3 ms·

Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is?

by deadbabe 2y ago

tossandthrow 2y ago
I think it is. But what company is going to advertise this on times square?
- dylan604 2y ago
  Because a bill was introduced does not mean that it will pass nor be signed into law.
techjamie 2y ago
It's better than nothing. But introduced and passed are different things. An introduced bill may never actually become law. The upside is that this shows how popular RtR is, and there's a good chance at least several states may implement their laws. At some point, even if it isn't universal, all it takes is enough states to force manufacturers to support independent repair by default.
- abeppu 2y ago
  In particular it's depressing that the map near the top of the article shows that for a majority of states, the introduction of the bill is "historical", as in neither passed, active or current, but (IIUC) it was floated in some prior legislative session, but it's not even under consideration in the present session.
- immibis 2y ago
  They could go for the Apple-in-Europe model, where you have the right to repair only if your geolocation detects you being in a state where it's mandatory for you to have that right, otherwise it still locks you out.
advisedwang 2y ago
Because this just means a single legislator has sponsored a bill. It doesn't mean it has pass, nor does it it even mean it is likely to pass. It's actual laws getting passed that matter. Of course this IS a milestone to getting a law passed, and shows that the campaign is getting legislators' notice etc. So it is still good.
recycledmatt 2y ago
Lawyers and lobbyists paid lots of money to figure out how to subvert stuff. OEMs may work to make stuff less consumer repairable/upgradeable to force folks to use their repair services that need stuff like bga reballing or soldering. Bye bye upgradable ram slots! Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing)
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing) Unfortunately, I don't see an alternative to that given how juicy targets even locked phones were for "chop shops" before Apple introduced parts pairing. People were mugged left and right for their phones. (Obviously the solution would be to tackle poverty, drug abuse and mental health issues, but that is even more unrealistic)
  - recycledmatt 2y ago
    Yes - but they paint with a big brush. Unfortunately legitimate repair and reuse is caught in the mix and made much more difficult.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > People were mugged left and right for their phones. The solution to theft shouldn't be taking away your right to own things in the first place.
- WediBlino 2y ago
  Wait a bit and you'll see what Tim Cook's donation to the inauguration fund bought him.
  - Frederation 2y ago
    A lump of coal if he's lucky
seanw444 2y ago
Even the "active and passed" states (particularly New York) passed a neutered version of right-to-repair that barely does anything. I only understand vaguely, but Louis Rossman has been outspoken about the progress of NY right-to-repair in particular, and how it flopped hard. As much as right-to-repair seems like a party line issue, even many of the Democrats have thus far been all talk and no substance.
- AaronM 2y ago
  Because the large corporations have virtually unlimited power to water down bills with campaign contributions. It takes very little to money to sway a representative federally. How much less do you think it takes to sway a state level candidate? Spending cash on candidates to prevent bills like this is likely a rounding error on their yearly budget.
glenstein 2y ago
>Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is? I mean, there is the psychological phenomenon known as the Just World Hypothesis. When presented with something that's simply bad, or simply good, people are skeptical and tempted to search for the counterbalancing element, treating it like a trick question even if it's not. And so it can be hard to accept it simply is good. But that doesn't have to be the end of the conversation because that impulse can be channeled productively just by changing the baseline. Right to repair, I would think, simply is good, but since we need a bad thing, we can talk about the long road ahead to full implementation, or the effort necessary to overcome cultural inertia, as well as status quo extremism in our institutions. But I think the right to repair itself is a good thing.
- weaksauce 2y ago
  i’m more for right to repair than not but i can see unintended consequences of things like iphones being bulkier and heavier if modular components like batteries are required in the broadest reach of the concept. these bills may be narrower and probably are. that’s the ultimate question though is how far the balance should be.
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    Im pretty sure thats a falsity. Making tech repair friendly doesnt really add to the form factor of a device if you know how to design correctly, even with phones. I remember that phone[0] that google killed and that was back in 2013? Since then other projects have sprung up to tackle this. There are links at the bottom of the page. [0]: https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks
    - glenstein 2y ago
      I wondered if that Google modular phone ended up inspiring the Moto Z during the time Google owned Motorola. To your point, I suspect the same, I'm trying to think of adverse consequences. The closest I can think of is something akin to the battery example, but in a different way. Maybe you're more comfortable putting high performing dangerous-to-handle components in a phone if you can seal it shut. Maybe component-by-component tech support accountability to a tech repair community is a new set of burdens they don't want to have. I suppose the latter feels plausible, but the possible impact on components seems less convincing.
CamperBob2 2y ago
One drawback to consumer-rights laws is that we as consumers end up with less access to cool stuff. Some companies have chosen to stop selling into the B2C market altogether, to avoid incurring expenses and liabilities associated with conforming to right-to-repair and other pro-consumer legislation. Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight come to mind. That is bullshit, of course -- just an excuse for companies to dodge basic business responsibilities, and a blatant failure on their part to acknowledge why consumers felt this legislation was needed in the first place. But it is certainly true that there are short-term drawbacks.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Interesting! I think you're probably onto something there. Agree it's more of an excuse than a reason, but still there will be low margin products that have to go that direction due to the math. I tend to think B2C is who needs the most protection from the gov since C are relatively powerless, whereas B2B tends to be more balanced, but the more I think about it the more I think that perhaps we're overlooking an important area. Nevertheless I think for now we need to focus on B2C and worry about B2B later. Can't spread ourselves too thin.
- alnwlsn 2y ago
  To be fair, Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight aren't names I'd normally associate with consumer devices. On the other hand, neither are Mcdonands' ice cream machines.
bickfordb 2y ago
It is a big win, but in the Oregon version at least it excludes large sectors like vehicles which is obviously a big expense to most US consumers. Hopefully it will continue to be extended.

Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is?

tossandthrow 2y ago

I think it is. But what company is going to advertise this on times square?

dylan604 2y ago
Because a bill was introduced does not mean that it will pass nor be signed into law.

techjamie 2y ago

It's better than nothing. But introduced and passed are different things. An introduced bill may never actually become law. The upside is that this shows how popular RtR is, and there's a good chance at least several states may implement their laws. At some point, even if it isn't universal, all it takes is enough states to force manufacturers to support independent repair by default.

abeppu 2y ago
In particular it's depressing that the map near the top of the article shows that for a majority of states, the introduction of the bill is "historical", as in neither passed, active or current, but (IIUC) it was floated in some prior legislative session, but it's not even under consideration in the present session.
immibis 2y ago
They could go for the Apple-in-Europe model, where you have the right to repair only if your geolocation detects you being in a state where it's mandatory for you to have that right, otherwise it still locks you out.

advisedwang 2y ago

Because this just means a single legislator has sponsored a bill. It doesn't mean it has pass, nor does it it even mean it is likely to pass. It's actual laws getting passed that matter. Of course this IS a milestone to getting a law passed, and shows that the campaign is getting legislators' notice etc. So it is still good.

recycledmatt 2y ago

Lawyers and lobbyists paid lots of money to figure out how to subvert stuff. OEMs may work to make stuff less consumer repairable/upgradeable to force folks to use their repair services that need stuff like bga reballing or soldering. Bye bye upgradable ram slots! Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing)

mschuster91 2y ago
> Things like software locks and restrictions in the name of ‘security’ will lock stuff down and make repair harder (see Apple’s part pairing) Unfortunately, I don't see an alternative to that given how juicy targets even locked phones were for "chop shops" before Apple introduced parts pairing. People were mugged left and right for their phones. (Obviously the solution would be to tackle poverty, drug abuse and mental health issues, but that is even more unrealistic)
- recycledmatt 2y ago
  Yes - but they paint with a big brush. Unfortunately legitimate repair and reuse is caught in the mix and made much more difficult.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > People were mugged left and right for their phones. The solution to theft shouldn't be taking away your right to own things in the first place.
WediBlino 2y ago
Wait a bit and you'll see what Tim Cook's donation to the inauguration fund bought him.
- Frederation 2y ago
  A lump of coal if he's lucky

