[HN Gopher] Europe Wants a 'Right to Repair' Smartphones and Gad...
___________________________________________________________________
Europe Wants a 'Right to Repair' Smartphones and Gadgets
Author : pseudolus
Score : 366 points
Date : 2020-03-13 10:46 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| Proven wrote:
| That old socialist nonsense never dies....
|
| Governments can ban certain designs (those w/o replaceable parts)
| from the market, but they can't make other products cheaper.
|
| Guaranteed result: fewer products to choose from, and higher
| prices for customers.
|
| Forward, comrades!
| TomMarius wrote:
| What if I want to buy a device that is impossible to repair due
| to e.g. being inside metal/ceramics/glass?
| simion314 wrote:
| What if I want to buy a car that has no lights,breaks and
| pollutes 100x more then the norms?
|
| There are many hardened phones that are repairable.
|
| Edit: also a main issue with repairability is DRM and evil
| companies trying to use the copyright law so you won't publish
| repair manuals and schematics. Your ceramic phone won't suffer
| if someone shares a manual about it's internals .
| userbinator wrote:
| Ironically, a car that "pollutes 100x more then the norms" is
| also very likely to be the most repairable...
| simion314 wrote:
| Most cars are repairable, there is an industry of
| alternative parts, you go to a mechanic, he plugs the
| laptop with the software , find the problem, then you chose
| from a website with parts the one you want , you have
| different alternatives. Also you can visit places with
| scraped cars and you can find parts there for cheap. There
| is no DRM at the moment to stop you reusing a door from a
| different car or a door made by any third party(not sure
| about latest models, maybe Tesla does this).
|
| I am not familiar with the latest models, do they changed
| that dramatically and I am out of date? Can't a competent
| mechanic replace any part on your new car?
| bluGill wrote:
| On a car most electronics are locked to the one VIN and
| it is difficult or impossible to change the part to a new
| VIN latter.
|
| This is done to ensure that "strippers" will not steal a
| car for the parts since the most valuable parts can't be
| sold.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| And it has the nice sideeffect, the the owner company
| controlls, what you can do with your car/where you buy
| your parts from.
| falcolas wrote:
| Yeah, Tesla does (though perhaps not with doors, yet).
| And if you look at the industrial tractor industry, you
| can see the future where it applies to even more and more
| vehicles.
| TomMarius wrote:
| I was not talking about hardened phones, quite the opposite,
| a pure design item, so small and precise that any breakage of
| the shell could destroy it - that's the current direction of
| the market, which I like very much. Who exactly will I hurt
| with my phone, and when exactly is it going to gain around 1
| metric ton and be hurtling down a highway? Since when is it
| fashionable to justify regulation with completely unrelated
| health/safety issues?
| simion314 wrote:
| E-waste is a problem that affect everyone. Also I edited my
| answer to add the DRM and copyright on the manuals issues.
| TomMarius wrote:
| And how exactly does this change the fashion of buying
| the latest iPhone-looking phone every second year? The
| older devices are perfectly functioning, they just don't
| look like the owners wish. Most people I know have a
| drawer full of 100% working phones, some broken displays
| here and there but that is trivial to have repaired
| today.
| simion314 wrote:
| Don't iPhone look very similar? why do people need a new
| one? There are probably many answers depending on person,
| some just want latest and greatest, some people were
| affected by the battery issue(while it was hidden from
| them), some people break the phone and don't have an
| Apple store near or don't have the time to wait for a
| repair and they get a new phone. Sometimes the updates
| make the old phones slow or incompatible and websites and
| applications are pushing you to buy a new one.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Apparently they are different enough that people mod them
| to look like year-later models. Since these wouldn't have
| different capabilities it can only be for asthetics or
| social signaling.
| TomMarius wrote:
| We're talking about Europe, iPhone is the minority here.
| Most phones are Androids, so no battery issue of iPhone
| is much relevant, same with Apple Stores.
|
| Any phone (including iPhone) can be taken to nearly any
| service shop and it will probably be repaired within a
| day for an affordable price (if they have all parts,
| which they can order no problem; tools are not a problem
| a tall).
|
| They also don't want the latest and greatest because that
| costs them way too much, most phones are mid market here,
| and the capabilities of these phones don't change much
| (same hardware for a number of years is not an exception)
| - but the design does. And no, the display notch is a
| very distinct status symbol that made the upgrade _very
| much needed_ , same with multiple cameras on the back.
|
| The few people who are buying Apple can choose between
| Apple stores, official Apple resellers and also a huge
| selection of unofficial (called "post-warranty") service
| shops. Not sure if it's OK with Apple, but it's
| definitely legal here, and it doesn't seem like these
| people have any problems with getting parts, getting
| tools or repairing the phones, but I agree that there
| should be an official way of doing so.
|
| It's true that some phones became unusable with and
| because of software updates - that is wrong, but also an
| unrelated issue.
| efdee wrote:
| Most people you know have a drawer full of 100% working
| phones?
|
| I guess that suffices to conclude that you have an
| extremely a-typical social circle.
| TomMarius wrote:
| But the point still stands - older phones are perfectly
| capable (and these phones are very repairable, too), just
| not beautiful enough. Some people having drawers of them
| signifies that even though these phones work, there is no
| demand for them.
| rat9988 wrote:
| As a society we have to make choices. We prefer having
| repairable items over beautiful unrepairable ones, as the
| latter has been abused as an excuse to deny repairability
| even when possible.
| TomMarius wrote:
| Do we? I am not really sure we do. I think it's very hard
| to talk about what "the society" wants, and I know that
| it differs very much around 150 km to the north from me
| (where the border is) and that it is also roughly the
| opposite around 300 km to the south from me (where
| another border is).
| matz1 wrote:
| Yes in the end its a preference, we have to make choices
| and I too would like to have the choice to buy
| unrepairable item. We too are "the society" so if we want
| to still have the option we have to fight the law. One
| thing to do is obviously do not vote for or support the
| law .
| simongray wrote:
| > I think it's very hard to talk about what "the society"
| wants
|
| People vote for representatives, those representatives
| enact legislation, and the free press reports on it,
| causing a feedback effect. Over time we have a picture of
| what society wants. It's really not that hard.
|
| Obviously, there are many different interconnected
| societies in the world and not all of them have
| representative democracy or a free press. Maybe that was
| your objection?
| TomMarius wrote:
| During the last EU parliament elections, 28.4% people
| voted (in my country of 10 million). These 28.4% have
| chosen 21 representatives into a parliament of 736, which
| means 2.85% of all seats.
|
| I think it's clear why this tells us nothing about what
| the society here wants. It might be said that the EU was
| the voice of the nations before they removed the
| unilateral agreement requirement, but not today.
|
| Nobody here (parties, the representatives) is even
| talking about the right to repair, how can you be so sure
| the society here wants it?
| simongray wrote:
| > I think it's clear why this tells us nothing about what
| the society here wants.
|
| On the contrary, it very clearly tells us that your
| society is apathetic about the EU and does not care about
| decisions made in the European parliament.
|
| In my own country, 2/3 voted in the latest EU parliament
| elections. The debates here were dominated by
| environmental policy, so I'm really not surprised that
| legislation like this is now being considered in the EU
| parliament.
| TomMarius wrote:
| > On the contrary, it very clearly tells us that your
| society is apathetic about the EU and does not care about
| decisions made in the European parliament.
|
| Exactly, that is the only thing that is clear. And the
| reason is that we have much greater political problems to
| deal with so the EU is not that relevant to us,
| especially not issues like right to repair (which is not
| an issue to anyone I know and google gives me mostly no
| online discussions in our language). It still does not
| give anyone the right to shovel us "what the society
| wants". Our society didn't want the Lisboa agreement, but
| our politicians signed it anyways - so what exactly does
| our society want and what exactly should the EU be saying
| about it?
|
| Even if 100% of people voted, still the 2.85% of voice
| don't seem like much space to express what _our society
| wants_ , you know? And why there should only be space for
| one central opinion? That doesn't seem that diverse.
| simongray wrote:
| > Our society didn't want the Lisboa agreement, but our
| politicians signed it anyways - so what exactly does our
| society want and what exactly should the EU be saying
| about it?
|
| Then vote for a different set of politicians and leave
| the EU. The UK paved the way. I believe in you!
|
| > Even if 100% of people voted, still the 2.85% of voice
| don't seem like much space to express what our society
| wants, you know? And why there should only be space for
| one central opinion? That doesn't seem that diverse.
|
| Humans aren't borgs, but that doesn't mean we can't
| generalise about the general tendencies of society. Do
| you want me to admit that not everyone in a society has
| the same opinion? Seems a bit pointless, but sure, I'll
| admit that.
| TomMarius wrote:
| > Then vote for a different set of politicians and leave
| the EU. The UK paved the way. I believe in you!
|
| That's nice of you. I am not a leaver, I believe in
| European cooperation, maybe even federalization - but I
| don't believe in centralization.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > a pure design item, so small and precise that any
| breakage of the shell could destroy it
|
| We have to come to term with the fact that owning such
| devices isn't good for humanity in the long term.
|
| > Who exactly will I hurt with my phone
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/burning-
| truth-...
|
| https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/27/europe-s-electronic-
| wast...
| TomMarius wrote:
| Eh, no, my country is one of the best of EU in recycling
| and waste management. I dispose of all waste exactly as I
| should in a clear, structured and very practical way.
| (any) phones are taken back for recycling by most
| sellers, for example.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Which country is that ? You can easily check recycling
| import/export per country online so that should be
| trivial to fact check. Pro tip: it doesn't look good for
| US/EU.
| TomMarius wrote:
| It is not my fault what the state does with it after I
| correctly dispose it. I am not sure how that looks for my
| country and I mostly don't care - not my job to do, I
| (have to) pay taxes for that.
|
| https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/czechs-become-eu-leaders-in-
| plast... ;-)
| playfool wrote:
| It was a metaphor for how things are wrong in the grand
| scheme of things even if they are possible and available.
| Repairability of things makes for less waste, if you ignore
| that fact and knowingly buy a phone which is going to end
| up in a bin after 2 years with no possibility to get proper
| recycling and repairing, you have a similar mindset to the
| SUV buying bunch. That is what he is trying to say (I
| think).
