5 ms·

I would rather force companies to release schematics, specifications and documentations after, say 3 years and let the market decide which part must be made. Wi

I would rather force companies to release schematics, specifications and documentations after, say 3 years and let the market decide which part must be made. With competition it would lower the parts price and potentially these parts could remain available for ever and if the product is actually great could even become a standard. For example, those parts could be reused to make a new product.

kdamica 3y ago
I totally agree here. The bill is great in spirit but this could be onerous for small companies.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  It'd be nice to see an "OR" provision within the time window too. As in, provide spare parts OR release schematics and specifications that allow others to produce them.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    I’d go with “make parts available for two years after sale ends, and then release schematics. Schematics are not required to be released as long as the parts are still reasonably available.”
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      I was thinking of the schematics loophole from a small company perspective, for whom x years of parts availability might be impractical. But they could use the loophole to release schematics and relieve themselves of the burden. Win/win!
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >this could be onerous for small companies Probably why Apple supports it.
contravariant 3y ago
I think a responsibility to ensure parts are available gives a more pressing motivation to use parts that are already available. If they only need to publish schematics there's no strong reason to avoid custom parts, other than cost but that's the same as now.
lettergram 3y ago
Easier to force them to make parts available or release any IP related claims.
user3939382 3y ago
Let’s have both, with parts applying only if you’re a certain size.
phh 3y ago
> I would rather force companies to release schematics, specifications and documentations after, say 3 years On top of that I would had that this documentation must have been released to an escrow before being releasing the product (many hardware companies come and go within few years. I wouldn't mind an exception to the escrow for "big enough" companies). Also, the secure boot keys must also be released if a major security (~ local root privilege escalation without hardware access) issue hasn't been fixed for one year.
- hedora 3y ago
  I’d go further and dictate that a reference implementation of the software be required in source code form, and the instructions include a secure boot bypass (e.g., cut this trace on the board, pull a jumper, etc).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > instructions include a secure boot bypass So do NSO’s work for them.
    - Zuiii 3y ago
      Yes, and that is irrelevant. If the owner can fully control his or her device then so should NSO. That's why well-designed hardware tends to have hardware-enforced hardware input to override security settings. In the past they were simple dip switches on motherboards (some gaming motherboards still have them for overclocking), for modern phones it seems to be the secure boot/hypervisor environment itself in conjunction with hardware keys like volume buttons. Physical hardware-validated input (or physical access to the device) is sufficient to spoil the schemes of NSO or any other group of remote coward criminals. No need to further encroach on owner rights. "NSO" should never be accepted as a valid argument against providing a secure boot bypass to device owners. Never.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > "NSO" should never be accepted as a valid argument against providing a secure boot bypass to device owners. Never Thank you for making this decision for me and millions of others. I appreciate it being suggested that I be forced to trade tangible security benefits for someone’s else’s sense of aesthetics.
jwells89 3y ago
This would need to be paired with regulations regarding the quality of third party replacement parts, otherwise we’ll end up with a lot of near-ewaste quality parts flooding into the market and tripping up consumers who don’t know any better or simply don’t care (“why buy the $75 high quality part when there’s this $15 shoddy alternative on Amazon?”).
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  > when there’s this $15 shoddy alternative on Amazon? smart consumers eventually learn. I don't buy electronics from amazon anymore. I probably never will. Too many near fires. Too many things lasting just longer than the return window etc.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    or any 3rd party marketplace, really. Newegg Marketplace is the same people who are on Amazon, so buy direct from them. If the stuff is fake then I can at least get @ them directly, and they can make changes to their supply chain.
colechristensen 3y ago
Minnesota's right to repair law does require documentation and tools be available. It has too many carveouts, just the same. But things existing in the first place is progress. >In general, the Digital Fair Repair Act requires manufactures of certain electronic products to make documentation, parts, and tools for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair available to independent repair providers and product owners on fair and reasonable terms. Minnesota Statutes Section 325E.72, subd. 3(a).
MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
This doesn’t make sense because most hardware with custom parts are actively manufactured and sold for longer than 3 years. If companies were forced to release all internal documentation, that only guarantees that competitors would begin manufacturing clones while the original product was still being sold. It wouldn’t accomplish the goal of getting replacement parts in the hands of consumers.
- hedora 3y ago
  Patent and copyright law already prevent that. Most devices are built on lines that also produce stuff for direct competitors (in places with traditionally-lax IP laws).
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It wasn't really that long ago when you got schematics for pretty much any piece of electronics you bought, because it made repairs possible. That practice stopped because manufacturers wanted you to throw your broken things away and replace them rather than fix them.
maerF0x0 3y ago
Also we've seen auto OEMs repeatedly raise their hands saying "We make parts, but supply chain issues" meaning you effectively cant.
hedora 3y ago
The document says “necessary software”, so, presumably you’ll be able to do stuff like swap out components and jtag (or whatever) your design verification test suites, keys, firmware, etc., simply by following the steps in the software documentation. /s
mortureb 3y ago
So ridiculous regulations and requirements before a small company can get a product out. This should only apply to companies above a certain cap.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  already a lot of regs that only apply to companies with 20+ employees, so it's not crazy to assume this is the case, too.
mortureb 3y ago
So ridiculous regulations and requirements before a small company can get a product out. Not to mention, ready to use blueprints for companies in China and India. This should only apply to companies above a certain cap.
lloeki 3y ago
> With competition it would lower the parts price Around here repair shops with lower prices than first party get shitty parts. At best they're not on par spec-wise on non-breaking things (e.g max nits or color reproduction on a display), at worst they either last way less than third party (e.g battery) or are outright dangerous (damaging other parts or outright fire hazard). I've been burned often enough that for me it's first party or nothing, and get third party only as a last resort. People at large don't care about/understand these immaterial things so at scale competition is a race to the bottom.
arcticbull 3y ago
Well, there's a trend now towards proprietary ASICs - and the market isn't going to be doing custom ASIC runs of M1s are they? The cost would be astronomical. The manufacturing and assembly techniques for a lot of modern electronics are simply beyond the capacity of most manufacturers.
1letterunixname 3y ago
> after, say 3 years Why the wait? Delay is bullshit. Release all the things on launch.
- anon____ 3y ago
  Exactly. That's what patents are for. No need to be secretive.
nuancebydefault 3y ago
I don't think releasing schematics is a good idea. There is so much more to a production process than documentation. QA is a huge factor in fitniss for purpose and durability. Also, spare parts can/should preferrably be the ouput of the same machinery and production lines as the original parts, which makes it better for the environment.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Your other points are well-taken, but don't address why you don't think releasing schematics is a good idea. Schematics make diagnosis and repair possible without having to engage in reverse-engineering.
  - nuancebydefault 3y ago
    Good point. I actually meant, releasing schematics for the sake of 3rd parties reproducing parts of probably inferior quality, would be not a great idea. Schematics for understanding, yes, but those can be more high level - black box if you want - schematics for the sake of understanding how the system works or interconnects. A repair manual.
idiotsecant 3y ago
This works fine, except that apple can use xyz semiconductors widget Q and mandate to that supplier that they are the only ones allowed to buy that part. This is a thing they definitely do now.

