8 ms·

Here's my take: you don't really own something if you can't repair it. Manufacturers prefer you don't really own their products: they own it, they service it, y

Here's my take: you don't really own something if you can't repair it. Manufacturers prefer you don't really own their products: they own it, they service it, you use it, and they charge you for the "experience." It's created a throwaway culture that's an environmental disaster. We need to figure out how to right this course.

sparrowInHand 3y ago
State controlled subscriptions, with cost-free repairs.
- sydbarrett74 3y ago
  This should be a threatened backstop if the market fails to meet this need. The latter is preferable, of course, and should be incented.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  This is just about the laziest unimaginative solution. What drove you to this solution? Do you have such low interest or investment in the problem so you would prefer some larger entity like the government just hand wave away this problem? With how many examples exist of the government getting involved at levels of industry they clearly don’t have the expertise for and how everything gets batshit expensive when they get involved or how many examples you can draw from communist countries, a normal person would get the hint that this kind of blanket regulation is toxic and evil and would stop being proposed as solutions.
  - isanjay 3y ago
    And they are very efficient
  - mitchdoogle 3y ago
    What are you talking about? This whole thread is discussing how private enterprise is failing consumers. Meanwhile, countless examples exist of government-run entities and non-profits that are well-liked and less expensive for consumers. I don't think a large-scale repair entity created by the government is the answer to this problem, but it's clear you have a bias towards business, and in the repair industry, business is the problem and we need a government solution. I don't understand why anyone ever has your attitude. Any organization can be run poorly and its leaders susceptible to corruption, whether that be a government one or a private entity. You have to understand the problem to offer solutions and in many cases, a profit motive simply does not provide the best outcome for consumers.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    That's why they don't get involved in the industry, they get involved in something they do understand, administration. If you offer a product that you claim is too complex for anyone but you to service that's fine, we believe you. We won't tell you how to build your product, but in exchange that means your product is legally designated a subscription service with an initial deposit for the cost of the appliance. And so to make it so your products don't all go to the landfill when they break each product requires a state-administered/regulated subscription service which is charged based on some fixed percent overhead and the rest going directly to the cost of repairs. And every repair except intentional destruction is included in the price. This isn't making things more expensive, it's effectively a transparency law so that consumers understand the real cost of the goods they're buying and manufacturers can't hide it behind expensive repair bills.
- prometheus76 3y ago
  Sounds exactly like insurance, which is yet another scam.
- hakfoo 3y ago
  State-scale purchasing could be a huge leverage to keep manufacturers on message. .gov to Apple: "We expect a full public service manual repo and parts ordering service, and until one appears, not one government employee gets an iPhone provisioned." A particularly recalctriant Apple could say "Here's the iPhone 18G with repair specs but other intentional degradations". It would be fun watching the government respond to someone responding to their orders with the equivalent of a "kick me" sign, and then watching as real consumers go up and ask for the 18G because they're more interested in being able to fix the damned thing cheaply and easily than four more frames per second in Genshin Impact.
ethanbond 3y ago
I like this train of thought but at the same time, my understanding is that technology has always tended toward more complex and harder to repair. Like a modern smartphone for example has way more technology jammed into it than a 1920s factory floor does. True right to repair must put some downward pressure on technological advancement, and of course even “reparability” is a very loose term that can point to any location along the spectrum of “can open the enclosure” to “can modify the CPU directly.” Curious if you have any good model for how to think about the trade offs here?