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > Edit: also a main issue with repairability is DRM and evil
| companies trying to use the copyright law so you won't
| publish repair manuals and schematics. Your ceramic phone
| won't suffer if someone shares a manual about it's internals
| .
|
| I certainly think that you should have the absolute right to
| attempt to repair your device, and you shouldn't be _legally_
| prevented from doing so.
|
| On the other hand, I would like a secure, lightweight device,
| which lasts as long as possible on battery. All of those
| things will suffer if people who don't understand how modern
| phones achieve those things attempt to force them to be made
| up of piecewise-replaceable components.
| simion314 wrote:
| The idea is not that you should be able to swap your
| battery as easy as you can with an Nokia 3310 but that you
| or a competent person could swap the battery with tools
| made for that purpose. Also I should have the right to use
| components from a broken iPhone into a different broken
| iPhone so I get a working iPhone(and if you claim security
| then wipe the phone before you allow this swap).
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > The idea is not that you should be able to swap your
| battery as easy as you can with an Nokia 3310 but that
| you or a competent person could swap the battery with
| tools made for that purpose.
|
| On many modern devices, you don't have "a battery", you
| have battery cells fit into every available space and
| wired together. You're certainly welcome to try replacing
| those. I just don't want to see that reverted to a
| discrete battery design.
|
| > Also I should have the right to use components from a
| broken iPhone into a different broken iPhone so I get a
| working iPhone
|
| By all means! And "components" here may well mean "single
| integrated board", as it does on many laptops and phones.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > On many modern devices, you don't have "a battery", you
| have battery cells fit into every available space and
| wired together. You're certainly welcome to try replacing
| those. I just don't want to see that reverted to a
| discrete battery design.
|
| Source for this. No device has unpackaged unprotected
| battery cells just floating around.
|
| They may have many discrete batteries to use up all of
| the available space, but each unit is self contained with
| protection electronics and can be swapped independently
| of the others.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I didn't say "unpackaged" or "unprotected". But I've seen
| the internals of multiple devices that have simple
| plastic wrappers (not hard shells) around the various
| battery cells, with wires connecting those plastic
| wrappers, and they don't have duplicated battery
| electronics, just one set.
| beckingz wrote:
| You mean pouch batteries? Those things are pretty
| durable.
| imtringued wrote:
| I'm not sure how that is relevant to the right of being
| allowed to swap parts. If you can't make parts yourself
| but you can take salvageable parts from a broken device.
| Why should you be prevented from doing this repair? Also,
| why should third party manufacturers be prevented from
| making compatible parts?
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > I'm not sure how that is relevant to the right of being
| allowed to swap parts. If you can't make parts yourself
| but you can take salvageable parts from a broken device.
| Why should you be prevented from doing this repair?
|
| As I stated earlier in this thread, you should absolutely
| have the right to attempt such repairs. I just don't
| believe that there should be requirements to make devices
| use more modular components, at the potential expense of
| other desirable properties.
| nnq wrote:
| > I just don't want to see that reverted to a discrete
| battery design.
|
| WHY?! You'd end up with stuff 3-5mm thicker, but
| basically the same _weight._ Let 's drop the "thinner"
| fetish once and for all, nobody cares about some mm of
| "wasted" space (that usually improves cooling anyway)
| inside a devices case and it being a bit chunkier, as
| long as _it 's almost just as lightwieght!_
|
| Fffs, let's go back to getting gold plated or diamond
| encrusted laptops and watches for _showing off status!_
| That 's way better than the thinner/lighter nonsense...
|
| Sure, getting smth. thinner bc technology actually
| improves (eg. displays) is cool, but shaving micrometers
| by packing everything close together is stupid.
|
| (Oh, and we could start fixing our brains to think the
| same about cases for... people! Eg. housing. Like in kill
| the micro-apparments disease, there's enough room on the
| planet for all to leave confortable... in bigger rooms,
| and with chunkier laptops if that makes them more
| recyclable. "Space" IS mostly "free" ya know - very
| little of Earth's surface is actually usable for stuff
| like agriculture, energy production, mining etc.)
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Firstly there is component level repair, faulty chips on
| a circuitboard can be de-soldered and replaced. It is not
| rocket science, it's perfectly normal level of repair and
| is worthwhile on a $500+ device.
|
| Then there is no phone that literally has a single board,
| there are other components such as the camera, earpiece,
| screen, etc. that are still replaceable.
| kalium_xyz wrote:
| The legislation (at least ones like this) are not implemented
| thoughtlessly. Its likely that just allowing parts which have a
| short service life to be replaced would be enough.
|
| Also anything which is structural is likely not going to be the
| part which maintenance needs to be done on
| TomMarius wrote:
| Would you say GDPR and cookie laws were implemented
| thoughtfully? (not asking if the laws themself are
| thoughtless)
| rndgermandude wrote:
| Yes on GDPR, no on cookie laws.
| dmitriid wrote:
| GDPR was.
|
| Unfortunately there hasn't been any significant follow
| through yet.
|
| Yep. All those dark pattern cookie banners are illegal
| under GDPR.
| simion314 wrote:
| The cookie problem we have is because the sites are
| actually tracking you m so maybe they should have forced to
| say "We are tracking you, please accept". Coockies used for
| actual technical reasons like to store a session ID do not
| need warnings. GDPR improved on that by forcing the
| websites to show me what are collecting and with who are
| sharing the data. I like this transparency, if you want to
| track me then tell me the details and I will decide if I
| visit your page or maybe find a different one.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| Then you'll be out of luck. Same as you cannot legally buy
| leaded fuels in most countries anymore, even tho you might
| prefer them, and same as Bayer will not sell you Heroin(tm) to
| treat your cough anymore.
| fastball wrote:
| Wait so you think you should not be _allowed_ to buy
| "unrepairable" devices?
| tremon wrote:
| Of course you should be allowed that. It's just that no one
| will be allowed to sell you one.
| fastball wrote:
| So... no, you wouldn't be able to.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| Wrong.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| You can buy your stuff in China or whereever if you
| really want to.
|
| And I wouldn't include any used goods sold between actual
| people (not the corporation people) and grandfather in
| any products that were first put on the market before a
| certain date (and make that date a few years in the
| future as a grace period). And maybe even progressively
| introduce different restrictions.
|
| But yes, by and large it has the same effect and yes, I
| think that this effect is to be desired.
| xorcist wrote:
| I for one would love this. It used to be that you got a
| complete circuit schematic when buying a new TV.
|
| Perhaps we don't need to go that far, but just removing the
| moats that prevent people from building compatible hardware
| would go far. That toners include DRM chips just to protect
| consumer unfriendly business models still bothers me. It's
| just e-waste for no good.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| No, I think it should be illegal for companies to sell new
| products. Which has the same net result as a buying ban for
| the new goods markets (and used goods market over time).
|
| Now the question that needs careful consideration is what
| constitutes "unrepairable" legally? It has to be sensible
| and legally ironclad.
| playfool wrote:
| I think so, yes. Think OP does as well.
| efdee wrote:
| Oh, you should be allowed to buy them.
|
| Manufacturers just shouldn't be allowed to produce them.
| kalium_xyz wrote:
| This is bound to result in some interesting new paradigms to get
| around it
| qayxc wrote:
| As far as I can tell,there is indeed a long-term goal behind
| this. The idea to shift the economy towards sustainable
| consumption and a proper circular economy that ideally reduces
| waste close to zero.
|
| Here's the official website of the initiative:
| https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.h...
| zepto wrote:
| Do they have any data at all to support this being a net benefit
| or is it only ideological?
| 76543210 wrote:
| Less new equipment?
|
| But really people bought Apple products and want the company to
| act differently. Don't buy from bad companies and it doesn't
| affect you.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Don't buy from bad companies and it doesn't affect you.
|
| Don't eat at bad restaurant and you won't get poisoned! You
| do not need warranty for your phone, don't buy from bad
| companies. We do not need safety checks for foods and
| medicine just don't buy from bad companies.