kdamica 3y ago

I totally agree here. The bill is great in spirit but this could be onerous for small companies.

ethbr1 3y ago
It'd be nice to see an "OR" provision within the time window too. As in, provide spare parts OR release schematics and specifications that allow others to produce them.
- bombcar 3y ago
  I’d go with “make parts available for two years after sale ends, and then release schematics. Schematics are not required to be released as long as the parts are still reasonably available.”
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I was thinking of the schematics loophole from a small company perspective, for whom x years of parts availability might be impractical. But they could use the loophole to release schematics and relieve themselves of the burden. Win/win!
ImJamal 3y ago
>this could be onerous for small companies Probably why Apple supports it.

contravariant 3y ago

I think a responsibility to ensure parts are available gives a more pressing motivation to use parts that are already available. If they only need to publish schematics there's no strong reason to avoid custom parts, other than cost but that's the same as now.

lettergram 3y ago

Easier to force them to make parts available or release any IP related claims.

user3939382 3y ago

Let’s have both, with parts applying only if you’re a certain size.

phh 3y ago

> I would rather force companies to release schematics, specifications and documentations after, say 3 years On top of that I would had that this documentation must have been released to an escrow before being releasing the product (many hardware companies come and go within few years. I wouldn't mind an exception to the escrow for "big enough" companies). Also, the secure boot keys must also be released if a major security (~ local root privilege escalation without hardware access) issue hasn't been fixed for one year.

hedora 3y ago
I’d go further and dictate that a reference implementation of the software be required in source code form, and the instructions include a secure boot bypass (e.g., cut this trace on the board, pull a jumper, etc).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > instructions include a secure boot bypass So do NSO’s work for them.
  - Zuiii 3y ago
    Yes, and that is irrelevant. If the owner can fully control his or her device then so should NSO. That's why well-designed hardware tends to have hardware-enforced hardware input to override security settings. In the past they were simple dip switches on motherboards (some gaming motherboards still have them for overclocking), for modern phones it seems to be the secure boot/hypervisor environment itself in conjunction with hardware keys like volume buttons. Physical hardware-validated input (or physical access to the device) is sufficient to spoil the schemes of NSO or any other group of remote coward criminals. No need to further encroach on owner rights. "NSO" should never be accepted as a valid argument against providing a secure boot bypass to device owners. Never.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > "NSO" should never be accepted as a valid argument against providing a secure boot bypass to device owners. Never Thank you for making this decision for me and millions of others. I appreciate it being suggested that I be forced to trade tangible security benefits for someone’s else’s sense of aesthetics.