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  I think there's a difference between not having the skills to repair it and being prevented by some arbitrary barrier put up by the manufacturer. I can't repair my car's engine, but that's just because it's complicated and I don't have the skills. That's different than if the car manufacturer requires that a code that only licensed repair shops have must be entered into the car's software, otherwise when I open the engine casing (I don't know if that's actually a thing, but substitute real car repair words as you please) the car stops working. A standard that says you can make products as complex as you want, but you can't do things specifically intended for the sole purpose of blocking repairs seems fine to me.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > I think there's a difference between not having the skills to repair it and being prevented by some arbitrary barrier put up by the manufacturer. I'd go a step further and state that repairability is a design trait. The amount of skill you need to repair a product is the output of a design requirement. Case in point: only a few of us have woodworking skills, but every single one of us can easily put together a Ikea table, because that was Ikea's design goal. The only reason any ebike might be hard to repair is if the company that designed it wanted the bike to be hard to repair. Simple as that.
    - taylodl 3y ago
      This is similar to what Bob Martin (Uncle Bob) has said about software testing - something that is hard to test is badly designed. In this case something that is hard to repair is badly designed. As you point out, you have to design for repairability, it doesn't just happen.
bookofjoe 3y ago
My take: you don't really own something if you can't sell it. See: movies, ebooks, etc.
- c0balt 3y ago
  Well, they've made their "you don't own it" at least transparent by only ever selling you a license. This in itself is problematic-ish but still not as underhanded as physical products that you fully own.
  - ryukafalz 3y ago
    They don't make it that transparent. They'll say "read the terms of service, you're only getting a license!" but UIs are plastered with the words "buy", "purchase", etc underneath the title of a movie just as they would be for a physical copy. Ask anyone off the street what they're buying when they click that button and they'll say "a movie", not "a license to stream a digital copy of this movie for as long as they let me".
    - gruez 3y ago
      >but UIs are plastered with the words "buy", "purchase", etc underneath the title of a movie just as they would be for a physical copy. 1. This argument could have worked if digital stores were a new thing, but at this point everybody knows that when you "buy"/"purchase" something digitally, you're not afforded the same rights as buying a physical object. Therefore the argument that consumers are somehow being deceived doesn't really hold water. 2. What about other stuff you "buy" that you can't transfer? I'm pretty sure you can't transfer air fares or a costco membership, but I don't see people complaining that airlines or costco that they're somehow misleading consumers by their choice of verbs.
      - ilovetux 3y ago
        > but at this point everybody knows that when you "buy"/"purchase" something digitally, you're not afforded the same rights as buying a physical object. I do not think that is the case. I do not believe that even a majority of people know that. I also think that it comes across as ignorant to generalize like this. Everyone is distinct and like everything else, their knowledge will differ between them. If someone does not work in the tech industry, they most likely would not be aware of subtle differences in rules surrounding Intellectual Property especially as it intersects with digital vs physical goods. It simply does not matter to most people until it does. Right to repair has become an issue, not because it is morally wrong or anything, but because farmers were seeing the difference not only in their bank accounts, but also in their crop yields because they were not able to simply repair a tractor and instead had to arrange for repairs which could include shipping the tractor somewhere which is expensive. Similar issues have cropped up around not being able to have your car repaired unless you go to a specific repair shop and pay exorbitant prices for the repair. Also, similar issues were cropping up around phone repairs specifically having the screen or battery replaced which are very common repairs. None of these industries have tried to make it easier to repair their products. Nor have they tried to make replacement parts more readily available. Nor did they try to notify their customer base about it before the purchase. These are things that unless you have read their terms of service (with these concerns in mind) you would likely not know about them until you were trying to have the repair done.
Fauntleroy 3y ago
This would require dismantling a large part of capitalism itself. Since this approach makes more money, it's always going to be preferable to businesses, and notably, shareholders, which almost all large businesses are beholden to.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> Here's my take: you don't really own something if you can't repair it What if the bottleneck is the "owner's" repair skills? See cars. I wonder if this might be closer to what you mean "You dont really own something if it's not repairable." Of course, "repairable" has a lot of gray area but that's a separate issue.
- VBprogrammer 3y ago
  I think the ability to take it to an independent repair facility almost as important as being able to repair something with your own hands. Sometimes there are specially pieces of equipment required in order to service something. Not to be confused with deliberate sabotage by a manufacturer hiding reset functionality behind undocumented interfaces, cables and unbelievably expensive software.