|
| The issue is that companies put billions into PR, so even if
| Apple is a bad company it has a good image and it's products
| are a status symbol, the consumers can't compete with those
| billions.
| zepto wrote:
| Yes they can - nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone.
| zepto wrote:
| By data I mean - data to show that there would be less new
| equipment.
|
| Easily repairable equipment could fail more often or have a
| shorter life on average because of the necessary design
| compromises.
|
| Data could show if this is the case.
| firbrook wrote:
| I hope this doesn't result in a GDPR-like effect, but for phones
| instead of websites: "We're sorry, but iPhones aren't available
| in your region" followed by a redirect to google.com
| simion314 wrote:
| Right to repair will eventually appear in US too. Also what
| will your customer think that you won't sell to him unless you
| sigh off the right to repair your broken phone (Apple will not
| repair simple issues instead replacing your phone, this is a
| waste considering that some smart people can open the device
| and fix it if allowed)
| nolok wrote:
| Given the size of the european market and the median wealth in
| it, it won't. And if it did, someone else would quickly come to
| replace whoever left.
|
| Companies don't follow all those regulation for the fun of it,
| they do it because there is a lot more money to gain by doing
| it than by leaving that market.
|
| Also if other jurisdiction don't follow on that (or on GDPR
| too, while we're at it) I don't know how they explain it to
| their citizens. We european are not magical people, we just
| tend to remember a bit more that our govs and laws are there by
| our authority, and to serve our needs.
| asjw wrote:
| I really hope it does
| maest wrote:
| Why?
| pessimizer wrote:
| So I can import a European-standard phone from China that
| allows me to self-repair.
| asjw wrote:
| For a simple reason: if a product is anti consumer rights,
| it's good if it is not sold here in Europe
|
| Toxic kids toys are not sold in Europe, is it bad?
|
| Europe has the right to set their own quality standards,
| companies have the right to not respect them and say
| goodbye to European market
|
| What's wrong with that?
|
| It could also start a new wave of European brands which are
| seriously lacking right now
| rndgermandude wrote:
| I have seen very few sites actually doing this. The only one I
| remember is Chicago Tribune, and I cannot remember any site
| where I didn't just shrug and move on.
|
| Also, Apple in particular cannot really afford to leave the EU.
| About 23% of their profits were generated in the EU in 2019.
| Other big names are in essentially the same boat.
| rrmoelker wrote:
| I come across one site every two weeks or so. Luckily on the
| Reddit forums people usually copy or quote the article.
|
| It's a bit of a nuisance. But overall, I feel this GDPR is
| doing more good than harm.
| gpderetta wrote:
| On the contrary, see Brussel Effect[1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
| jotm wrote:
| On that note, it actually may be everyone but Apple saying
| that. Not sure about the laptops, but at least their iPhones
| are surprisingly repairable compared to Samsung, LG, OnePlus
| and more. And they use recycled metals inside, too.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| it might be difficult to buy all the new ones you need for the
| next couple years.
| pjc50 wrote:
| A primary source referenced:
| https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_ci...
|
| It looks like a "right to repair" for appliances has already been
| adopted. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-
| efficiency/energy-...
|
| Note e.g. the requirements for monitors:
| https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/c-201...
|
| This is in many ways the opposite of the cookie law in that it
| specifies pretty precisely what outcome has to be achieved.
| cs702 wrote:
| When you _buy_ a physical object, such as a home, a car, a shirt,
| or a smartphone, shouldn 't you be be able to repair it, modify
| it however you want, use it for different purposes, loan it to
| friends, sell it to others, and so on -- you know, all the rights
| and benefits associated with the concept of _private ownership_?
| And when you _buy_ a software object, shouldn 't you have the
| same rights and benefits?
| fulafel wrote:
| Nitpicking.. but I think homes are not a good analogy, because
| many/most homes in apartment buildings are owned by the housing
| corporation of the building, or whatever the entity type in in
| the jurisdiction happens to be.
| umvi wrote:
| > shouldn't you be be able to ... modify it however you want
|
| Not necessarily. Consider products that require radios like
| satellite internet transceivers. If you were allowed to "modify
| it however you want" you could easily modify it to put up a
| continuous wave and effectively DoS the satellite gateway,
| causing an outage for all other customers on the entire beam
| which is obviously something the ISP wants to avoid at all
| costs.
|
| Hence, many companies only allow you to lease the transceiver,
| not own. And even if you did literally own it, they obviously
| don't want you modifying it for fear of harming the service of
| other customers.
|
| It's one thing if you buy a toaster and modify your toaster to
| burn cool patterns into your toast. It's quite another if you
| buy a toaster and modify your toaster such that nobody else's
| toaster in the neighborhood works anymore.
| jolmg wrote:
| Shouldn't the restriction be placed on the use of the shared
| resource (the air)? That is, modifying the transceiver should
| be fine on its own.
|
| What I'm trying to point out is that your comment seems to
| suggest restricting users from making any (all)
| modifications, even if they wouldn't affect anyone but
| themselves, because they _might_ make a modification would
| affect others. I think one should be allowed to make any
| modifications as long as they 're made responsible for how
| those modifications affect others. And even if a modification
| _potentially_ (not through every use) negatively affects
| others, they should only face consequences when the use
| actually affected others or went against regulations of the
| shared resource (the air).
| nix0n wrote:
| There's already FCC rules for that sort of thing, it's
| illegal whether you buy, lease, "license", or even build the
| transceiver.
| PureParadigm wrote:
| I'd say it's fine to modify it to be able to do that, as long
| as you don't actually turn it on and make it disrupt other
| people. For example, a car is very capable of crashing into
| people, but even though it can do that we expect people not
| to use cars in that way. Even though cars can be dangerous if
| used irresponsibility, there are legitimate reasons to have
| cars. Similarly, there are legitimate reasons to modify
| radios, and we should just expect people to use them
| responsibly the same way we expect car owners to use their
| cars responsibly.
| teekert wrote:
| Of course if you buy something, change it and start messing
| with other peoples lives you are breaking the law. Doesn't
| really have anything to do with a right to repair.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The obvious flaw in this argument, outside of what others
| have already mentioned (doing that is independently illegal),
| is that you don't _need_ to modify an official device to do
| something like that. Building a radio jammer out of
| fundamental component parts is not a complicated affair.
|
| It's like arguing that people shouldn't be able to modify
| their home batteries because they could use them to purposely
| damage the power grid. That's kind of a ridiculous scenario
| to worry about when the same infrastructure is already
| vulnerable to utterly pedestrian physical sabotage. It's a
| facile rationalization for imposing restrictions that have an
| ulterior motive.
| kmlx wrote:
| > shouldn't you be be able to repair it, modify it however you
| want, use it for different purposes, loan it to friends, sell
| it to others, and so on
|
| all of these are completely different actions, have different
| standing in front of the law, have different repercussions etc
| etc
|
| the way i see these kinds of initiatives: i think they're
| healthy, i think we need them, but i also notice how they're
| from a bygone era where cars where fixed in the driveway. that
| age has passed, and sure, we need a new paradigm. but i still
| wouldn't trust a random person vs a dedicated service center to
| fix my phone. can we make those phones so simple that anyone
| can repair them? would this entail any performance drawbacks?
|
| curios to see where this whole thing leads.
| justinclift wrote:
| > notice how they're from a bygone era where cars where fixed
| in the driveway. that age has passed
|
| Do you feel that age has passed because manufacturers now
| block people having the info needed for repair, or are you
| meaning the complexity of cars has increased?
| ska wrote:
| Honestly, probably a bit of both.
| ska wrote:
| The more impactful and subtle part of this discussion includes
| what constraints, rights and responsibilities does this place
| on manufacture?
|
| If we decide you have an inalienable right to repair the phone
| I made for you, does that mean I have to facilitate it? Does it
| mean I can't put technical barriers in place to make it harder
| for you? Do I have to offer you any sort of support & warrantee
| if you have modified it?
|
| Can I refuse to offer you a sale on the object, and just offer
| a lease? Etc. etc.
| econcon wrote:
| I think if this law is passed, companies will start
| subscription service where you'll be renting phones instead of
| owning then. Then onus and exclusive right for
| repair/replacement will stay with the smartphone company.
| saber6 wrote:
| I am not sure we will return quite to that model. For a trip
| down memory lane: The US specifically had an FCC decision
| (Carterphone - 1978) designed to to remove the leverage that
| landline providers had over the market with regards to
| forcing customers to rent or buy a phone from only them.
|
| Reference article:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/16/business/new-era-for-
| the-...
