3 ms·

I have mixed feeling about this. On one side, it is good to have consumer friendly regulation like manufacturers to be forced to support right to repair. But o

I have mixed feeling about this. On one side, it is good to have consumer friendly regulation like manufacturers to be forced to support right to repair. But on the opposite side, lots of bullshit requirements again like the energy labelling, that will do that we have less products, mostly from big actors only, and more expensive due the then useless regulation barrier. And the mixed feeling is stronger for things like manufacturers that needs to provide support for the os for 5 years and more. Sure, I'm happy that it applies to big tech like apple, Google and Samsung, when it is what I'm expecting. But, I, as a consumer, I would like some times to be able to buy other products, cheaper, crappier (for a burner or test devices for example), and to have small actors being able the try innovation without needing a 500 millions backing to be able to see in Europe. What I would have preferred is a law more oriented on consumer rights than manufacturing regulation: Forbidding more clearly explicit monopolistic behaviors like what is done with app store; and for right to repair and co, not needing the company to provide support for repair for 5 years but that if they don't, or after 5 years, that they have to release in open source the software, blueprints or tools that are needed to be able to support your own device yourself.

pjc50 2y ago
> to have small actors being able the try innovation Yes. While I'm generally in favor of the EU regulatory approach they need to learn about and understand the concept of "small business", including the fact that you can't get a new large EU business without it going through the small business stage. There should be a lot more de minimis exemptions from the whole CE marking system.
- nottorp 2y ago
  > There should be a lot more de minimis exemptions from the whole CE marking system. There are a lot of EU wide requirements that create barriers to entry. Before Altman's scareware campaign to "regulate" "AI", there was: Exhibit 1: https://pcengines.ch/recycle.htm https://pcengines.ch/recycle.htm See the blurb about not being able to sell direct to customers in the EU. [Think the company has shut down or is shutting down, possibly because of that too.]
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    > [Think the company has shut down or is shutting down, possibly because of that too.] It looks like they're shutting down because megacorporations don't want to support small business endeavors, which is perhaps the most critical barrier to entry if you want to do anything in this space. https://pcengines.ch/eol.htm https://pcengines.ch/eol.htm > After a long production run, AMD will accept last orders for the SOC used in our apu2/3/4/5/6 boards by end of June 2023. > Despite having used considerable quantities of AMD processors and Intel NICs, we don't get adequate design support for new projects. In addition, the x86 silicon currently offered is not very appealing for our niche of passively cooled boards. After about 20 years of WRAP, ALIX and APU, it is time for me to move on to different things.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      Hmm. That may be an AMD "feature". Considering I have a pretty decent router board on my desk, waiting to be set up, just with an Intel processor. Made by some shop in China. I've had a friend do my research so I don't know if it's a big or small shop, but what's the likelihood they order CPUs by the million? https://www.toptonpc.com/product/12th-gen-intel-i3-n305-n100-nas-motherboard-6-bay-4x-i226-v-2-5g-2nvme-6sata3-0-ddr5-pciex1-type-c-mini-itx-router-mainboard-2/ https://www.toptonpc.com/product/12th-gen-intel-i3-n305-n100... But then, that thing won't run passively.
- pona-a 2y ago
  Most regulations are motivated by universal normative prescriptions. People don't want to be served asbestos in their food, structurally unsound homes being built, or data brokers conspiring to raise your insurance, regardless of the violator in question. Everyone can agree regulation burden exists, but I too often see it invoked in bad faith, like in the case of GDPR. This primes me to ask for concrete proof why any regulation would be especially burdensome for small business.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Sibling provides an example: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/recycling-waste-management/weee-responsibilities/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/r... If you want to market small circuit boards from the EU into the EU, you need to register in all EU countries. It's not 100% clear whether the requirement is incurred at "making available for sale in country X" (ie as soon as you put it on the website) or at the point you make your first sale. This is on top of trying to untangle what CE marking testing may be required. On the other hand, if you're a Chinese small board vendor, you just advertise it on AliExpress, put it in the (subsidized!) small parcel post, and ignore the EU rules.
nottorp 2y ago
I was going to agree with you but then I remembered that while I don't care about energy labels when I decide to buy a phone or tablet... ... I know far less about, say, refrigerators. So last time i needed one i bought the one with the most economic energy label from the ones I liked.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I don’t see why energy labels move the needle for phones and tablets, considering battery life is already a highly maximized and sought after feature. An appliance plugged into a wall is different as most people have no easy way to discern energy usage. But they are reminded everyday of their mobile’s energy efficiency. And no one is going to use a black and white mobile to save 100kWh per year.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    Estimates for the numbers are right there (which I really appreciated). I think the main expected gains here are less from the estimated 0.2% electricity savings and more about longer average product lifetimes (thanks to better repairability). If a manufacturer gets his phone to last for a day of heavy use, there is little motivation to improve efficiency past that benchmark I think (and this labeling provides that).
xoa 2y ago
Agreed, in general I'm disappointed that so many government regulations (on both sides of both ponds, this is one issue that's pretty universal) are just simplistic hard coded numbers. Even with carve outs I think that's much worse vs more focused, thoughtful reactive criteria. Like: >And the mixed feeling is stronger for things like manufacturers that needs to provide support for the os for 5 years and more. What I'd have liked to see for this (and still would) is that support is tied to control, ie, as a principle power being intimately linked with responsibility, not some ""big tech"" or not thing either. So maybe have some absolute bare minimum like 3 months unless bankrupt, but then link it to whether product owners are able to install alternate OS, access the source code etc. If a manufacturer wants to throw out some hardware and also give me all the source code and any certificate store access required for me and/or the community of fellow owners to alter and maintain it as we wish, then I'm completely fine with a very short (or possibly even zero) required support period on the software side. Conversely if a company (like Apple) wishes to profit by locking down a device very heavily, then they should also be forced to pay for all support costs for as long as they do. And I'd make that indefinite also, like, Apple would NEVER be able to stop supporting a device that they didn't at least offer alternative OS install capability for. If they wanted to EOL an iPhone after 7-10 years, they'd have to unlock the bootloader as part of that. IMO that would most properly align all the incentives and then let various players small to large experiment with the best solutions, and for consumers to react in turn. Full open do-anything and walled gardens would both be allowed, but no profiting while externalizing the downsides.
zophiana 2y ago
I mean just look at Fairphone they already implemented (most) of this without being forced to. Also even without this regulation its pretty hard to compete in this space anyway. And I think 5 years of software updates should be achievable if Qualcomm, Google, etc are more supportive of manufacturers.
betaby 2y ago
> I have mixed feeling about this. “WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.”
friendzis 2y ago
> that they have to release in open source the software, blueprints or tools that are needed to be able to support your own device yourself. You can safely bet that there is no end product [you care this regulation to apply to] that has 100% in-house engineering, unencumbered with licenses. This would be either unenforceable or eliminate all but the largest players from EU market. If you look at a distance, most of these regulations simply mandate managing product lifecycle. Yes, you can enter the market quicker and cheaper if you don't think about eventual recycling or bodger together something that barely works. We take warranties for granted now, but warranties are part of this family of regulations: if you introduce a product to the market, introduce something that is actually functional.