- hotstickyballs 3y ago
  It’s not a separate issue. I’d sacrifice my right to repair if that makes stealing less profitable.
- bad_alloc 3y ago
  1) Good design can - to a certain degree - allow most people to replace parts. E.g. headlight bulbs or modules, which are held in place by 0-3 screws and a simple electrical connection. Similar things with door seals or floor mats. Many parts can be made repairable by low-skill users if they are just accessible and not glued in. Unfortunately many designs work against that, perhaps on purpose. This is also a massive accessibility issue for disabled and elderly people. Think lower grip strength. 2) Anti-repair design stops people from developing skills in the first place, similar to how kids who grow up on fixed-software devices often cannot hack the devices to develop technical understanding.
- delecti 3y ago
  I think "can" is being used in the sense of "may". "You don't own something if you may not repair it". I don't possess the skills to work on my house's circuit box, but the only thing stopping me from trying is that knowledge.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
How much of this is because this is what VCs want? Really, if this is going to change, it stops here, in this community.
samstave 3y ago
>Here's my take: you don't really own something if you can't repair it. I agree, however ; e-bikes ARE different from BIKES. I have been a daily biker for decades. (I literally just rode 5 miles ten minutes ago) - I have worked in bike shops, my first design in Autocad Class in 1990 was a bike, I just sold my original 1986 Gary Fisher (the inventor of mtn bikes)(controversial) -- blah blah, so I have SOME bike cred.. - I have a current e-bike that is a modern awesome thing, and I love everything about it. An Orbea Rise H30 - I love it, but it has flaws, and ALL ebikes have THE SAME FLAW. == THEY REQUIRE A POWER GRID TO EXIST == THEY REQUIRE A BATTERY RELIANT ON A GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN THEY DO NOT PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR LONG HAUL CHARGING (hauling a solar panel capable trailer/pannier/whatever that can adequately recharge off-grid, such as in the Yukon) THEY CANNOT BE SUBMERGED IN WATER THEY REQUIRE A POWERBRICK THE SIZE OF YOUR FANNY PACK THEY HAVE A FLIMSY 'SEAL' TO COVER THE POWER PORT - if that breaks off (twig, brick, tree or foot) - your F'd SEE: SUBMERSION. THEIR SUPPLY CHAINS ARE FAR MORE COMPLEX THE MOTORS ARE FROM ALL OVER THE PLACE - AND QUESTIONABLE MFRs DEALER RELATIONSHIPS SUCK (orbea and mikes bikes parted ways, santa cruz and others are bidding btwn various bike vendors, and a bunch of other financial complexities in the bike industry - mikes started out in marin area as a "youre local bike buddy" and now they are fuly in the MBA corporate quagmire of catering to their market balanced by their own economics... Vendor hostility and preferential treatments abound (just like any industry) But the majority of bike frames come from Taiwan, and the high end components are from majorly Japan, Italy, France, Germany, CHINA - and I would put US at same level technically, but a tier 2 on prestige. (I have had people ask me if the e-bike motor was from china, and if so - no-buy. They only want Japanese (shimano) or German (bosch) -- no random china... But what I find odd, is not the motor - but the battery... THE BATTERY INDUSTRY IS THE PROBLEM (A, AA, AAA, C, D (why no B) -- (the battery industry is the biggest threat to global anything) Where the heck am I to get a battery for an ebick thats custom molded to my stem in my 100 year old bike? But can I pedal my stupid legs through the ruins of MIT on a bike I made from BAMBOO? Yep... Build me a battery from the rubble of your lab? -- If you were at all aware of the supply chain shortage of bikes in the pandemic, I did some research on that and found a lot of details on whom were to control the supply of bikes to the US (most went east coast (size of "market on east coast" - vs, the value of supply on bikes on the west coast -- (this is anecdotal, but the west coast spends more on bikes, but the east coast is higher volume due to pop dense) Anyway... Let me see if I can find that write up on the supply chain...
toss1 3y ago
>>you don't really own something if you can't repair it. Exactly! (add to that, "sell it") EBikes seem like a very ripe opportunity for open source solutions that could be even better than many packaged products (most of which seem to me to be insanely mass-heavy; a bicycle should be lightweight). All that's really needed is a battery, motor, controller, and mounting for each. The control scheme could be anything from a simple throttle to tracking pedal pressure. Indeed, a quick search turned up two OS efforts [0] and [1], and it seems there should be many more — maybe others can post any they know about so as to build a list resource here? [0] https://hackaday.com/2020/02/23/an-open-source-ebike/ https://hackaday.com/2020/02/23/an-open-source-ebike/ [1] https://opensourceebikefirmware.bitbucket.io/ https://opensourceebikefirmware.bitbucket.io/