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| > Then onus and exclusive right for repair/replacement will
| stay with the smartphone company.
|
| No, it's not that simple.
| robert_foss wrote:
| Currently there are tons of non-manufacturer repair shops for
| phones, yet we're not renting phones.
| yoran wrote:
| That's the classic predicted outcome for any new
| regulation... which rarely turns out to be true. Consumers
| will want to buy their own phones and as long as that is
| true, businesses will adapt to the new regulations to satisfy
| this need.
| danShumway wrote:
| If you're currently licensing the software on your phone
| instead of buying a copy of it, then the situation today
| isn't really better.
|
| You pay the full cost of the device, but you don't own it,
| and companies retain the exclusive right for
| repair/replacement. But, they don't have any onus for
| repair/replacement, and you need to pay full price for a new
| device if your current one gets damaged.
|
| An honest rental system might be preferable. At least then
| people would know what they're getting into. At least when I
| rent a device, there's some real obligation for the actual
| owner to fix it when it breaks. At least then companies who
| legitimately sell their devices and don't block repair
| efforts would have a marketing edge.
|
| By all means, let people rent software. Just make sure
| companies are correctly marketing that as a rental.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Aren't we just allowing the idea of licensing contract
| overwhelm ourselves for little reasons?
|
| When you buy a book, you own the hardware but not IP.
| You're "licensed a nonexclusive irrevocable right to use,
| that allows reverse engineering but without sublicensing
| clauses" aka you can't xerox the full book and sell it for
| $5. When you buy a sandwich, same except hardware can be
| eaten.
|
| Really the deal of "mandatory licensed" software is that
| you can't pirate it, and that should already be covered by
| laws. It should not require a million page contract and
| those contract mustn't be much more than blank pages.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Licensing is not the same as purchasing. I don't think banning
| the concept of licensing would be helpful.
| emiliobumachar wrote:
| I think it would be very helpful to demand that all leases
| are labeled properly. Where we are it says "Buy" on the ad,
| "Buy" on the button, and "Lease" deep inside the 30-page
| Terms Of Service.
|
| It's very reasonable to say that the vendors created an
| expectation of ownership to push their sale.
|
| If you didn't notice that I called them "vendors" instead of
| "leasers", it adds to my point.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _I don't think banning the concept of licensing would be
| helpful._
|
| Other things being equal, I would agree. However, if market
| forces push us into a choice between ordinary people being
| able to own things and use them freely against ordinary
| people being forced to pay rent on everything forever and use
| things only as some higher power dictates, it's not going to
| take long to make that choice. This is the choice that we are
| heading towards with the increasing use of software and, in
| particular, the repurposing of laws originally intended to
| prevent exploiting the work of others to create software so
| that they constrain the ordinary use of a product by the
| person who bought it.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Withing the next 10-15 years 95% of household appliances and
| furniture will have a chip in them, to enable some type of
| IoT functionality.
|
| All of them will be licensed, almost abolishing private
| ownership. If we idly accept licensing of everything, we will
| enjoy what will be basically serfdom.
|
| People that were writing these laws never imagined they would
| prevent you from repairing a cat-feeder or a lighting system.
| They were intended for another purpose entirely. Maybe it's
| time we stopped misusing those laws and created a separate
| body of law for this specifically.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Withing the next 10-15 years 95% of household appliances
| and furniture will have a chip in them, to enable some type
| of IoT functionality.
|
| This is already happening. I work in an engineering
| consulting, specialising on consumer electronics. I have to
| admit, the wider industry is becoming a part of the issue:
| everybody wants to become like Apple.
|
| We have an enormous tide of new clients incoming, with
| prime majority of them having no previous experience doing
| anything with electronics whatsoever.
|
| If we ignore customers with out in the clouds fantasies, we
| will be losing like 3/4 of the new business, on another, we
| will be loosing our engineers who will be leaving to work
| on something more interesting and merit worthy.
|
| The hottest buzzword among Silicon Valley accelerator bred
| entrepreneurs I see is "product-as-a-service," which
| basically you buying a product, but still having to pay to
| use it even after you already own it.
|
| We have a joke that soon even toilet paper rolls will come
| chipped, and the paper will not work unless you pay
| somebody on the internet.
| nradov wrote:
| Agreed on appliances, but I don't believe that 95% of new
| furniture like tables and couches will contain an IoT chip
| within 15 years. Hardly anyone is working on that.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > I don't believe that 95% of new furniture like tables
| and couches will contain an IoT chip within 15 years.
| Hardly anyone is working on that.
|
| Unfortunately not: https://futureiot.tech/ikea-sets-up-
| smart-home-business-unit...
| imtringued wrote:
| I don't think banks would be happy if someone returned their
| "tuned" car after the lease ended.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| When you lease a car, you do not own it. The bank owns the
| car and depending on the country of residence, the
| dealership is possibly on the hook for a guaranteed buyout
| price. The lessee is certainly not allowed to "tune" the
| car without the consent of the bank/dealership. They are
| usually not even allowed to service it anywhere but at an
| authorized garage.
|
| This is different from outright purchase of the car, where
| you can literally drive it to the nearest scrap yard and
| have it crushed right after purchase :)
| falcolas wrote:
| > This is different from outright purchase of the car
|
| Even this right is being eroded - see Tesla. You can
| drive it to the scrap yard, but someone else can't always
| drive it back out.
| ajayyy wrote:
| That's Tesla, which is one of the targets of right to
| repair
| cs702 wrote:
| I didn't even mention the words "licensing" and "banning."
|
| If a house, a car, a shirt, or a phone is offered to you _for
| sale_ , and you _buy_ it, then you should _own_ it.
|
| FWIW, I agree with you. Please don't attack a straw-man!
| mpol wrote:
| Please don't feel attacked.
|
| You mentioned buying a software product, but that is not
| commonly done by consumers. We all license software. Buying
| software means buying the copyright and become owner of it.
| The replies mention changing software copyright for
| consumer products. I can imagine that to be a good idea,
| but I don't see the EU making GPLv3 software mandatory for
| software products. I don't see a way forward yet.
| danShumway wrote:
| What does the GPLv3 have to do with any of this?
| Copyleft-licensing software doesn't mean the original
| author gives up any of their own copyright privileges.
| How do you think dual licensing works?
|
| > Buying software means buying the copyright and become
| owner of it.
|
| No, when people use the word "buy" here, they're using it
| in the same way I might buy a physical book.
|
| When I buy a book, I'm free to write in it, scan it,
| transcribe it, rip it in half, reglue the spine, put a
| dust cover on it, or resell it. I'm not free to republish
| it or violate the author's copyright.
|
| When I buy a piece of software, I should be free to
| hotpatch the DLL, back up the product, put wrappers
| around it, examine it, write about it, or resell it. That
| doesn't mean the owner should lose their copyright.
| You're conflating two unrelated concepts -- the abolition
| of copyright and the erosion of basic consumer ownership
| rights that have been established for centuries.
|
| In fact, the EU already has a right to resale for digital
| software. And yet, despite that consumer-friendly rule,
| not every piece of software in the EU is currently GPLv3
| licensed.
|
| All that people are saying is that our rights as
| consumers shouldn't go away just because we bought a
| digital book instead of a physical one.
| narag wrote:
| In the context of software bundled with a device, the
| software should be considered accesory if the device
| needs it to be useful for its main purpose. Often
| software is used instead of a chip because it's cheaper,
| easier to correct mistakes, more flexible in general. But
| the hardware is _sold_ , and so the accesory software
| should not be used as an excuse to apply the license
| model to physical products.
| bitbldr wrote:
| I think what previous comment was getting at is, most (all)
| of the time you buy a license to software, not the software
| itself
| jasode wrote:
| _> I didn't even mention the words "licensing" and
| "banning."_
|
| Even if you don't mention them explicitly, you still have
| to acknowledge the difference because one of your examples
| was _" software object"_.
|
| When consumers pay money for software, it almost always
| _licensed_ and not _bought_. If you buy MS Windows 10 from
| Amazon.com, you purchased a _license_. If you truly want to
| "buy" Windows 10 in the same sense as your other non-
| software examples, you'd have to convince Microsoft to sell
| you the "ownership of the codebase" or have enough billions
| to acquire the entire Microsoft corporation to "own"
| Windows 10.
| jablan wrote:
| Expecting to get a "codebase" when buying a software
| product would be the same as expecting getting blueprints
| for all the parts your car is made of. The concept of
| "buying a licence" is forced and by no means the only
| possible, if one wants to use a piece of software.
| jasode wrote:
| I wasn't saying that consumers _" expect"_ the source
| code when they so-called "buy" the software. I'm
| explaining an example of what copyright law already _is_
| so mentioning "software objects" is already getting into
| discussion of _licenses_ even if you don 't use
| explicitly use the word "license". There are 2 meanings:
|
| - "buy software" the _legal ownership_ sense : as in
| buying the copyright which is usually something companies
| (not consumers) do when they buy the intellectual
| property rights. E.g. Adobe Inc buys Macromedia
| Dreamweaver. This is the true ownership.
|
| - "buy software" the casual sense : which just means the
| consumer getting a CD or a digital download to install a
| copy of the software. This the _license_ not the
| ownership.
|
| They are 2 different things that use the same word _"
| buy"_ and just because a commentary _omits_ the word
| "license" doesn't mean the above distinctions go away.
|
| It's a similar distinction for many types of intellectual
| property. Photographers of weddings usually don't let
| couples _buy_ the wedding photos in a legal ownership
| sense. Instead, they sell some prints with a _license_
| for use. Same with musicians selling "songs" to the
| public. People bought a license and not the copyright.
