3 ms·

Depends on the details. If this is just about access to tools and parts, good. If it instead dictates that electronics makers are restricted in their choice of

by ribit 4y ago

Depends on the details. If this is just about access to tools and parts, good. If it instead dictates that electronics makers are restricted in their choice of technical solutions, bad. Right to Repair applied broadly is dictatorship of minority. As such, care is needed to get the details right. I think it's also important to distinguish between the Right To Repair and Obligation To Make Everything Easily Repairable. Doubt that there is a valid argument agains the first part. Second is a bit more tricky, especially in the consumer electronics industry where ease of repair can be at odds with performance, efficiency and reliability. P.S. It upsets me how the industry has succeeded in redirecting the Right to Repair activism from domains where it is actually bitterly needed (like specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances) to consumer electronics.

6stringmerc 4y ago
Considering the trend is to think about reversing a disposable, planned obsolescence mentality for profit and going toward sustainability, I’m okay with limiting some choices. We already do with asbestos in construction. Some technical solutions, in your terminology, might be seen by others as a “lazy short cut for profit” and we can have that debate if you like. With our regulatory bodies, and rules, unfettered freedom in electronics is stupid for consumers and you know it. I think more effort isn’t a bad thing in the long run. Also, it’s natural for it to cascade down. Just like car tech. Just like how that’s how companies start - get away with it where you can. It went from consumers UP to John Deere, not the other way around.
arcticbull 4y ago
> Right to Repair applied broadly is dictatorship of minority Feel more like a democratic decision made by the majority, after all, the users are the majority and the makers are the minority.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  If you put it like that, the other side will then disingenuously argue that this is "tyranny of the majority" and "democracy is designed to protect the minorities". This law just seeks to correct the imbalance of power between 2 groups - the consumers and the corporates - that has developed in modern society. That's the whole point of democracy - the continued negotiation of power between the groups that make up the society. Consumer rights is not a radical new concept in any democracy. Right to Repair is just a necessary extension of consumer rights, and will evolve depending on how the political leadership successfully negotiates between the affected parties.
- ribit 4y ago
  That’s not what I mean. What a I mean that the majority of users don’t care about repairs. Personally, I think it’s good if manufacturers are made more accountable and parts are available for the few users who want to tinker, but shouldn’t happen at the expense of overall product quality or convenience. For example, a law might mandate that all basic computer components are modular and user-replaceable. This will essentially outlaw technical solutions like high-bandwidth or low-power laptop memory since it is not feasible to make it modular. Or another example, requiring that all smartphones have easily replaceable battery will interfere with waterproofing. But I think we can at least agree that customers should have same access to parts and tools as dedicated service centers. But I would like that manufacturers retain the right to choose technical solutions that might sacrifice repairability unless it can be reasonably shown that the only reason for that feature is planned obsolescence.
rasz 4y ago
> restricted in their choice of technical solutions, bad not bad, for the same reason we prevent car manufacturers from manufacturing and selling rolling coal 120dB cars. There are things you shouldnt be able to sell because they harm society.
lelanthran 4y ago
> Depends on the details. If this is just about access to tools and parts, good. If it instead dictates that electronics makers are restricted in their choice of technical solutions, bad. This sounds like you want to create an exemption just for Apple products, so that they don't have to ship standard connectors :-/ In any case, if you put this exemption in then any other "right" is moot: All the manufacturer has to do is make non-standard parts that can't be worked on by anyone else because the chosen technical solution has "trade secrets" in proprietary software that can't be disclosed. > P.S. It upsets me how the industry has succeeded in redirecting the Right to Repair activism from domains where it is actually bitterly needed (like specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances) to consumer electronics. Why? If the right to repair applies (and has any teeth in law), the specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances don't get exemptions from it.
magicalhippo 4y ago
I agree the ability to easily repair is often at odds with certain features customers want. However in other cases it's not at all. If I as a consumer at least could easily tell while I'm shopping, then I could make an informed choice. In aggregate that might apply some market pressure. For example, I have a subwoofer from Samsung, part of a soundbar package. It died a couple of years back. I'm 99% confident it's the power supply which is integrated. As far as I can see there's no way to non-destructively disassemble the unit to replace the power supply. Had the power supply been external, then it would be an easy swap. Had it been easy to disassemble the case, it would probably be an easy swap. But thanks to the integral power supply, and no service manual available showing how to disassemble it and no clear way how, it's effectively junk.
ohbtvz 4y ago
"Innovation" is not the end all be all. Yes, right to repair might marginally slow down certain innovations. In exchange, we get a livable planet where whose resources aren't exhausted. I think it's a fair trade.
pessimizer 4y ago
> domains where it is actually bitterly needed (like specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances) Why are the needs of commerce so much greater than then needs of people who use consumer electronics? If we're trying to reduce ewaste caused by planned obsolescence, isn't the vast majority of it consumer electronics?
- ribit 4y ago
  I doubt that right to repair will reduce e-waste. Most people won’t bother with repairs anyway and let’s not discount the possibility that producing parts and making them modular can actually increase waste, at least in some applications (for example, I’m quite certain that RAM sticks produce more e-waste that soldered-on RAM overall). To clarify, I think that there are different classes of devices with different kinds of technical requirements. There is no good reason why a dishwasher pump or a washing machine/food processor motor are not easily replaceable: after all they are housed in large, bulky mechanical machines that could function for decades with proper maintenance. But a smartphone or a laptop are extremely complicated devices that rely on minituarization and tight integration to provide features like energy efficiency, weather protection, data security etc. You can’t treat a smartphone the same way as a dishwasher. It’s a very different device.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
celestialcheese 4y ago
The first R2R bill that was passed in the country was a narrow target towards repair of specialty equipment (mobility and wheelchairs) in Colorado[1] There are over 17 lawsuits filed by R2R advocates against John Deere around the country. This is not just a fight for consumer electronics. 1 - https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1031 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1031