sparrowInHand 3y ago

State controlled subscriptions, with cost-free repairs.

sydbarrett74 3y ago
This should be a threatened backstop if the market fails to meet this need. The latter is preferable, of course, and should be incented.
georgeplusplus 3y ago
This is just about the laziest unimaginative solution. What drove you to this solution? Do you have such low interest or investment in the problem so you would prefer some larger entity like the government just hand wave away this problem? With how many examples exist of the government getting involved at levels of industry they clearly don’t have the expertise for and how everything gets batshit expensive when they get involved or how many examples you can draw from communist countries, a normal person would get the hint that this kind of blanket regulation is toxic and evil and would stop being proposed as solutions.
- isanjay 3y ago
  And they are very efficient
- mitchdoogle 3y ago
  What are you talking about? This whole thread is discussing how private enterprise is failing consumers. Meanwhile, countless examples exist of government-run entities and non-profits that are well-liked and less expensive for consumers. I don't think a large-scale repair entity created by the government is the answer to this problem, but it's clear you have a bias towards business, and in the repair industry, business is the problem and we need a government solution. I don't understand why anyone ever has your attitude. Any organization can be run poorly and its leaders susceptible to corruption, whether that be a government one or a private entity. You have to understand the problem to offer solutions and in many cases, a profit motive simply does not provide the best outcome for consumers.
- Spivak 3y ago
  That's why they don't get involved in the industry, they get involved in something they do understand, administration. If you offer a product that you claim is too complex for anyone but you to service that's fine, we believe you. We won't tell you how to build your product, but in exchange that means your product is legally designated a subscription service with an initial deposit for the cost of the appliance. And so to make it so your products don't all go to the landfill when they break each product requires a state-administered/regulated subscription service which is charged based on some fixed percent overhead and the rest going directly to the cost of repairs. And every repair except intentional destruction is included in the price. This isn't making things more expensive, it's effectively a transparency law so that consumers understand the real cost of the goods they're buying and manufacturers can't hide it behind expensive repair bills.
prometheus76 3y ago
Sounds exactly like insurance, which is yet another scam.
hakfoo 3y ago
State-scale purchasing could be a huge leverage to keep manufacturers on message. .gov to Apple: "We expect a full public service manual repo and parts ordering service, and until one appears, not one government employee gets an iPhone provisioned." A particularly recalctriant Apple could say "Here's the iPhone 18G with repair specs but other intentional degradations". It would be fun watching the government respond to someone responding to their orders with the equivalent of a "kick me" sign, and then watching as real consumers go up and ask for the 18G because they're more interested in being able to fix the damned thing cheaply and easily than four more frames per second in Genshin Impact.

ethanbond 3y ago

I like this train of thought but at the same time, my understanding is that technology has always tended toward more complex and harder to repair. Like a modern smartphone for example has way more technology jammed into it than a 1920s factory floor does. True right to repair must put some downward pressure on technological advancement, and of course even “reparability” is a very loose term that can point to any location along the spectrum of “can open the enclosure” to “can modify the CPU directly.” Curious if you have any good model for how to think about the trade offs here?

idopmstuff 3y ago
I think there's a difference between not having the skills to repair it and being prevented by some arbitrary barrier put up by the manufacturer. I can't repair my car's engine, but that's just because it's complicated and I don't have the skills. That's different than if the car manufacturer requires that a code that only licensed repair shops have must be entered into the car's software, otherwise when I open the engine casing (I don't know if that's actually a thing, but substitute real car repair words as you please) the car stops working. A standard that says you can make products as complex as you want, but you can't do things specifically intended for the sole purpose of blocking repairs seems fine to me.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > I think there's a difference between not having the skills to repair it and being prevented by some arbitrary barrier put up by the manufacturer. I'd go a step further and state that repairability is a design trait. The amount of skill you need to repair a product is the output of a design requirement. Case in point: only a few of us have woodworking skills, but every single one of us can easily put together a Ikea table, because that was Ikea's design goal. The only reason any ebike might be hard to repair is if the company that designed it wanted the bike to be hard to repair. Simple as that.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    This is similar to what Bob Martin (Uncle Bob) has said about software testing - something that is hard to test is badly designed. In this case something that is hard to repair is badly designed. As you point out, you have to design for repairability, it doesn't just happen.

