5 ms·

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

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.
    - yellow_postit 3y ago
      I’m not sure it’s “bad” so much as it’s a dark design pattern. Apple loves that they can sell apple care plans and encourage consumers back into apple stores when their by design not durable phones get damaged.
- owlbite 3y ago
  But this is basically the industry's line. That skill and the right tools are required, otherwise a substandard repair is performed. And for some products that is dangerous.
  - ryukafalz 3y ago
    And the industry will simultaneously complain that it would be too burdensome to make tools and documentation available so someone with the right skills can do it properly.
    - sleepybrett 3y ago
      Documentation, standardization, certification programs and training, and parts availibility. Thats how you move forward.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Who will take the liability and PR losses for those fraction of repair jobs, done poorly anyways, that fail?
  - yellow_postit 3y ago
    My take is that the tools should be available and the product not locked down such that only 1 blessed supplier or repair place can service. So long as competitors can arise in the repair space beyond the manufacturer, then there’s a sliver of hope that pressures against monopoly repair. This only induces product design that is remotely repairable, vs always discard, at high enough price points that refurbished or secondary market can command value. I struggle to see how lower priced items could have “be repairable” as some enforceable tenant absent a standards group which always trend toward incumbents and reduced innovation.
  - CivBase 3y ago
    To that I say the burden of proof is on them to prove significant danger to the public. Automobiles are probably the most dangerous product ever produced by mankind. We have a whole century behind us during which people were allowed to repair their automobiles. Independent mechanics are still commonplace today and many non-professionals still choose to repair their own vehicles. That sets a precident. Manufacturers should at least have to prove that indpendent repairs of their product represent a more significant threat than independent automobile repair. Otherwise, their arguments about safety should be dismissed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ixwt 3y ago
I watched an interesting YouTube short last night from a guy who replaced an iPhone 14 back glass, but after doing so was no longer about to take photos with flash. He was able to determine that the problem was because he didn't take off the wireless charging coil and put it on the new replacement glass. He did so, and no longer had any issues. Companies have become (possibly have always been) hostile to the end user. There is no reason an exact same part should cause malfunction. Specifically if it's an OEM part. Apple is notorious for serializing parts and locking them to a particular device. Their reasoning isn't terrible: security reasons. But the WIRELESS CHARGING COIL?! If that has any security level ramifications, it's at government level espionage. By which point, they already had your device to replace the part. And it should have long since been considered compromised. I believe you are conflating "things should be simple enough for your average consumer to fix" with "I should be able to have a professional who knows what they are doing replace a part", and not have to pay an arm and a leg to have a manufacturer send out that professional. See many of the horror stories of John Deere. Louis Rossman is an excellent example of a professional I'm referring to. The man can seemingly work miracles. Apple seriously does not want him to. They fight him tooth and nail to make it hard for him to fix Apple devices.
- bzzzt 3y ago
  Apple does care about government espionage, especially for journalists, human rights activists. But if a government can hack a device, so can criminals or people trying to make a quick buck by 'refurbishing' the phones with fake parts. I can't take anything Rossman says serious since his 'miracles' can't be performed at scale. Apple doesn't fight him, they simply have different priorities.
  - ixwt 3y ago
    If you have lost physical control of your device long enough for hardware to be replaced, you should consider it compromised and untrustworthy if you are working at that level of attack risk. And they absolutely could be done at scale. If more people were in the field and had the know how, it could absolutely be done at scale. In many of his video he remarks that it's difficult for him because he can't source parts, because Apple refuses to sell them to him. He has to go to eBay to buy parts for many devices he fixes.
WirelessGigabit 3y ago
There is a difference between building something easily repairable and actively preventing it from being repaired by not offering parts and serializing components just because. I am replace the angle lid sensor on my Mac. But then the angle doesn't work simply because Apple says no.
JohnFen 3y ago
> True right to repair must put some downward pressure on technological advancement I don't agree. True right to repair means that there are no intentional barriers to you repairing things. Complexity isn't such a barrier. When new tech requires new skills to repair, it is still possible for people to learn those skills. Smartphones are a good example of this. There's nothing inherent in a smartphone that prevents home repair -- it just takes a different set of skills to do. What prevents home repair are intentional barriers such as digital signing of components, abusing the DMCA, making custom components unavailable, and so forth.
- criddell 3y ago
  > digital signing of components I'm okay with cryptographic requirements as long as it's a potential vector for an attacker. What do you think about things like the use of glue? It makes things harder to repair, but certainly not impossible. And a well glued device can feel better in the hand than one that flexes and creaks and is almost certainly easier to manufacture. I'm more bothered by things like solid state storage being soldered to the motherboard. That's a component that will fail eventually. Usually long before the device isn't useful. Also, short OS support cycles need to be ended. Any device that connects to anything else should require a ten year security update cycle. If the manufacturer does not or cannot fix the device in that window, retailers should be forced to accept returns for 100% refunds.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I'm okay with cryptographic requirements as long as it's a potential vector for an attacker. Yeah, I'm not. I don't for a moment believe that it was implemented to prevent this, considering that it's an attack vector that is incredibly rare. It was implemented to prevent anyone but Apple from repairing things. The cost/benefit ratio of this is extremely unfavorable. The glue thing is problematic to me, but for environmental reasons rather than reparability reasons. It does make fixing things more of a pain, but it doesn't prevent fixing things. Solid state storage (as well as other things, such as soldering in batteries and such) being soldered onto the mainboard is similar. It doesn't prevent replacing those components, but it does make it more of a hassle. I think that it would be better to make consumables in a device so that end-users can easily replace them without electronics skills would be ideal, and I do hope the industry finds a way back to when that was standard. But, strictly speaking, that speaks to convenience of maintenance, not the ability to perform maintenance.