by ribit 4y ago

6stringmerc 4y ago

Considering the trend is to think about reversing a disposable, planned obsolescence mentality for profit and going toward sustainability, I’m okay with limiting some choices. We already do with asbestos in construction. Some technical solutions, in your terminology, might be seen by others as a “lazy short cut for profit” and we can have that debate if you like. With our regulatory bodies, and rules, unfettered freedom in electronics is stupid for consumers and you know it. I think more effort isn’t a bad thing in the long run. Also, it’s natural for it to cascade down. Just like car tech. Just like how that’s how companies start - get away with it where you can. It went from consumers UP to John Deere, not the other way around.

arcticbull 4y ago

> Right to Repair applied broadly is dictatorship of minority Feel more like a democratic decision made by the majority, after all, the users are the majority and the makers are the minority.

webmobdev 4y ago
If you put it like that, the other side will then disingenuously argue that this is "tyranny of the majority" and "democracy is designed to protect the minorities". This law just seeks to correct the imbalance of power between 2 groups - the consumers and the corporates - that has developed in modern society. That's the whole point of democracy - the continued negotiation of power between the groups that make up the society. Consumer rights is not a radical new concept in any democracy. Right to Repair is just a necessary extension of consumer rights, and will evolve depending on how the political leadership successfully negotiates between the affected parties.
ribit 4y ago
That’s not what I mean. What a I mean that the majority of users don’t care about repairs. Personally, I think it’s good if manufacturers are made more accountable and parts are available for the few users who want to tinker, but shouldn’t happen at the expense of overall product quality or convenience. For example, a law might mandate that all basic computer components are modular and user-replaceable. This will essentially outlaw technical solutions like high-bandwidth or low-power laptop memory since it is not feasible to make it modular. Or another example, requiring that all smartphones have easily replaceable battery will interfere with waterproofing. But I think we can at least agree that customers should have same access to parts and tools as dedicated service centers. But I would like that manufacturers retain the right to choose technical solutions that might sacrifice repairability unless it can be reasonably shown that the only reason for that feature is planned obsolescence.

rasz 4y ago

> restricted in their choice of technical solutions, bad not bad, for the same reason we prevent car manufacturers from manufacturing and selling rolling coal 120dB cars. There are things you shouldnt be able to sell because they harm society.

lelanthran 4y ago

> Depends on the details. If this is just about access to tools and parts, good. If it instead dictates that electronics makers are restricted in their choice of technical solutions, bad. This sounds like you want to create an exemption just for Apple products, so that they don't have to ship standard connectors :-/ In any case, if you put this exemption in then any other "right" is moot: All the manufacturer has to do is make non-standard parts that can't be worked on by anyone else because the chosen technical solution has "trade secrets" in proprietary software that can't be disclosed. > P.S. It upsets me how the industry has succeeded in redirecting the Right to Repair activism from domains where it is actually bitterly needed (like specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances) to consumer electronics. Why? If the right to repair applies (and has any teeth in law), the specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances don't get exemptions from it.

magicalhippo 4y ago

I agree the ability to easily repair is often at odds with certain features customers want. However in other cases it's not at all. If I as a consumer at least could easily tell while I'm shopping, then I could make an informed choice. In aggregate that might apply some market pressure. For example, I have a subwoofer from Samsung, part of a soundbar package. It died a couple of years back. I'm 99% confident it's the power supply which is integrated. As far as I can see there's no way to non-destructively disassemble the unit to replace the power supply. Had the power supply been external, then it would be an easy swap. Had it been easy to disassemble the case, it would probably be an easy swap. But thanks to the integral power supply, and no service manual available showing how to disassemble it and no clear way how, it's effectively junk.

ohbtvz 4y ago

"Innovation" is not the end all be all. Yes, right to repair might marginally slow down certain innovations. In exchange, we get a livable planet where whose resources aren't exhausted. I think it's a fair trade.

pessimizer 4y ago

> domains where it is actually bitterly needed (like specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances) Why are the needs of commerce so much greater than then needs of people who use consumer electronics? If we're trying to reduce ewaste caused by planned obsolescence, isn't the vast majority of it consumer electronics?

ribit 4y ago
I doubt that right to repair will reduce e-waste. Most people won’t bother with repairs anyway and let’s not discount the possibility that producing parts and making them modular can actually increase waste, at least in some applications (for example, I’m quite certain that RAM sticks produce more e-waste that soldered-on RAM overall). To clarify, I think that there are different classes of devices with different kinds of technical requirements. There is no good reason why a dishwasher pump or a washing machine/food processor motor are not easily replaceable: after all they are housed in large, bulky mechanical machines that could function for decades with proper maintenance. But a smartphone or a laptop are extremely complicated devices that rely on minituarization and tight integration to provide features like energy efficiency, weather protection, data security etc. You can’t treat a smartphone the same way as a dishwasher. It’s a very different device.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

celestialcheese 4y ago

The first R2R bill that was passed in the country was a narrow target towards repair of specialty equipment (mobility and wheelchairs) in Colorado[1] There are over 17 lawsuits filed by R2R advocates against John Deere around the country. This is not just a fight for consumer electronics. 1 - https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1031 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1031