4 ms·
He's not being blocked from repairing it, and he doesn't need to hack it. He just needs a part. (They did eventually send it to him.) If they had not, he doesn
by ars 2y ago
He's not being blocked from repairing it, and he doesn't need to hack it.
He just needs a part. (They did eventually send it to him.) If they had not, he doesn't need the right to repair it, rather would need someone to manufacture the part.
- rkhassen9 2y agoBut is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.
- financetechbro 2y agoOne could imagine a solid industry of 3rd party parts providers if devices are built under a right to repair framework
- yellers 2y agoOnce again, that thing falls under FDA regulations. You’re telling us about a world with 3rd party mix and match components, all FDA approved in any and all combinations on 5 year plus old devices?
- justinclift 2y ago> under FDA regulations. That's just (!) under current FDA regulations though yeah? It's not like they're forever unchangeable.
- bastawhiz 2y agoI'm supportive of the right to repair in every sense, but even the strongest right to repair laws would not have helped improve the outcome in this case.
- justinclift 2y agoThe strongest right to repair law would probably require detailed schematics, BOMs, and (sufficiently detailed) manufacturing steps being available for all the parts. That would enable people to organise getting replacements manufactured themselves. :)
- dartos 2y agoHonestly, this world be great lol. The cost and complexity of manufacturing would maintain a moat for the companies. At the very least, they could license the schematic to customers.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIs there any evidence that was the bottleneck?
- justinclift 2y agoBit early to be looking for bottlenecks... ;)
- bastawhiz 2y agoI love that future, but that's not right to repair. It's simply not what that means. You can want open source manufacturing, and you can want that legally mandated, but not having manufacturing steps doesn't take away your right to repair something you own.
- the_gorilla 2y ago>He just needs a part. Right to repair, in a broad sense, also covers access to parts. This is definitely an edge case and we might want to just consider that if we're going to do experiments on disabled with the aim of helping them, and they want to continue using the tools, we might have to subsidize access to the parts until they die.
- mattmaroon 2y agoI don’t think it’s an edge case at all. Right to repair doesn’t require a manufacturer to continue making parts or spend their own money on creating a large inventory of them. It’s one thing to require Apple to sell you a phone screen they are still making, it’s another to require them to be able to sell any number of them at any time from ones they do not. Right to repair is a negative right. There’s no reason to turn it into a positive one.
- the_gorilla 2y agoIt's an edge case because the supply is so small and the hardware is so specialized. If this were an iPhone screen there's be a dozen companies in china capable of producing and selling them near cost if apple didn't interfere, and we'd have plenty of people willing to repair and resell the screens if apple would stop abusing US customs to seize repaired screens as they've done in the past.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThe point still stands, no ‘right to repair’ can force manufacturers to stock X number of parts, or spin up production lines again, at some future date. Regardless of the company’s condition. Even the pentagon can’t force that, they just pay a large amount of money to a new company to recreate the original part to the exact same spec. Theoretically it’s possible to enact new legislation to mandate that something sufficient must be set aside in some sort of escrow system, and punish companies for not doing so, but that would probably result in most manufacturing companies fleeing the US….