3 ms·
When we’re talking about “right to repair,” we need to distinguish between: a) the use of DRM to prevent repairs b) the physical challenge of working on compl
by snowwrestler 4y ago
When we’re talking about “right to repair,” we need to distinguish between:
a) the use of DRM to prevent repairs
b) the physical challenge of working on complex things
c) planned obsolescence via consumables
The big problem with Apple and many companies is a), and I support efforts to make that illegal.
Problem b) is unavoidable for complex things. And there are design trade-offs that deliver benefits for costs, for example thin waterproof smartphones have hard-to-replace batteries. I’m not a fan of trying to use the law to force one set of design decisions on everyone.
Problem c) is an issue for some Apple products like EarPods. But not for iPhones, as I point out above.
- shkkmo 4y agoProblem B may not be completely unavoidable but it also isn't a valid excuse for deliberately anti-repair design choices. Some things are indeed tradeoffs in terma s of repairabilty vs. features or costs, but some design decisions have little to no effect on features / cost but a large effect on repairability or durabilty. Now, you can't always legally separate which tradeoffs are which, but I do think there is real value to finding ways to incentivize companies that make durable, repairable products. Those products produce a lot of value for society but manufactures can have a hard time recouping much of that value in the sale price, leading to bad incentives.