jwells89 3y ago

This would need to be paired with regulations regarding the quality of third party replacement parts, otherwise we’ll end up with a lot of near-ewaste quality parts flooding into the market and tripping up consumers who don’t know any better or simply don’t care (“why buy the $75 high quality part when there’s this $15 shoddy alternative on Amazon?”).

maerF0x0 3y ago
> when there’s this $15 shoddy alternative on Amazon? smart consumers eventually learn. I don't buy electronics from amazon anymore. I probably never will. Too many near fires. Too many things lasting just longer than the return window etc.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  or any 3rd party marketplace, really. Newegg Marketplace is the same people who are on Amazon, so buy direct from them. If the stuff is fake then I can at least get @ them directly, and they can make changes to their supply chain.

colechristensen 3y ago

Minnesota's right to repair law does require documentation and tools be available. It has too many carveouts, just the same. But things existing in the first place is progress. >In general, the Digital Fair Repair Act requires manufactures of certain electronic products to make documentation, parts, and tools for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair available to independent repair providers and product owners on fair and reasonable terms. Minnesota Statutes Section 325E.72, subd. 3(a).

MatthiasPortzel 3y ago

This doesn’t make sense because most hardware with custom parts are actively manufactured and sold for longer than 3 years. If companies were forced to release all internal documentation, that only guarantees that competitors would begin manufacturing clones while the original product was still being sold. It wouldn’t accomplish the goal of getting replacement parts in the hands of consumers.

hedora 3y ago
Patent and copyright law already prevent that. Most devices are built on lines that also produce stuff for direct competitors (in places with traditionally-lax IP laws).
JohnFen 3y ago
It wasn't really that long ago when you got schematics for pretty much any piece of electronics you bought, because it made repairs possible. That practice stopped because manufacturers wanted you to throw your broken things away and replace them rather than fix them.

maerF0x0 3y ago

Also we've seen auto OEMs repeatedly raise their hands saying "We make parts, but supply chain issues" meaning you effectively cant.

hedora 3y ago

The document says “necessary software”, so, presumably you’ll be able to do stuff like swap out components and jtag (or whatever) your design verification test suites, keys, firmware, etc., simply by following the steps in the software documentation. /s

mortureb 3y ago

So ridiculous regulations and requirements before a small company can get a product out. This should only apply to companies above a certain cap.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
already a lot of regs that only apply to companies with 20+ employees, so it's not crazy to assume this is the case, too.

mortureb 3y ago

So ridiculous regulations and requirements before a small company can get a product out. Not to mention, ready to use blueprints for companies in China and India. This should only apply to companies above a certain cap.

lloeki 3y ago

> With competition it would lower the parts price Around here repair shops with lower prices than first party get shitty parts. At best they're not on par spec-wise on non-breaking things (e.g max nits or color reproduction on a display), at worst they either last way less than third party (e.g battery) or are outright dangerous (damaging other parts or outright fire hazard). I've been burned often enough that for me it's first party or nothing, and get third party only as a last resort. People at large don't care about/understand these immaterial things so at scale competition is a race to the bottom.

arcticbull 3y ago

Well, there's a trend now towards proprietary ASICs - and the market isn't going to be doing custom ASIC runs of M1s are they? The cost would be astronomical. The manufacturing and assembly techniques for a lot of modern electronics are simply beyond the capacity of most manufacturers.

1letterunixname 3y ago

> after, say 3 years Why the wait? Delay is bullshit. Release all the things on launch.

anon____ 3y ago
Exactly. That's what patents are for. No need to be secretive.

nuancebydefault 3y ago

I don't think releasing schematics is a good idea. There is so much more to a production process than documentation. QA is a huge factor in fitniss for purpose and durability. Also, spare parts can/should preferrably be the ouput of the same machinery and production lines as the original parts, which makes it better for the environment.

JohnFen 3y ago
Your other points are well-taken, but don't address why you don't think releasing schematics is a good idea. Schematics make diagnosis and repair possible without having to engage in reverse-engineering.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Good point. I actually meant, releasing schematics for the sake of 3rd parties reproducing parts of probably inferior quality, would be not a great idea. Schematics for understanding, yes, but those can be more high level - black box if you want - schematics for the sake of understanding how the system works or interconnects. A repair manual.

idiotsecant 3y ago

This works fine, except that apple can use xyz semiconductors widget Q and mandate to that supplier that they are the only ones allowed to buy that part. This is a thing they definitely do now.