5 ms·

I am against right to repair. If my phone breaks under warranty I have it repaired for free, and if it's out of warranty I will buy another one. I don't want a

by iqanq 5y ago

I am against right to repair. If my phone breaks under warranty I have it repaired for free, and if it's out of warranty I will buy another one. I don't want a thicker and uglier phone just so it can be repaired more easily, since I won't be doing that, and I don't want companies to be forced to sell components that they don't want to sell.

indymike 5y ago
>f my phone breaks under warranty I have it repaired for free, and if it's out of warranty I will buy another one. This is literally not what right to repair is about. This is exactly what anti-right to repair lobbyists are saying. Right to repair does prevent warranties, nor does it require a change in how you make a product. It simply allows a person to repair their very thin phone if they know how to do so, or hire someone who does and is not "authorized" (but is a professional, and is capable) to perform the repair. > I don't want companies to be forced to sell components that they don't want to sell. This is about preventing companies from preventing other companies from selling parts on the open market. If you don't want to sell parts, fine. If your suppliers do, you should not be able to prevent that for the purpose of making repair impossible.
- iqanq 5y ago
  >Right to repair does prevent warranties, nor does it require a change in how you make a product. TFA says it: "when the battery failed, it took another seven hours to replace that. Both the screen and battery had been glued into the computer, requiring surgery-like precision to replace them without breaking something else." - in other words, instead of gluing components, screw them. That makes hardware thicker. >This is about preventing companies from preventing other companies from selling parts on the open market. This is not a problem in practical terms. If you go on aliexpress you will see that you can find any single component inside of an iphone. But they are knockoffs and they suck. They want to force Apple to sell parts even if they don't want to, and I am against that. (This is just an example: I think Apple is selling parts now.)
  - labawi 5y ago
    > They want to force Apple to sell parts even if they don't want to, and I am against that. What's wrong with manufacturers being forced to sell parts? IMO, once once a manufacturer is selling more than small batches, then yes, they should be forced to provide parts and manuals for things you get money for. That was once considered normal, is still legally required in many industries (though enforcement tends to be scarce), and should be required and followed in pretty much any industry. What is the downside except manufacturer's convenience (and profits from generating garbage)? IMO it's a net-win for society.
    - iqanq 5y ago
      The downside is precisely that they are forced to do something they do not want to do. I am against that in general terms. Consumers are not forced to buy those phones either.
      - indymike 5y ago
        > Consumers are not forced to buy those phones either. There are no alternatives on the market, so this is not an option.
        serverholic 5y ago
        And regulation makes it harder for alternatives to exist. Why is this so hard for people to understand? If you want competition you need to reduced the cost of entry.
        indymike 5y ago
        I agree with this 100%. This is a problem born of over-regulation, where we've slowly allowed regulation (especially copyright) to chip away at Mangnus-Moss (which was passed in the 1970s to make sure you could fix your own dishwasher or car), which made it clear that people were allowed to work on the equipment they owned.
      - 5y ago

by iqanq 5y ago

indymike 5y ago

>f my phone breaks under warranty I have it repaired for free, and if it's out of warranty I will buy another one. This is literally not what right to repair is about. This is exactly what anti-right to repair lobbyists are saying. Right to repair does prevent warranties, nor does it require a change in how you make a product. It simply allows a person to repair their very thin phone if they know how to do so, or hire someone who does and is not "authorized" (but is a professional, and is capable) to perform the repair. > I don't want companies to be forced to sell components that they don't want to sell. This is about preventing companies from preventing other companies from selling parts on the open market. If you don't want to sell parts, fine. If your suppliers do, you should not be able to prevent that for the purpose of making repair impossible.

iqanq 5y ago
>Right to repair does prevent warranties, nor does it require a change in how you make a product. TFA says it: "when the battery failed, it took another seven hours to replace that. Both the screen and battery had been glued into the computer, requiring surgery-like precision to replace them without breaking something else." - in other words, instead of gluing components, screw them. That makes hardware thicker. >This is about preventing companies from preventing other companies from selling parts on the open market. This is not a problem in practical terms. If you go on aliexpress you will see that you can find any single component inside of an iphone. But they are knockoffs and they suck. They want to force Apple to sell parts even if they don't want to, and I am against that. (This is just an example: I think Apple is selling parts now.)
- labawi 5y ago
  > They want to force Apple to sell parts even if they don't want to, and I am against that. What's wrong with manufacturers being forced to sell parts? IMO, once once a manufacturer is selling more than small batches, then yes, they should be forced to provide parts and manuals for things you get money for. That was once considered normal, is still legally required in many industries (though enforcement tends to be scarce), and should be required and followed in pretty much any industry. What is the downside except manufacturer's convenience (and profits from generating garbage)? IMO it's a net-win for society.
  - iqanq 5y ago
    The downside is precisely that they are forced to do something they do not want to do. I am against that in general terms. Consumers are not forced to buy those phones either.
    - indymike 5y ago
      > Consumers are not forced to buy those phones either. There are no alternatives on the market, so this is not an option.
      - serverholic 5y ago
        And regulation makes it harder for alternatives to exist. Why is this so hard for people to understand? If you want competition you need to reduced the cost of entry.
        indymike 5y ago
        I agree with this 100%. This is a problem born of over-regulation, where we've slowly allowed regulation (especially copyright) to chip away at Mangnus-Moss (which was passed in the 1970s to make sure you could fix your own dishwasher or car), which made it clear that people were allowed to work on the equipment they owned.
    - 5y ago