recognized standards.
- rootsudo 5y ago
  Why do we trust a private company to certify electronics?
  - the_pwner224 5y ago
    Because they have a long-held reputation for being good at certifying (and, more importantly, not certifying) electronics.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
This has all been solved already. Cars. I modded my car and it didn't void the warranty. I can goto the dealership, 3rd party, or repair it myself. I can swap out nearly everything for non OEM parts.
- shagie 5y ago
  Cars aren't industrial equipment. A different set of laws and warranty repair laws are applied to each. If tractors were able to be classified as cars for warranty and such - such that the people who make modifications to them are liable for damages caused by the device (rather than the manufacturer), there wouldn't be as much of an issue. As it is, if you are able to modify the emissions controls for a tractor and the manufacturer doesn't try to make it impossible to do that, the EPA goes after the manufacturer instead of the owner or operator. In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    > Cars aren't industrial equipment. I'd argue they are industrial safety-critical equipment. > In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe. Nobody goes after Subaru when people run catless. This is a silly strawman.
    - shagie 5y ago
      Legally, cars are not industrial equipment. One of the key distinctions appears to be that a hobbyist can modify a car whereas a hobbyist isn't supposed to be modifying cranes, tractors, trains, or the like. Exactly - the government doesn't go after Subaru when people remove their catalytic converter because the car isn't industrial equipment. The EPA does go after tractor manufacturers and distributors when it is possible to modify a tractor to remove its diesel particulate filters and similar. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/tractor-supply-company-inc-settlement https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/tractor-supply-company-inc-s... https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1998/June/281.html https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1998/June/281.html
8bitsrule 5y ago
> how you regulate this so companies don't gouge "owners" for aftermarket services. For starters, it's not aftermarket! since the tractor belongs to JD, and it is licensed to the customer, and it failed to work because a wire got wet (shitty design), and only JD can determine and repair it ... that should be JD's cost, not the owner's. >harsh truth A harsher one: JD has a monopoly and is using it to strangle its own small business customers. Feels good to see it get run past Sherman - better to see it get run over.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  > that should be JD's cost, not the owner's. Manufacturer warranty is limited, mostly in time. Even when some components are poorly designed. The Renault / Nissan CVT is a famous example of this: known problematic transmission that typically dies out of warranty. I could give you literally tens of examples off the top of my head in the consumer automotive industry alone.

by cletus 5y ago

imgabe 5y ago

Apple can make the customer whole and then go sue the 3rd party manufacturer. Apple has far more resources and clout to hold manufacturers accountable than any one customer. “Don’t make crappy parts or Apple will send a team of lawyers to bankrupt you” would be a credible threat.

shagie 5y ago
I don't see it working out well for Apple to become the USB charger and cord enforcer for the world. If this is a counterfeit Apple charger, then yes. If this is a charger that was purchased from Apple as the distributor, then yes. However, if this was a 3rd party charger purchased from a street vendor or online merchant (that has difficulties with counterfeit products) that could be used for anything from the cat water fountain pump to an Apple iPhone - then no.

userbinator 5y ago

So how do you guarantee something third-party will do what it claims to? You don't. There's something called freedom and personal responsibility. Unfortunately the corporations and governments seem quite determined to take them away from us.

consp 5y ago

> Earlier today there was a thread about e-bike battery prices (tl'dr they're ridiculous expensive) Small rant about those since I missed the earlier thread today: It's even worse. They are stupidly expensive yes, but even if you source them yourself they will cost you another 100 dollar/euro/pound to "enable". It's DRM for batteries and serves no real purpose except price gouging. If you rip out the 18650 cells (which are in almost all detachable models which is the majority) and replace them you have to re-enable the device. If the battery somehow drains "completely" and you are able to get it out of safe mode, which is quite possible since the battery isn't actually dead, you have to go to a dealer and pay the surcharge as well. There are plenty of good second hand models available which are useless due to the battery DRM since the price of the battery will be about 3-5 times the bike. > So how do you guarantee something third-party will do what it claims to? If you use bad RAM chips in a Macbook, the consumer is going to blame Apple not whoever supplied cheap, shoddy parts (for the record, I hate soldered in RAM). Just like when your car goes to a garage and doesn't work afterwards: the person who 'fixed' it. I can't get it in my head why people think this will be different for other things than cars.