| Paul McCartney doesn't even "own" the songs he wrote with
| The Beatles. Thus, Paul McCartney can't do "anything he
| wants" with the song "Yesterday". He can't "resell the
| song" to somebody else like a used book. Instead, he has
| to ask for Sony's permission.
|
| Does anyone "force" couples to license photos instead of
| buy them? In one sense, no. The bride & groom could
| conceivably contract with a photographer on a _" work for
| hire"_ basis and thus own the copyrights to the photos.
| But most couples don't do that. Newspapers and magazines
| do establish "work for hire" with freelance photographers
| so they can _own_ the photographs but most wedding
| couples don 't.
|
| As other commenters mentioned, the real issue is the
| slippery word _" buy"_ that defies consumers' natural
| intuition of what that means. If you're really
| leasing/renting/licensing something, you need to make
| that clear.
| 9HZZRfNlpR wrote:
| We don't have to accept it, people aka the power of majority
| does the rules. I see no benefits or the people shilling it
| are doing a bad job. Either way it's for us to accept it or
| make the concepts.
| mathnovice wrote:
| You are wrong. While the majority can create the rules the
| people that matter aren't the majority but creators and
| skilled professionals. When someone creates something they
| have absolute power over it until they reveal it to the
| world. They can even choose to destroy what they create
| rather than reveal it.
|
| When the majority (consumers) decide they want everything
| for free and that they want absolute power over the
| creations of others creators will simply stop revealing
| what they create and stop making their creations available
| for purchase. Instead creating things for private use.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > When someone creates something they have absolute power
| over it until they reveal it to the world.
|
| The vast majority of these "creators and skilled
| professionals" are doing work for hire for the same
| people who own everything else, and have absolutely no
| control over the product of their labor.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether the creator underwrites their
| own costs or a corporation does it, the same problem
| applies. If those who fund creative works cannot collect
| returns on their investment they will stop funding the
| work.
| bluGill wrote:
| I own my home, but I'm not allowed to pour oil on the ground
| even though it would only destroy my own grass. I own my car,
| but I'm not allowed to remove the headlights and drive at
| night.
|
| Exactly where we place the limits is up for debate, but I think
| I conclusively proved to everybody reading this that there need
| to be limits the only question is where.
| cs702 wrote:
| Of course, but note that in both of your examples those
| limits are in place to make sure you don't inflict
| significant costs or damages on the rest of humankind. The
| limits you mention prevent you from making roads unsafe for
| everyone else at night and from poisoning the ground on which
| everyone else lives.
| magduf wrote:
| One distinction I see is between repair and modification.
|
| If you own your car, and the headlight burns out, why
| shouldn't you be allowed to repair it back to the original
| factory state? Why should you be forced to pay someone else
| to do this?
|
| If someone tries to argue that you're going to do it wrong,
| it seems like the onus should be on them to prove that your
| repair was bad and dangerous.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| It would be more accurately stated:
|
| I am allowed to remove my headlights, but I'm not allowed to
| drive on the roads if I have removed my headlights. The
| restriction is on roads.
| herbstein wrote:
| You're completely right. The distinction is that it's not the
| firm building your house forbidding you from pouring oil on
| the grass. It's government regulation. The same approach
| should be towards people, as an example, modifying the radio
| in their phones.
| ajayyy wrote:
| You are allowed to remove the headlights, you just can't
| drive it on public roads
| robert_foss wrote:
| I understand what you are saying, but pouring oil into the
| ground or driving without headlights is against the common
| interests of most people.
|
| Being able to repair things is very different, it is _in_ the
| common interest and likely against the interests of the
| manufacturers.
| chongli wrote:
| Well, there are potential issues with people repairing
| their own phones. They could use the wrong (or counterfeit)
| part and cause the phone to emit radiation that interferes
| with nearby communications. Or they could use the wrong (or
| counterfeit) battery or even damage the battery during
| replacement, potentially causing a fire hazard.
| robert_foss wrote:
| Typically people aren't replacing the antennas or radio
| amps, so I'd keep the radiation issue in the theoretical
| bin.
|
| As for bad parts and bad repair jobs, sure. I would think
| that owners are incentivized to buy parts that are safe
| and to install them correctly. Of course some battery
| batches will be bad, but that's true for authentic parts
| too. Remember the Samsung Note battery issues?
| simion314 wrote:
| The purpose is not for you to fix your phone motherboard,
| a competent repair person with access to tools,
| schematics and repair software would do that. If bad
| quality of batteries are on the market the solution for
| fixing that is not to prevent people replacing the phone
| batteries, it would be like if bad petrol is sold
| somewhere and then car manufacturers use it as an excuse
| to force you to buy "genuime petrol" so your engine would
| continue to work.
|
| Also if we want to prevent fires because of batteries
| then we should make Apple products illegal because it
| happened that Apple products had issues too
| https://support.apple.com/15-inch-macbook-pro-battery-
| recall
| bo1024 wrote:
| I think this discussion got off-track. The question is about
| whether the company that sold you the car is allowed to
| impose EULA-type limits on how you modify, use, or resell it,
| above and beyond safety laws that apply equally to ever
| person and product.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| > I own my car, but I'm not allowed to remove the headlights
| and drive at night.
|
| The issue there is driving at night on public roads. You can,
| with your own car, remove your headlights. The car
| manufacturer can't show up and sue you for that.
|
| > I'm not allowed to pour oil on the ground even though it
| would only destroy my own grass
|
| That's not the only thing it would destroy (ground water,
| local wildlife, etc). You _are_ allowed to style your hedges
| in the shape of a middle finger, or pluck all your grass out
| blade by blade (save for any HOA restrictions you agreed to).
| jolmg wrote:
| > I own my home, but I'm not allowed to pour oil on the
| ground even though it would only destroy my own grass.
|
| I believe there are technical differences in how ownership of
| the land works in different jurisdictions throughout the
| world. The land or the earth below your grass might not be as
| _yours_ as an article of clothing you 're wearing.
| olivermarks wrote:
| I think the world wants 'right to repair', not just Europe.
| rv-de wrote:
| Heads up for OnePlus coming ...
|
| Few weeks ago I decided to switch to Lineage OS. For that I
| bought a used OnePlus 3T on EBay. Now the exceptional fact about
| OnePlus is that they provide official repair service even for
| relatively old phones. Most recent model is OP 7T.
|
| https://www.oneplus.com/de/support/repair-pricing/details?co...
|
| Replacement of the battery cost in total 40 Euro. That's shipping
| back and forth, the battery and the replacement. Very much
| impressed me how fast that procedure took. altogether only 4
| days. How awesome is that?
|
| Works fantastic.
| kabdib wrote:
| I'd like to have standard rechargeable batteries in products. Not
| necessarily "hot" swappable (though that would be nice for
| devices like cellphones). But at least available in standard
| forms, and replaceable by someone with a screwdriver in a few
| minutes.
|
| I'm sick of "renting" batteries that are permanently installed in
| devices that would otherwise work for tens of years, but their
| batteries wear out after only a few years. I'm sick of paying
| inflated prices for batteries that have bizarre configurations
| and that go out of production.
|
| I understand there are significant engineering challenges for
| some things (e.g., earbuds that are basically some electronics
| wrapped around a lithium cell). But there's no reason a set of
| headphones couldn't have a replaceable cell (I'm looking at you,
| Bose). I'm happy to have slightly heavier headphones and slightly
| thicker laptops and tablets if it increases the device lifetime
| and reduces e-waste.
|
| Not gonna happen without a mandate, that's for sure. Gotta keep
| customers on the upgrade treadmill.
| droithomme wrote:
| Most rechargeables seem to have standard cells, but they are
| welded together in a weird proprietary package. Technically
| though they have standard rechargeables.
|
| Another issue is I don't want batteries in my keyboard, mouse,
| or electric razor. All these things I use next to another thing
| with a power source. It's pointless to have them be
| rechargeable. Yet it's becoming harder and harder to find
| keyboards, mice, and razors that are wired. Cordless mice in
| particular are a blight on society because the extra weight of
| the batteries aggravates carpal-tunnel and is a health hazard.
| droithomme wrote:
| > I'm sick of "renting" batteries that are permanently
| installed in devices that would otherwise work for tens of
| years, but their batteries wear out after only a few years.
|
| Also alarming is all the Apple crap where the hard drive, that
| lasts at most 2 years, is impossible to replace without great
| risk to the device, special replacement gaskets, etc, and when
| you do it turns out the original had a proprietary temperature
| sensor that means your replacement dies in 6 months.
|
| RAM welded to the motherboard on general purpose computers is
| another design horror that harms the environment and should be
| banned. All RAM should be upgradable on devices that cost more
| than $1000.
|
| Also the era of cell phones without SD slots must end.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Also alarming is all the Apple crap where the hard drive,
| that lasts at most 2 years
|
| Source? I've never experienced this using even low quality
| hard drives. If you're including SSDs, then between 15 to 20
| Apple products over the past decade plus have not had an
| issue within 2 years.