bookofjoe 3y ago

My take: you don't really own something if you can't sell it. See: movies, ebooks, etc.

c0balt 3y ago
Well, they've made their "you don't own it" at least transparent by only ever selling you a license. This in itself is problematic-ish but still not as underhanded as physical products that you fully own.
- ryukafalz 3y ago
  They don't make it that transparent. They'll say "read the terms of service, you're only getting a license!" but UIs are plastered with the words "buy", "purchase", etc underneath the title of a movie just as they would be for a physical copy. Ask anyone off the street what they're buying when they click that button and they'll say "a movie", not "a license to stream a digital copy of this movie for as long as they let me".
  - gruez 3y ago
    >but UIs are plastered with the words "buy", "purchase", etc underneath the title of a movie just as they would be for a physical copy. 1. This argument could have worked if digital stores were a new thing, but at this point everybody knows that when you "buy"/"purchase" something digitally, you're not afforded the same rights as buying a physical object. Therefore the argument that consumers are somehow being deceived doesn't really hold water. 2. What about other stuff you "buy" that you can't transfer? I'm pretty sure you can't transfer air fares or a costco membership, but I don't see people complaining that airlines or costco that they're somehow misleading consumers by their choice of verbs.
    - ilovetux 3y ago
      > but at this point everybody knows that when you "buy"/"purchase" something digitally, you're not afforded the same rights as buying a physical object. I do not think that is the case. I do not believe that even a majority of people know that. I also think that it comes across as ignorant to generalize like this. Everyone is distinct and like everything else, their knowledge will differ between them. If someone does not work in the tech industry, they most likely would not be aware of subtle differences in rules surrounding Intellectual Property especially as it intersects with digital vs physical goods. It simply does not matter to most people until it does. Right to repair has become an issue, not because it is morally wrong or anything, but because farmers were seeing the difference not only in their bank accounts, but also in their crop yields because they were not able to simply repair a tractor and instead had to arrange for repairs which could include shipping the tractor somewhere which is expensive. Similar issues have cropped up around not being able to have your car repaired unless you go to a specific repair shop and pay exorbitant prices for the repair. Also, similar issues were cropping up around phone repairs specifically having the screen or battery replaced which are very common repairs. None of these industries have tried to make it easier to repair their products. Nor have they tried to make replacement parts more readily available. Nor did they try to notify their customer base about it before the purchase. These are things that unless you have read their terms of service (with these concerns in mind) you would likely not know about them until you were trying to have the repair done.

Fauntleroy 3y ago

This would require dismantling a large part of capitalism itself. Since this approach makes more money, it's always going to be preferable to businesses, and notably, shareholders, which almost all large businesses are beholden to.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Here's my take: you don't really own something if you can't repair it What if the bottleneck is the "owner's" repair skills? See cars. I wonder if this might be closer to what you mean "You dont really own something if it's not repairable." Of course, "repairable" has a lot of gray area but that's a separate issue.

VBprogrammer 3y ago
I think the ability to take it to an independent repair facility almost as important as being able to repair something with your own hands. Sometimes there are specially pieces of equipment required in order to service something. Not to be confused with deliberate sabotage by a manufacturer hiding reset functionality behind undocumented interfaces, cables and unbelievably expensive software.
hotstickyballs 3y ago
It’s not a separate issue. I’d sacrifice my right to repair if that makes stealing less profitable.
bad_alloc 3y ago
1) Good design can - to a certain degree - allow most people to replace parts. E.g. headlight bulbs or modules, which are held in place by 0-3 screws and a simple electrical connection. Similar things with door seals or floor mats. Many parts can be made repairable by low-skill users if they are just accessible and not glued in. Unfortunately many designs work against that, perhaps on purpose. This is also a massive accessibility issue for disabled and elderly people. Think lower grip strength. 2) Anti-repair design stops people from developing skills in the first place, similar to how kids who grow up on fixed-software devices often cannot hack the devices to develop technical understanding.
delecti 3y ago
I think "can" is being used in the sense of "may". "You don't own something if you may not repair it". I don't possess the skills to work on my house's circuit box, but the only thing stopping me from trying is that knowledge.