AdamJacobMuller 5y ago

> I have no idea how you regulate this This is my concern too, but, I think way more broadly than you. I love the idea of right to repair. I agree on a fundamental level, this is your device, you bought it, you own it, you should be able to do with it as you please. What I don't agree with is creating additional regulatory or legislative burdens on companies. I have a number of concerns with doing so, but, philosophically I don't see it as the government's right to unduly interfere in apple (or samsung, or john deere's) right to sell me a product I want to buy. More directly, I am worried about right to repair stifling innovation and competition. I could easily see a regulatory body require all phone's have user-replaceable batteries and that is not something which I fundamentally want in a phone. It has tradeoffs which I don't want to make. That said, I think companies like Apple refusing to sell genuine replacement parts at any price is egregious. However, I also think the government forcing private companies to disclose things like engineering or repair manuals which contain secret/trade information is equally egregious. All of this is a long way around to saying that while I love the concept of right to repair, the devil is in the details and I haven't seen anyone really enumerate the details of what they'd actually like to put into law. Am I wrong and is there anyone with actual proposed legislation?

kube-system 5y ago

> I really wish rechargeable batteries had interchangeable form factors like normal batteries. They largely do. For example, the famous 18650 which powers all kinds of devices from power banks to laptops to cars. If what you’re referring to is their common inclusion into proprietary battery packs, there are some technical reasons for that difference, like cell balancing, safety protections, etc. While it could be possible to engineer some (but not all) of these concerns out of the equation, you’d end up with a more expensive larger and heavier product.

erosenbe0 5y ago

In the USA we have Underwriters Laboratories to certify for you if your electronic widget is up to safety standards. Look on some of your widgets and you will see a UL logo in a circle. There is also a way to check the authenticity. The federal government for example won't purchase various types of widgets unless they meet recognized standards.

rootsudo 5y ago
Why do we trust a private company to certify electronics?
- the_pwner224 5y ago
  Because they have a long-held reputation for being good at certifying (and, more importantly, not certifying) electronics.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

This has all been solved already. Cars. I modded my car and it didn't void the warranty. I can goto the dealership, 3rd party, or repair it myself. I can swap out nearly everything for non OEM parts.

shagie 5y ago
Cars aren't industrial equipment. A different set of laws and warranty repair laws are applied to each. If tractors were able to be classified as cars for warranty and such - such that the people who make modifications to them are liable for damages caused by the device (rather than the manufacturer), there wouldn't be as much of an issue. As it is, if you are able to modify the emissions controls for a tractor and the manufacturer doesn't try to make it impossible to do that, the EPA goes after the manufacturer instead of the owner or operator. In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > Cars aren't industrial equipment. I'd argue they are industrial safety-critical equipment. > In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe. Nobody goes after Subaru when people run catless. This is a silly strawman.
  - shagie 5y ago
    Legally, cars are not industrial equipment. One of the key distinctions appears to be that a hobbyist can modify a car whereas a hobbyist isn't supposed to be modifying cranes, tractors, trains, or the like. Exactly - the government doesn't go after Subaru when people remove their catalytic converter because the car isn't industrial equipment. The EPA does go after tractor manufacturers and distributors when it is possible to modify a tractor to remove its diesel particulate filters and similar. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/tractor-supply-company-inc-settlement https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/tractor-supply-company-inc-s... https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1998/June/281.html https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1998/June/281.html

8bitsrule 5y ago

> how you regulate this so companies don't gouge "owners" for aftermarket services. For starters, it's not aftermarket! since the tractor belongs to JD, and it is licensed to the customer, and it failed to work because a wire got wet (shitty design), and only JD can determine and repair it ... that should be JD's cost, not the owner's. >harsh truth A harsher one: JD has a monopoly and is using it to strangle its own small business customers. Feels good to see it get run past Sherman - better to see it get run over.

dotancohen 5y ago
> that should be JD's cost, not the owner's. Manufacturer warranty is limited, mostly in time. Even when some components are poorly designed. The Renault / Nissan CVT is a famous example of this: known problematic transmission that typically dies out of warranty. I could give you literally tens of examples off the top of my head in the consumer automotive industry alone.