| abawany wrote:
| I agree. I have an older mbp with a glued battery and trying to
| get it replaced has been horrendous. Apple Store wants a lot of
| money and they then 'forgot' to call me when I went in with an
| appointment resulting in a bunch of wasted time, the authorized
| independent shops are super hobbled in that they have to keep
| the laptop for days and order a battery, and the online market
| for replacement batteries has been shady. It is plain and
| simple planned obsolescence and I really despise it. Edit: my
| personal laptop, a HP Elite X360, has a user-replaceable
| battery - I wish I could persuade my work to let me use/buy
| another for work stuff. Edit2: text fixes.
| fragmede wrote:
| How much are you willing to pay for such batteries? For larger
| electronics that take double A batteries, this exists, but at a
| premium! These things are lithium-whatever and USB rechargable,
| but at $5 per, easy to dismiss. While dismissing them, consider
| where the "those don't count" retort is coming from. It's fair
| to point out that electronics have gotten small enough to the
| point that they don't fit AA batteries any more, but these
| batteries haven't taken over in situations where they are
| available, so even if they came in AAAA (quadruple-A size -
| like what's inside of a 9-volt) size that were usable in
| smaller electronics, I doubt the market would decide they are
| better.
|
| Worse is better, and in this case, the iPhone, and everyone
| copying its permanently installed battery, is worse.
|
| https://amazon.com/AA-Batteries-Rechargeable-ECO-Friendly-
| Re...?
| kabdib wrote:
| I'm happy to pay a reasonable amount to replace a failing
| rechargeable battery. If it's 20 or 30 bucks to get another
| three years out of a pair of wireless headphones, okay. I
| suspect that with standardized cells (perhaps a few dozen
| sizes? certainly more than the gamut of A/AA/AAA/C/D etc
| cells we currently have in the consumerverse, because device
| form factors vary widely) they would be cheaper.
|
| But having to essentially _defeat_ an end-user-hostile
| industrial design should be strongly discouraged.
|
| I can dream.
| kevin2r wrote:
| Even with Apple earbuds battery could be easily replaceable if
| the cylindrical part of the piece was screw-able to the top.
| Just like a flashlight.
| amelius wrote:
| > Not necessarily "hot" swappable
|
| "Hot swappable" usually means you can swap it while the machine
| is turned on. At least, that's how people use the term when
| talking about harddrives.
| arghwhat wrote:
| That's always what it means--"hot" means "on"/"operating".
|
| Hot-swapping a battery works by replacing a battery while the
| device operates from a secondary power source (e.g. charger
| or secondary battery).
| kabdib wrote:
| Yeah, I mis-spoke.
|
| Swappable is better.
| pelasaco wrote:
| We want to have the right to repair it, but we still want to buy
| it from China and pay no more than 50 bucks on that.
| globile wrote:
| It is not only manufacturers. Cellphone Network Operators are
| part of the problem.
|
| Our B2B customers are in many cases Network operators.
|
| Occasionally they request tens of thousands of unlock/repair
| requests for phones from competing networks for which they have
| won an enterprise tender.
|
| Love/Hate relationship.
| diablo1 wrote:
| I bought a few dumbphones from Amazon because I am scared that
| smartphones will be so pervasive and that dumbphones will be
| slowly phased out and you will be unable to buy them anymore.
| Smartphones are difficult to repair because the circuitry is
| hermetically sealed and you need specialist tools to open them up
| and tinker. Dumbphones, not so much. The parts are accessible and
| can be swapped out with working parts easily.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Might be better off to buy phones specifically designed for
| that, e.g. PinePhone or Librem 5.
| boudin wrote:
| The Fairphone is also quite good for that
| yakovdk wrote:
| Thanks for posting this -- I hadn't heard of the Librem 5,
| and it's fascinating.
| Jagat wrote:
| There's a market for that geared towards senior citizens (they
| show up in daytime tv ads).
|
| They'll exist as long as there's a market for it.
|
| That said, the definition of 'dumb' phone is going to vary, and
| senior citizens in 30 years will be seeking what looks like
| today's iPhone, or an android phone. Maybe.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| I bet we move to a different medium that is easier on seniors
| bodies. Many seniors complain they can't see the screen and
| their dexterity isn't good enough to use smart phones easily.
| Judging based on my anecdotal experience with the elderly and
| those needing accommodations speech to text, text to speech,
| accessibility features and airplay are commonly used and I
| think this trend will continue.
| nix0n wrote:
| Do you mean "feature phones" or landlines?
| OJFord wrote:
| I haven't heard 'feature phones' since I used to read
| consumer electronics news sites (like Engadget, then This is
| my Next/The Verge) years ago.
|
| I don't think anyone else uses the term; to the layman,
| they're 'dumb phones', to contrast with 'smart' (although
| increasinly 'smart phones' are just 'phones').
|
| Or since those are American sites, perhaps it's actually a
| variation of regional colloquialisms.
| harrier wrote:
| Feature phones have capabilities beyond just making
| calls/sms but less capabilities than smart phones.
| catalogia wrote:
| "Flip phone" is another common term (for those that fold
| anyway.)
| nradov wrote:
| Only a few feature phones (dumb phones) even support 4G LTE. If
| you buy a phone without LTE support then it will become useless
| once carriers switch off their 3G GSM / CDMA base stations.
| [deleted]
| Shivetya wrote:
| Depending on how this is handled it could backfire and we end up
| with more pollution as people discard used parts. For some items,
| like adding easily swap of batteries may open the devices to
| easier contamination. However if right to repair is contained to
| authorized repair centers; which is currently how warranties are
| preserved in many countries; then it might still pass provided
| someone with the right tools can do it safely.
|
| As for the software side this may be a tough one as many times a
| change in chipset can make features available in newer models
| that are not in older models and the real question is, how far
| back must they provided like software upgrades that new models
| have? iOS goes back quite a ways, is that not enough now? That my
| prior iMac no longer had support from Nvidia (2013 model) is
| whose fault? Apple's or Nvidias?
|
| What people need to understand is that replacement parts may
| involve complete assemblies because there is no feasible means to
| replace some of the pieces in common tablets and phones. So take
| a dryer, you might need to replace an entire motor but depending
| on how the regulation is written that may not be sufficient.
|
| tl;dr it all sounds well and good until those who have no
| understanding of repair start writing regulations that could lead
| to less reliable items, more electronics and batteries in the
| trash, and even most costly items.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| There is a world of difference between technical obstacles and
| deliberate ones. Apple structures their contracts so that the
| manufacturer is not allowed to sell components to any third
| parties, making repair impossible. You could be forced to throw
| out a five grand laptop because you are not allowed to buy a $5
| chip, that can be easily replaced.
|
| Watch this testimony.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLIW7mQ8CI4
| jaybeeayyy wrote:
| I was looking for a video of mah bout Louis! He's so
| informative and I love watching his streams...I had no idea
| what right to repair was until I saw him talk about it.
|
| It's insane how much power we let companies like apple have
| over products we purchase from them.
| Silhouette wrote:
| There are several arguments in that comment that are fair and
| reasonable, sometimes. However, they tend to be the exception
| rather than the rule. We should not allow owner-hostile vendors
| to hide behind them as excuses for measures like lock-in
| mechanisms and planned obsolescence that are not necessary.
|
| If an item really does have the potential to become harmful in
| some way if it is not properly used and maintained, the burden
| should be on the vendor and/or manufacturer to demonstrate that
| in order to justify any restrictions on its use or maintenance.
| Such demonstrations and restrictions should be subject to
| regulatory oversight by consumer protection agencies or similar
| bodies. If they are found to be unjustified by a competent
| authority then the burden should be on the vendor and/or
| manufacturer to either make things right or compensate those
| who bought the product (including reasonable consequential
| losses, not just the purchase price).
| Funes- wrote:
| Being guaranteed the right to repair from every manufacturer is
| great and, more importantly, much needed. Nonetheless, most
| people abide by the culture fabricated by those very
| corporations, which is defined by an annual release cycle of
| devices which are minimally upgraded deliberately, their selling
| point usually being something visibly different from the previous
| year's smartphones--currently, being foldable or having a
| gazillion lenses on its back. If the users keep falling for those
| kinds of tricks and spending a whole month of their salary to buy
| a phone every year, the status quo isn't going to change. Of
| course, an easier way to recycle our phones wouldn't hurt,
| either. Even forcing companies to recycle first, manufacturing
| new components from scratch only if absolutely necessary, would
| be a beneficial measure, I reckon.
| jka wrote:
| Assuming high-tech early adopters continue to buy new devices
| as they are released, repairability and recyclability can still
| make a large difference to the secondary market for refurbished
| and reused devices.
|
| If devices are locked down and become 'bricks' once their
| original owner is finished with them -- then they're unable to
| provide any more value.
|
| Alternatively if they can be erased, upgraded and continue to
| function -- and ideally share components with other devices --
| then the device and production cost continue to generate value.
|
| We have a problem with quantifying and justifying that 'second-
| order value' since we often think only of the initial
| consumer's payment (be it one-time or recurring).