HumblyTossed 3y ago

How much of this is because this is what VCs want? Really, if this is going to change, it stops here, in this community.

samstave 3y ago

>Here's my take: you don't really own something if you can't repair it. I agree, however ; e-bikes ARE different from BIKES. I have been a daily biker for decades. (I literally just rode 5 miles ten minutes ago) - I have worked in bike shops, my first design in Autocad Class in 1990 was a bike, I just sold my original 1986 Gary Fisher (the inventor of mtn bikes)(controversial) -- blah blah, so I have SOME bike cred.. - I have a current e-bike that is a modern awesome thing, and I love everything about it. An Orbea Rise H30 - I love it, but it has flaws, and ALL ebikes have THE SAME FLAW. == THEY REQUIRE A POWER GRID TO EXIST == THEY REQUIRE A BATTERY RELIANT ON A GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN THEY DO NOT PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR LONG HAUL CHARGING (hauling a solar panel capable trailer/pannier/whatever that can adequately recharge off-grid, such as in the Yukon) THEY CANNOT BE SUBMERGED IN WATER THEY REQUIRE A POWERBRICK THE SIZE OF YOUR FANNY PACK THEY HAVE A FLIMSY 'SEAL' TO COVER THE POWER PORT - if that breaks off (twig, brick, tree or foot) - your F'd SEE: SUBMERSION. THEIR SUPPLY CHAINS ARE FAR MORE COMPLEX THE MOTORS ARE FROM ALL OVER THE PLACE - AND QUESTIONABLE MFRs DEALER RELATIONSHIPS SUCK (orbea and mikes bikes parted ways, santa cruz and others are bidding btwn various bike vendors, and a bunch of other financial complexities in the bike industry - mikes started out in marin area as a "youre local bike buddy" and now they are fuly in the MBA corporate quagmire of catering to their market balanced by their own economics... Vendor hostility and preferential treatments abound (just like any industry) But the majority of bike frames come from Taiwan, and the high end components are from majorly Japan, Italy, France, Germany, CHINA - and I would put US at same level technically, but a tier 2 on prestige. (I have had people ask me if the e-bike motor was from china, and if so - no-buy. They only want Japanese (shimano) or German (bosch) -- no random china... But what I find odd, is not the motor - but the battery... THE BATTERY INDUSTRY IS THE PROBLEM (A, AA, AAA, C, D (why no B) -- (the battery industry is the biggest threat to global anything) Where the heck am I to get a battery for an ebick thats custom molded to my stem in my 100 year old bike? But can I pedal my stupid legs through the ruins of MIT on a bike I made from BAMBOO? Yep... Build me a battery from the rubble of your lab? -- If you were at all aware of the supply chain shortage of bikes in the pandemic, I did some research on that and found a lot of details on whom were to control the supply of bikes to the US (most went east coast (size of "market on east coast" - vs, the value of supply on bikes on the west coast -- (this is anecdotal, but the west coast spends more on bikes, but the east coast is higher volume due to pop dense) Anyway... Let me see if I can find that write up on the supply chain...

toss1 3y ago

>>you don't really own something if you can't repair it. Exactly! (add to that, "sell it") EBikes seem like a very ripe opportunity for open source solutions that could be even better than many packaged products (most of which seem to me to be insanely mass-heavy; a bicycle should be lightweight). All that's really needed is a battery, motor, controller, and mounting for each. The control scheme could be anything from a simple throttle to tracking pedal pressure. Indeed, a quick search turned up two OS efforts [0] and [1], and it seems there should be many more — maybe others can post any they know about so as to build a list resource here? [0] https://hackaday.com/2020/02/23/an-open-source-ebike/ https://hackaday.com/2020/02/23/an-open-source-ebike/ [1] https://opensourceebikefirmware.bitbucket.io/ https://opensourceebikefirmware.bitbucket.io/