seanw444 2y ago

Even the "active and passed" states (particularly New York) passed a neutered version of right-to-repair that barely does anything. I only understand vaguely, but Louis Rossman has been outspoken about the progress of NY right-to-repair in particular, and how it flopped hard. As much as right-to-repair seems like a party line issue, even many of the Democrats have thus far been all talk and no substance.

AaronM 2y ago
Because the large corporations have virtually unlimited power to water down bills with campaign contributions. It takes very little to money to sway a representative federally. How much less do you think it takes to sway a state level candidate? Spending cash on candidates to prevent bills like this is likely a rounding error on their yearly budget.

glenstein 2y ago

>Can someone explain why this isn’t the big win we think it is? I mean, there is the psychological phenomenon known as the Just World Hypothesis. When presented with something that's simply bad, or simply good, people are skeptical and tempted to search for the counterbalancing element, treating it like a trick question even if it's not. And so it can be hard to accept it simply is good. But that doesn't have to be the end of the conversation because that impulse can be channeled productively just by changing the baseline. Right to repair, I would think, simply is good, but since we need a bad thing, we can talk about the long road ahead to full implementation, or the effort necessary to overcome cultural inertia, as well as status quo extremism in our institutions. But I think the right to repair itself is a good thing.

weaksauce 2y ago
i’m more for right to repair than not but i can see unintended consequences of things like iphones being bulkier and heavier if modular components like batteries are required in the broadest reach of the concept. these bills may be narrower and probably are. that’s the ultimate question though is how far the balance should be.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  Im pretty sure thats a falsity. Making tech repair friendly doesnt really add to the form factor of a device if you know how to design correctly, even with phones. I remember that phone[0] that google killed and that was back in 2013? Since then other projects have sprung up to tackle this. There are links at the bottom of the page. [0]: https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks https://www.onearmy.earth/project/phonebloks
  - glenstein 2y ago
    I wondered if that Google modular phone ended up inspiring the Moto Z during the time Google owned Motorola. To your point, I suspect the same, I'm trying to think of adverse consequences. The closest I can think of is something akin to the battery example, but in a different way. Maybe you're more comfortable putting high performing dangerous-to-handle components in a phone if you can seal it shut. Maybe component-by-component tech support accountability to a tech repair community is a new set of burdens they don't want to have. I suppose the latter feels plausible, but the possible impact on components seems less convincing.

CamperBob2 2y ago

One drawback to consumer-rights laws is that we as consumers end up with less access to cool stuff. Some companies have chosen to stop selling into the B2C market altogether, to avoid incurring expenses and liabilities associated with conforming to right-to-repair and other pro-consumer legislation. Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight come to mind. That is bullshit, of course -- just an excuse for companies to dodge basic business responsibilities, and a blatant failure on their part to acknowledge why consumers felt this legislation was needed in the first place. But it is certainly true that there are short-term drawbacks.

freedomben 2y ago
Interesting! I think you're probably onto something there. Agree it's more of an excuse than a reason, but still there will be low margin products that have to go that direction due to the math. I tend to think B2C is who needs the most protection from the gov since C are relatively powerless, whereas B2B tends to be more balanced, but the more I think about it the more I think that perhaps we're overlooking an important area. Nevertheless I think for now we need to focus on B2C and worry about B2B later. Can't spread ourselves too thin.
alnwlsn 2y ago
To be fair, Rohde & Schwarz and Keysight aren't names I'd normally associate with consumer devices. On the other hand, neither are Mcdonands' ice cream machines.

bickfordb 2y ago

It is a big win, but in the Oregon version at least it excludes large sectors like vehicles which is obviously a big expense to most US consumers. Hopefully it will continue to be extended.