| simion314 wrote:
| Not everybody is changing the phone or computers as often. Say
| if someone gifts me an old iPhone and the battery is getting
| old I do not have any Apple store around to replace it, I will
| be forced to trash a working phone because sending it to the
| country capital for an approved person to install an approved
| battery is probably more expensive then buying a new phone.
| lttlrck wrote:
| It wouldn't make much sense to trash it when the alternative
| is a battery installed by unapproved person. Or donate it
| yourself.
| Silhouette wrote:
| The cycle _can_ be broken, though. Look at PC sales these days.
| PCs became good enough to meet most people 's everyday home or
| office needs, and hardly anyone upgrades automatically every
| 2-3 years any more unless they genuinely need more powerful
| hardware.
|
| Meanwhile, aggressive marketing particularly to impressionable
| younger customers has kids and those who influence them raving
| about a notch or a third camera or whatever it is this week,
| even though the benefits of these relatively small changes are
| often negligible. This seems to be more of a cultural problem,
| possibly with a side order of exploiting vulnerable targets in
| dubiously ethical ways, than a technical problem.
| Funes- wrote:
| >This seems to be more of a cultural problem, possibly with a
| side order of exploiting vulnerable targets in dubiously
| ethical ways, than a technical problem.
|
| That's exactly what I've said on my previous comment:
|
| >The _culture_ fabricated by those very corporations
| amelius wrote:
| How is the "right to repair" different from "I want access to the
| design documents, source code and the entire supply chain for
| spare parts"? Where do we draw the line?
| oblio wrote:
| Oh, come on. Are we actually going to be on the side of these
| huge corps that nickel and dime us for everything? There's
| better hills to die on.
| listsfrin wrote:
| The article says this is needed in order to reduce greenhouse
| emissions. I don't feel that's true. In my country in Europe
| nothing is done to reduce pollution from the cars and plastic
| usage. Year after year more products are built with plastic
| instead of glass or metal.
| jotm wrote:
| Are you sure? I mean, European directives are not always
| implemented perfectly, but all countries do try to. It may be
| that your country is doing something, it's just not noticeable,
| yet. This is long term stuff, results are only apparent years
| or decades after the laws come into effect.
| listsfrin wrote:
| I live in my country and I know some things about it. Germany
| allows people to sell old cars in Eastern Europe. My country
| will take those cars without any limits. This is the Europe
| that I'm living in.
|
| Crossing the street in the morning is an exercise of how long
| can you hold your breath.
| jotm wrote:
| Yeah they need to have stricter emissions tests. To be
| fair, I've seen plenty of surprisingly old cars in the UK,
| which literally billowed smoke and were visibly rusted...
| So it's not only Eastern Europe with these problems.
|
| Personally I prefer used imported cars, as well haha. It's
| just, if it passes technical inspection and emission tests,
| why not? An 8 year old VW or Toyota with all the options
| that's been well kept for 7000 Euros seems better to me
| than a 16,000 Euro new base model.
|
| For getting around a city, public transport is good enough,
| though.
|
| Another problem is just the number of cars - many cities
| have more cars than they can handle. Hopefully more cities
| will ban diesel cars or all cars in some parts...
|
| Things are changing, slowly.
| geolgau wrote:
| Romania or Bulgaria?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| My country also buys used cars off Germany, because people
| here kind of can't afford brand new ones.
| clarry wrote:
| Same thing in Finland. There are new cars here and there
| but if you take a stroll around a dealership's lot, there
| are lots of cars shipped from Germany that have been used
| for a few years.
|
| I think the average age of a registered vehicle here is
| around 10 years; it's not uncommon at all to see >20yo
| cars in local traffic and parking lots.
| jotm wrote:
| Really depends on their condition when purchased, but 15+
| year old cars is pushing it. Not worth buying imo, but I
| guess as long as they're allowed people will buy them. I
| think the taxes are higher on really old cars?
| clarry wrote:
| There are people who simply can't afford or don't want to
| put any more than a few thousand eur into a car. The
| other thing is that you can buy a 10-year-old car that is
| in good condition, and drive it as long as its lasts..
| which can be many many years. (My first car was about 20
| years old when I got it for free, and my current car was
| more than 10 years old when I bought it -- now about 13
| years, and still feels almost like brand new to me :P)
|
| Taxes are higher depending on emissions, but it's rarely
| enough to offset the purchase price. For example, if you
| buy a stinky 90s car that emits 200gCO2/100km, tax would
| be around 300 eur/year today. A new car that emits
| 120g/100km is going to be somewhere around 150 eur.
| pas wrote:
| Most Eastern European countries are actually doing well
| compared to the big wealthy countries in terms of CO2. (Not
| necessarily in terms of other air quality stuff.)
|
| https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
| maps/indicators/greenhous... [see fig 4 about targets for
| 2020 and actual changes in emissions for 2017 and 2018]
| listsfrin wrote:
| CO2 is fine. The particles from the exhaust are the
| problem. Did you ever smell an intersection with 20-so
| diesel cars in it?
| pas wrote:
| Yeah. :/ I can't wait for banning ICE vehicles from
| cities.
| ptsneves wrote:
| Most likely a coal problem than cars. At least in Poland
| and most likely Czech Republic and Slovakia where lignite
| coal is abundant.
| simion314 wrote:
| I am thinking that extracting metals from mines is also
| polluting, the big issue with plastic is the fact is
| contaminating waters, for CO2 emissions the major problem is
| the burning of oil/petrol and I think construction(creating
| cement creates a lot of CO2).
|
| About glass, some people say that sicne glass is heavy you will
| use more fuel to move it around(I have no idea if this is
| true).
| listsfrin wrote:
| Then maybe they should strive to recycle instead to repair.
| simion314 wrote:
| It depends, most of the time the issue is a small component
| from a big system failing. This large companies should not
| block a competent repairman to diagnose and replace the
| broken part. I am not asking companies to make Lego phones
| just don't block people with DRM,copyright and supply chain
| restrictions.
| listsfrin wrote:
| They block competent repairman? Or they ask money for
| competent repair?
| simion314 wrote:
| Apple does not allow the companies that make chips from
| their laptops to also sell those chips for people that
| want to repair this laptops. So this repair people need
| to "illegally" obtain the chips from someone at the
| factory.
|
| Apple also threatens you with lawyers if you host or
| share schematics for repairing products. The new repair
| partner program from Apple is also a joke and created to
| appear they are trying to fix the problem.
| listsfrin wrote:
| Maybe it's a joke to you. For me it's fine. People pay
| real money in order to have Apple quality. If all you
| need is "a computer", go ahead, there's plenty around any
| corner.
|
| Any merchant of quality products would suffer greatly if
| everyone is allowed to sell stuff in its name.
| californical wrote:
| There's a big difference between someone saying "I'm a
| repair shop that is capable of fixing Ford vehicles" and
| "I'm an official Ford Certified repair shop". Both are
| _allowed_ to fix your car. The third party shop can order
| parts to repair your car.
|
| And nobody curses Ford's name when they go to a crappy
| shop and spend $2 on a new headlight that fails in a
| week. That's the shop's fault.
|
| Nobody is saying anyone can call their junk an "official
| apple product". Why would this not be the same as the car
| scenario? If you don't want to risk issues, don't go to
| sketchy repair shops.
| schrijver wrote:
| Companies often have the monopoly on repair for their
| products because they don't make the parts and diagnostic
| tools available. Yes, they ask money for repair, but
| there also plenty of repairs they flat out refuse to do.
| Apple refuses to repair phones with water damage for
| example. Repairs that repair shops might be happy to do,
| if they had the access to parts.
| listsfrin wrote:
| How do you repair water damage? Look at the colour of the
| motherboard and declare it's fine?
|
| Besides that, most Apple phones since 2016 or so are
| water resistant.
| rrmoelker wrote:
| Scrape off rust, replace chips that have been shorted.
|
| Does depend on chips being available and some knowledge
| on how to diagnose the damages (e.g.: board schematics).
|
| Here's an example of new age Macbook pro's dying from
| little water ingress (design oversight). And a
| combination of knowledge and a simple chip can fix your
| nearly write off Macbook.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jahtu1_idVU
| listsfrin wrote:
| Manual work like that should be more expensive than
| buying new.
| rrmoelker wrote:
| "should be"? I can see how it's more expensive now. But I
| think that as a collective having things repaired is
| preferred.
|
| For most manufactures the incentives now is to minimize
| repairability. Increasing the repair cost.
|
| Having some regulation in place to limit repairability
| prevention may tip the scale a bit towards repairing.
| danShumway wrote:
| I would be very surprised if Rossman charged more for
| that repair than the cost of a new Macbook.
|
| Apple loves to say that their products are so expensive
| and complicated that manual repairs just aren't worth
| doing. But observably, in the real world, even with all
| of the crap Apple puts in front of repair shops to slow
| them down, that isn't true. Third-party repairpeople
| still manage to regularly beat Apple's prices.
| adrianN wrote:
| They already do: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Elec
| trical_and_Electro...
|
| It's always better to avoid throwing something away by
| repairing it that trying to recycle it.
| catalogia wrote:
| Reduce, re-use, recycle, IN THAT ORDER.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| You seem uninformed about multiple EU initiatives, we've been
| deploying reneables, cleaning up the grid, etc. Our car
| emissions standards are much stricter than US/China/Russia.