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.
  - yellow_postit 3y ago
    I’m not sure it’s “bad” so much as it’s a dark design pattern. Apple loves that they can sell apple care plans and encourage consumers back into apple stores when their by design not durable phones get damaged.
owlbite 3y ago
But this is basically the industry's line. That skill and the right tools are required, otherwise a substandard repair is performed. And for some products that is dangerous.
- ryukafalz 3y ago
  And the industry will simultaneously complain that it would be too burdensome to make tools and documentation available so someone with the right skills can do it properly.
  - sleepybrett 3y ago
    Documentation, standardization, certification programs and training, and parts availibility. Thats how you move forward.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Who will take the liability and PR losses for those fraction of repair jobs, done poorly anyways, that fail?
- yellow_postit 3y ago
  My take is that the tools should be available and the product not locked down such that only 1 blessed supplier or repair place can service. So long as competitors can arise in the repair space beyond the manufacturer, then there’s a sliver of hope that pressures against monopoly repair. This only induces product design that is remotely repairable, vs always discard, at high enough price points that refurbished or secondary market can command value. I struggle to see how lower priced items could have “be repairable” as some enforceable tenant absent a standards group which always trend toward incumbents and reduced innovation.
- CivBase 3y ago
  To that I say the burden of proof is on them to prove significant danger to the public. Automobiles are probably the most dangerous product ever produced by mankind. We have a whole century behind us during which people were allowed to repair their automobiles. Independent mechanics are still commonplace today and many non-professionals still choose to repair their own vehicles. That sets a precident. Manufacturers should at least have to prove that indpendent repairs of their product represent a more significant threat than independent automobile repair. Otherwise, their arguments about safety should be dismissed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ixwt 3y ago

I watched an interesting YouTube short last night from a guy who replaced an iPhone 14 back glass, but after doing so was no longer about to take photos with flash. He was able to determine that the problem was because he didn't take off the wireless charging coil and put it on the new replacement glass. He did so, and no longer had any issues. Companies have become (possibly have always been) hostile to the end user. There is no reason an exact same part should cause malfunction. Specifically if it's an OEM part. Apple is notorious for serializing parts and locking them to a particular device. Their reasoning isn't terrible: security reasons. But the WIRELESS CHARGING COIL?! If that has any security level ramifications, it's at government level espionage. By which point, they already had your device to replace the part. And it should have long since been considered compromised. I believe you are conflating "things should be simple enough for your average consumer to fix" with "I should be able to have a professional who knows what they are doing replace a part", and not have to pay an arm and a leg to have a manufacturer send out that professional. See many of the horror stories of John Deere. Louis Rossman is an excellent example of a professional I'm referring to. The man can seemingly work miracles. Apple seriously does not want him to. They fight him tooth and nail to make it hard for him to fix Apple devices.

bzzzt 3y ago
Apple does care about government espionage, especially for journalists, human rights activists. But if a government can hack a device, so can criminals or people trying to make a quick buck by 'refurbishing' the phones with fake parts. I can't take anything Rossman says serious since his 'miracles' can't be performed at scale. Apple doesn't fight him, they simply have different priorities.
- ixwt 3y ago
  If you have lost physical control of your device long enough for hardware to be replaced, you should consider it compromised and untrustworthy if you are working at that level of attack risk. And they absolutely could be done at scale. If more people were in the field and had the know how, it could absolutely be done at scale. In many of his video he remarks that it's difficult for him because he can't source parts, because Apple refuses to sell them to him. He has to go to eBay to buy parts for many devices he fixes.

WirelessGigabit 3y ago

There is a difference between building something easily repairable and actively preventing it from being repaired by not offering parts and serializing components just because. I am replace the angle lid sensor on my Mac. But then the angle doesn't work simply because Apple says no.

JohnFen 3y ago

> True right to repair must put some downward pressure on technological advancement I don't agree. True right to repair means that there are no intentional barriers to you repairing things. Complexity isn't such a barrier. When new tech requires new skills to repair, it is still possible for people to learn those skills. Smartphones are a good example of this. There's nothing inherent in a smartphone that prevents home repair -- it just takes a different set of skills to do. What prevents home repair are intentional barriers such as digital signing of components, abusing the DMCA, making custom components unavailable, and so forth.

criddell 3y ago
> digital signing of components I'm okay with cryptographic requirements as long as it's a potential vector for an attacker. What do you think about things like the use of glue? It makes things harder to repair, but certainly not impossible. And a well glued device can feel better in the hand than one that flexes and creaks and is almost certainly easier to manufacture. I'm more bothered by things like solid state storage being soldered to the motherboard. That's a component that will fail eventually. Usually long before the device isn't useful. Also, short OS support cycles need to be ended. Any device that connects to anything else should require a ten year security update cycle. If the manufacturer does not or cannot fix the device in that window, retailers should be forced to accept returns for 100% refunds.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I'm okay with cryptographic requirements as long as it's a potential vector for an attacker. Yeah, I'm not. I don't for a moment believe that it was implemented to prevent this, considering that it's an attack vector that is incredibly rare. It was implemented to prevent anyone but Apple from repairing things. The cost/benefit ratio of this is extremely unfavorable. The glue thing is problematic to me, but for environmental reasons rather than reparability reasons. It does make fixing things more of a pain, but it doesn't prevent fixing things. Solid state storage (as well as other things, such as soldering in batteries and such) being soldered onto the mainboard is similar. It doesn't prevent replacing those components, but it does make it more of a hassle. I think that it would be better to make consumables in a device so that end-users can easily replace them without electronics skills would be ideal, and I do hope the industry finds a way back to when that was standard. But, strictly speaking, that speaks to convenience of maintenance, not the ability to perform maintenance.