pjc50 2y ago

> to have small actors being able the try innovation Yes. While I'm generally in favor of the EU regulatory approach they need to learn about and understand the concept of "small business", including the fact that you can't get a new large EU business without it going through the small business stage. There should be a lot more de minimis exemptions from the whole CE marking system.

nottorp 2y ago
> There should be a lot more de minimis exemptions from the whole CE marking system. There are a lot of EU wide requirements that create barriers to entry. Before Altman's scareware campaign to "regulate" "AI", there was: Exhibit 1: https://pcengines.ch/recycle.htm https://pcengines.ch/recycle.htm See the blurb about not being able to sell direct to customers in the EU. [Think the company has shut down or is shutting down, possibly because of that too.]
- dns_snek 2y ago
  > [Think the company has shut down or is shutting down, possibly because of that too.] It looks like they're shutting down because megacorporations don't want to support small business endeavors, which is perhaps the most critical barrier to entry if you want to do anything in this space. https://pcengines.ch/eol.htm https://pcengines.ch/eol.htm > After a long production run, AMD will accept last orders for the SOC used in our apu2/3/4/5/6 boards by end of June 2023. > Despite having used considerable quantities of AMD processors and Intel NICs, we don't get adequate design support for new projects. In addition, the x86 silicon currently offered is not very appealing for our niche of passively cooled boards. After about 20 years of WRAP, ALIX and APU, it is time for me to move on to different things.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    Hmm. That may be an AMD "feature". Considering I have a pretty decent router board on my desk, waiting to be set up, just with an Intel processor. Made by some shop in China. I've had a friend do my research so I don't know if it's a big or small shop, but what's the likelihood they order CPUs by the million? https://www.toptonpc.com/product/12th-gen-intel-i3-n305-n100-nas-motherboard-6-bay-4x-i226-v-2-5g-2nvme-6sata3-0-ddr5-pciex1-type-c-mini-itx-router-mainboard-2/ https://www.toptonpc.com/product/12th-gen-intel-i3-n305-n100... But then, that thing won't run passively.
pona-a 2y ago
Most regulations are motivated by universal normative prescriptions. People don't want to be served asbestos in their food, structurally unsound homes being built, or data brokers conspiring to raise your insurance, regardless of the violator in question. Everyone can agree regulation burden exists, but I too often see it invoked in bad faith, like in the case of GDPR. This primes me to ask for concrete proof why any regulation would be especially burdensome for small business.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Sibling provides an example: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/recycling-waste-management/weee-responsibilities/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/r... If you want to market small circuit boards from the EU into the EU, you need to register in all EU countries. It's not 100% clear whether the requirement is incurred at "making available for sale in country X" (ie as soon as you put it on the website) or at the point you make your first sale. This is on top of trying to untangle what CE marking testing may be required. On the other hand, if you're a Chinese small board vendor, you just advertise it on AliExpress, put it in the (subsidized!) small parcel post, and ignore the EU rules.

