3 ms·

Anyone who thinks that’s what this is about has not been following Right to Repair. While it would be great if things were designed with repairability in mind,

by ziml77 4y ago

Anyone who thinks that’s what this is about has not been following Right to Repair. While it would be great if things were designed with repairability in mind, the ask from Right to Repair is that no one be impeded from accessing manuals, components, and software needed for repair.

JoshTriplett 4y ago
This specific bill was just about access to repair information and the ability to use third-party repair facilities. However, the Right to Repair organization specifically lists on their policy goals (https://www.repair.org/policy https://www.repair.org/policy): > Products should be designed to have their lifespan extended by regular maintenance and repair. > Design: Integrate Design for Repair principles into eco-design product design practices. And I have seen Right to Repair efforts that demanded repairable devices, even if that meant more bulk or more cost, or other tradeoffs. Framework and similar efforts have demonstrated that it's possible to build a repairable device that people actually like, without compromising too much on other factors. But until those substantial engineering efforts had been put in, this seemed like a fundamental tradeoff between two sets of somewhat-incompatible properties consumers may want, and should be able to choose between. (It's still a tradeoff insofar as devices providing repairability don't provide all the features available from other devices.)
- ziml77 4y ago
  What I've heard from the many people who talk about right to repair on YouTube (channels like LTT, EEVBlog, and of course Louis Rossmann), is that they aren't asking for laws to restrict how products can be designed. A law like that is highly unlikely to pass and would seriously anger a lot of people if it did. It looks like the reason for this mismatch in opinions is because repair.org is not associated with Rossmann. To me, their existence is going to hurt the chances of right to repair, because people will point to their goals as a reason to not consider the part/version of right to repair that should be much less controversial (in a relative sense. any regulations are controversial just due to being regulations)
listenallyall 4y ago
Why don't they give it a name that isn't deceptive? Like "Right to Purchase Replacement Parts." My guess is because then it wouldn't poll as well.

by ziml77 4y ago

JoshTriplett 4y ago

This specific bill was just about access to repair information and the ability to use third-party repair facilities. However, the Right to Repair organization specifically lists on their policy goals (https://www.repair.org/policy https://www.repair.org/policy): > Products should be designed to have their lifespan extended by regular maintenance and repair. > Design: Integrate Design for Repair principles into eco-design product design practices. And I have seen Right to Repair efforts that demanded repairable devices, even if that meant more bulk or more cost, or other tradeoffs. Framework and similar efforts have demonstrated that it's possible to build a repairable device that people actually like, without compromising too much on other factors. But until those substantial engineering efforts had been put in, this seemed like a fundamental tradeoff between two sets of somewhat-incompatible properties consumers may want, and should be able to choose between. (It's still a tradeoff insofar as devices providing repairability don't provide all the features available from other devices.)

ziml77 4y ago
What I've heard from the many people who talk about right to repair on YouTube (channels like LTT, EEVBlog, and of course Louis Rossmann), is that they aren't asking for laws to restrict how products can be designed. A law like that is highly unlikely to pass and would seriously anger a lot of people if it did. It looks like the reason for this mismatch in opinions is because repair.org is not associated with Rossmann. To me, their existence is going to hurt the chances of right to repair, because people will point to their goals as a reason to not consider the part/version of right to repair that should be much less controversial (in a relative sense. any regulations are controversial just due to being regulations)

listenallyall 4y ago

Why don't they give it a name that isn't deceptive? Like "Right to Purchase Replacement Parts." My guess is because then it wouldn't poll as well.