3 ms·

You are assuming they would sell a version of their product the state want them to sell (and that such a version would give you more options), rather than not s

You are assuming they would sell a version of their product the state want them to sell (and that such a version would give you more options), rather than not sell it at all. That's not necessarily true. There are many products that are not available in different countries because they are incompatible with various regulations. Replacing consumer choice with state choice leads to less freedom for the consumer. There are often trade-offs that need to be made with regard to the repairability of a product (e.g. a phone's thickness / water resistance / ability to replace the battery), and for the state to interfere in those decisions by force leads to fewer options for the consumer. Additionally, we should keep in mind that the state has no incentive to help consumers, as they don't have the resources to lobby effectively. I think "right to repair" laws are primarily about helping some companies at the expense of their competitors and customers.

alwayslikethis 4y ago
That's what would happen if this is done in some small market, like let's say Qatar. With large markets the situation is rather different, since it is so essential for the companies to sell in these markets. Do you think Apple would no longer sell iPhones because of the USB C law or right to repair laws? Also, some of these laws are aimed at the externalities caused by these corporations, such as e-waste and computing disenfranchisement (well, at least partly). I am not generally supportive of governement regulation as solutions to our problems, but when the adversaries are as resourceful as Apple or Microsoft, the tradeoffs are different and we have no other way to realisticallt fix these issues.
- 9864250 4y ago
  It depends on how burdensome they expect the law to be. Apple did decide to comply with the USB-C law, but I'm sure there are hypothetical laws they would not comply with. In such a case, I expect apple would be willing to spend enough money lobbying against the law to make sure it never becomes law in a large market. I'm not sure who lobbied against and in favour of the USB-C, or who is harmed and helped by it.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > Apple did decide to comply with the USB-C law And we must recognise this as a case of a State (or in this case the EU) making a market better (by enforcing interop with a USB-C) standard. And playing a hugely positive role. > expect apple would be willing to spend enough money lobbying against the law to make sure it never becomes law in a large market. Is this what you think _should_ happen? In which market do you expect that to happen, one is large when compared to (checks notes) ... The EU?
vegetablepotpie 4y ago
I thought Right to repair is about disclosing documentation for a device and allowing 3rd parties the ability to buy replacement parts and not about requiring vendors to design their products in a certain way. If a company decides to solder tiny surface mount components onto a board and put the device together with glue, that’s fine. Consumers can find a technician with a putty knife and micro soldering station. If the math works out and the business makes sense, the repair technician makes a profit and the consumer has more options. If the company makes an exclusive agreement with a parts vendor to only sell to them, that’s anti-competitive. The consumer is forced to get repair services from the company. Right to repair says these agreements should be illegal, 3rd parties should be able to buy components. That’s not regulation that replaces consumer choice with state choice. Certainly there are issues with device serialization, a vendor can make a device brick it’s self if you try to replace a component. There may be security reasons to do this, but in a lot of cases (like one wheel) it is meant to prevent the consumer from maintaining their device. Requiring documentation, schematics, and update procedures would disincentivize companies from making anti-consumer design choices.
- 9864250 4y ago
  There are many different kinds of laws that are supported under the banner of "right to repair", even some that I support, such as limitations to IP, even though I'm generally very sceptical to any proposal that is advised as "pro-consumer" as such proposals are usually intended to help prevent competition and allow big and established companies to form and maintain oligopolies.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

That's what would happen if this is done in some small market, like let's say Qatar. With large markets the situation is rather different, since it is so essential for the companies to sell in these markets. Do you think Apple would no longer sell iPhones because of the USB C law or right to repair laws? Also, some of these laws are aimed at the externalities caused by these corporations, such as e-waste and computing disenfranchisement (well, at least partly). I am not generally supportive of governement regulation as solutions to our problems, but when the adversaries are as resourceful as Apple or Microsoft, the tradeoffs are different and we have no other way to realisticallt fix these issues.

9864250 4y ago
It depends on how burdensome they expect the law to be. Apple did decide to comply with the USB-C law, but I'm sure there are hypothetical laws they would not comply with. In such a case, I expect apple would be willing to spend enough money lobbying against the law to make sure it never becomes law in a large market. I'm not sure who lobbied against and in favour of the USB-C, or who is harmed and helped by it.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > Apple did decide to comply with the USB-C law And we must recognise this as a case of a State (or in this case the EU) making a market better (by enforcing interop with a USB-C) standard. And playing a hugely positive role. > expect apple would be willing to spend enough money lobbying against the law to make sure it never becomes law in a large market. Is this what you think _should_ happen? In which market do you expect that to happen, one is large when compared to (checks notes) ... The EU?

vegetablepotpie 4y ago

I thought Right to repair is about disclosing documentation for a device and allowing 3rd parties the ability to buy replacement parts and not about requiring vendors to design their products in a certain way. If a company decides to solder tiny surface mount components onto a board and put the device together with glue, that’s fine. Consumers can find a technician with a putty knife and micro soldering station. If the math works out and the business makes sense, the repair technician makes a profit and the consumer has more options. If the company makes an exclusive agreement with a parts vendor to only sell to them, that’s anti-competitive. The consumer is forced to get repair services from the company. Right to repair says these agreements should be illegal, 3rd parties should be able to buy components. That’s not regulation that replaces consumer choice with state choice. Certainly there are issues with device serialization, a vendor can make a device brick it’s self if you try to replace a component. There may be security reasons to do this, but in a lot of cases (like one wheel) it is meant to prevent the consumer from maintaining their device. Requiring documentation, schematics, and update procedures would disincentivize companies from making anti-consumer design choices.

9864250 4y ago
There are many different kinds of laws that are supported under the banner of "right to repair", even some that I support, such as limitations to IP, even though I'm generally very sceptical to any proposal that is advised as "pro-consumer" as such proposals are usually intended to help prevent competition and allow big and established companies to form and maintain oligopolies.