nottorp 2y ago

I was going to agree with you but then I remembered that while I don't care about energy labels when I decide to buy a phone or tablet... ... I know far less about, say, refrigerators. So last time i needed one i bought the one with the most economic energy label from the ones I liked.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
I don’t see why energy labels move the needle for phones and tablets, considering battery life is already a highly maximized and sought after feature. An appliance plugged into a wall is different as most people have no easy way to discern energy usage. But they are reminded everyday of their mobile’s energy efficiency. And no one is going to use a black and white mobile to save 100kWh per year.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  Estimates for the numbers are right there (which I really appreciated). I think the main expected gains here are less from the estimated 0.2% electricity savings and more about longer average product lifetimes (thanks to better repairability). If a manufacturer gets his phone to last for a day of heavy use, there is little motivation to improve efficiency past that benchmark I think (and this labeling provides that).

xoa 2y ago

Agreed, in general I'm disappointed that so many government regulations (on both sides of both ponds, this is one issue that's pretty universal) are just simplistic hard coded numbers. Even with carve outs I think that's much worse vs more focused, thoughtful reactive criteria. Like: >And the mixed feeling is stronger for things like manufacturers that needs to provide support for the os for 5 years and more. What I'd have liked to see for this (and still would) is that support is tied to control, ie, as a principle power being intimately linked with responsibility, not some ""big tech"" or not thing either. So maybe have some absolute bare minimum like 3 months unless bankrupt, but then link it to whether product owners are able to install alternate OS, access the source code etc. If a manufacturer wants to throw out some hardware and also give me all the source code and any certificate store access required for me and/or the community of fellow owners to alter and maintain it as we wish, then I'm completely fine with a very short (or possibly even zero) required support period on the software side. Conversely if a company (like Apple) wishes to profit by locking down a device very heavily, then they should also be forced to pay for all support costs for as long as they do. And I'd make that indefinite also, like, Apple would NEVER be able to stop supporting a device that they didn't at least offer alternative OS install capability for. If they wanted to EOL an iPhone after 7-10 years, they'd have to unlock the bootloader as part of that. IMO that would most properly align all the incentives and then let various players small to large experiment with the best solutions, and for consumers to react in turn. Full open do-anything and walled gardens would both be allowed, but no profiting while externalizing the downsides.

zophiana 2y ago

I mean just look at Fairphone they already implemented (most) of this without being forced to. Also even without this regulation its pretty hard to compete in this space anyway. And I think 5 years of software updates should be achievable if Qualcomm, Google, etc are more supportive of manufacturers.

betaby 2y ago

> I have mixed feeling about this. “WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.”

friendzis 2y ago

> that they have to release in open source the software, blueprints or tools that are needed to be able to support your own device yourself. You can safely bet that there is no end product [you care this regulation to apply to] that has 100% in-house engineering, unencumbered with licenses. This would be either unenforceable or eliminate all but the largest players from EU market. If you look at a distance, most of these regulations simply mandate managing product lifecycle. Yes, you can enter the market quicker and cheaper if you don't think about eventual recycling or bodger together something that barely works. We take warranties for granted now, but warranties are part of this family of regulations: if you introduce a product to the market, introduce something that is actually functional.