| Unlike in the US, exporting plastic to the third world is
| actually illegal. And plastic is a distinct and separate
| problem to CO2.
|
| Here is an example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gacGuWjqKco&t=579s
|
| You could still argue they are not doing enough, but at least
| some credit is due.
| listsfrin wrote:
| I'm uninformed about the place were I live? I don't know what
| I smell every day, going to and back to work? You have quite
| some nerve ;)
|
| Let me tell you some stories about illegal stuff.
|
| A few days ago you could smell chemicals in the air every
| morning. In the middle of the city. There was a big scandal
| and they said UK exported their shit here. European style.
| Nothing really came off of it.
|
| Money talks.
| lm28469 wrote:
| So the logic is that we shouldn't do anything because nothing
| has been done yet ?
|
| Europe probably has the strictest car emissions laws (so strict
| manufacturers have to cheat to comply with it), and many of its
| country banned single use plastic bags, straws, &c.
| listsfrin wrote:
| Maybe on paper they do. In reality you pay 20 Euro as bribe
| and you can get away with anything.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| "people are corrupted therefore europe bad"
| listsfrin wrote:
| The laws are nothing if they are not enforced.
| lm28469 wrote:
| You should look into VW's scandal and check how much they
| got fined. Last time I checked it was multiple billions.
| Something like 10%+ of their annual profit.
|
| The only thing you might get away with is bribing a cop for
| a speeding ticket in some rural part of an eastern EU
| country. Anything else will eventually be discovered and
| you'll be fined accordingly.
|
| I could understand your personal point of view if you live
| east of Poland though.
| listsfrin wrote:
| I'm not sure what's so bad east of Poland but I'm not
| there.
|
| However, as I said, with a small bribe you can take out
| any particle filter here. It's common knowledge.
|
| Besides that, did those VW cars got banned from the
| streets? No! Does VW pay for my health issues? No! Those
| money are normal taxes to conduct business in Europe.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > I'm not sure what's so bad east of Poland but I'm not
| there
|
| It's known for being a bit less strict and a bit more
| corrupt than the west. At least from what I gathered from
| my bulgarian, polish and greek friends and from my own
| experience over there.
|
| Idk where you live but in France we have mandatory
| vehicle inspections every 2 years and you definitely
| can't bribe these guys. You'll get fined if you get
| caught, like everything else. How else would it work, we
| can't have daily inspections on every single thing that
| could potentially be made illegal.
|
| I agree with your last point though, but that's the
| german auto mafia, these guys get away with a lot.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| > that's the german auto mafia, these guys get away with
| a lot
|
| Like the most important industries in most countries of
| the world, sadly.
| listsfrin wrote:
| We have yearly car inspections ;)
| asjw wrote:
| Car parts are being made in plastic for safety reasons
|
| And it's completely renewable
| lnsru wrote:
| That will end in another monstrosity like WEEE making entry for
| hardware startups harder and harder:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electro...
| Only big players with dedicated departments will comply easily.
|
| And about right to repair I have bad experience: broken cable is
| enough for lots of buyers to throw away electronic appliances.
| Let's be honest: majority of users will cause more harm than do
| good when repairing something. Another thing is planned
| obsolescence when electronics die right after warranty period
| ends. Buddy had this with high end washing machine and I had this
| with display recently.
| liopleurodon wrote:
| I'd like to be able to swap the battery on my smartphone, like
| I used to be able to do.
|
| Same with my laptop
| coldpie wrote:
| Yes but if you could do that, then you might also be able to
| fit a headphone jack in there. What a horrible future that
| would be.
| mc32 wrote:
| I think the whole thing should be thought of as built-to-be-
| repaired, rather than right-to-repair.
|
| Build with simple easy to replace common components. No black
| boxes. Obviously some products fit this more nicely than
| others. Simple devices like washing machines vs smartphones.
|
| Washing machines and other products that have been smartened
| should have mechanical mode fall-backs so that cheap
| electronic controllers susceptible to failure which may cease
| production, don't doom the usefulness of a product.
| yohannparis wrote:
| If you read more into the law, they want to have parts and
| documentation available to professionals mostly. The consumer
| might still get them, but the goal is not to be user-friendly.
| Like with your car, sure I can change my fuel pump, but most
| people will go their mechanic, and their mechanic can buy parts
| from the manufacturer. The law is promoting this kind of
| service.
|
| Right now if your TV has a broken part, it might be impossible
| to fix, even with a pro. Maybe a really good one might change
| some electronics, but not an OEM part swap.
| gsich wrote:
| Why? Most of the time you design your stuff deliberately to not
| be easy to repair, see Apple, see every mobile phone/notebook
| with a non-replaceable battery.
|
| Just don't do that and you're fine. Publish your schematics
| too, they are not a company secret, they are for your
| customers.
| qayxc wrote:
| > Let's be honest: majority of users will cause more harm than
| do good when repairing something.
|
| What kind of argument is that? Right to repair isn't about you
| and me fiddling about with with broken appliances.
|
| It's about _qualified and licensed people in repair shops_
| being able to acquire parts and schematics to do their job. No
| one is arguing that your average Jane or Joe should be ones
| doing the repair! That 's just another strawman that is easily
| dismantled...
| linuxftw wrote:
| > qualified and licensed people in repair shops
|
| In the US, anyone can repair a vehicle and not void the
| warranty. No license needed.
| qayxc wrote:
| Same in Europe and still completely besides the point.
| Also, this argument keeps ignoring that the ominous
| "anybody" is required to have access to a repair shop,
| tools, and the skills required.
|
| Once you take into account all these factors it quickly
| becomes apparent that not "anybody" will repair cars,
| appliances, and electronics by themselves; regardless of
| legislation.
|
| The people who _do_ care (farmers in the US, electronics
| repair shops, that dude on YT who repairs Teslas, ...)
| incidentally _are_ the ones with the skills, the tools, and
| the incentive.
|
| The licensed part comes into play as soon damage regulation
| due to improper use/repair occurs. This isn't a concern for
| private individuals (in the car example: there's a
| mandatory in-depth technical inspection every other year in
| Europe, so an improper repair results in a failed
| inspection anyway), though your insurance may become null
| and void depending on the circumstances.
| catalogia wrote:
| Anybody may repair cars but not everybody can repair
| cars.
| snuxoll wrote:
| Not just vehicles, anything - the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
| Act does not discriminate.
| jka wrote:
| Which parts of the potential legislation do you have concerns
| about with regard to difficulty for new entrants?
|
| Product obsolescence does seem to be a concern that the EU
| wishes to address:
|
| "The Commission will propose legislation on Sustainable Product
| Policy, to ensure that products placed on the EU market are
| designed to last longer, are easier to reuse, repair and
| recycle, and incorporate as much as possible recycled material
| instead of primary raw material. Single-use will be restricted,
| premature obsolescence tackled and the destruction of unsold
| durable goods banned."[0]
|
| I also think that legislating to ensure that issues such as
| energy efficiency, durability, repairability and recycling must
| be considered during the design phase are great progress too,
| as outlined in the Circular Economy Action Plan[1].
|
| It's important to raise those concerns and get involved to help
| shape the process and outcomes.
|
| [0] -
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
|
| [1] - https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-
| economy/pdf/new_ci...
| as1mov wrote:
| > Let's be honest: majority of users will cause more harm than
| do good when repairing something.
|
| Yep, let's make everything a black box that can only be
| repaired under the watchful eye of a corporation, and they
| retain the right to refuse the repair and charge whatever the
| fuck they want. That's surely gonna work out well. That's
| surely gonna work out well.
| clarry wrote:
| Which washing machine was that?
|
| Which display was that?
| lnsru wrote:
| Siemens machine and Philips display. Siemens successfully
| disappeared, Philips acted ethically and sent refurbished
| one, because in the last days of warranty I managed to open
| support case.
| simion314 wrote:
| This maybe happens if the product is cheap or if you have the
| enough money so wasting your time sending a product to a repair
| person costs you more. But don't forget that a major issue is
| companioes like Apple using copyright laws to forbid sharing of
| repair manuals, sharing of diagnostic software and forbiding
| selling of components to other people then Apple.
|
| Allowing people sharing a repair manual, a diagnose software
| won't harm any consumer.
| oytis wrote:
| The success of the whole story is going to depend on whether they
| will be able to push it on everyone else. Otherwise we're going
| to have normal phones for everyone except EU, and bulky,
| outdated, but repairable "europhones" in Europe. Probably good
| for local producers though.
| yakovdk wrote:
| I'm serious enough about libre principles, though, that I'd be
| happy to buy weird europhones if I knew I had more control of
| my technology.
| emiliobumachar wrote:
| I'd think the EU market is big enough to foment enough
| competition for cutting-edge-within-the-constraints europhones,
| if it comes to that.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I don't think the right to repair is about the design being
| specifically repairable (i.e. uses exclusively sockets and
| through-hole components), rather it's about avoiding things
| which are deliberately constructed to prevent repairing them
| and legal barriers to reverse engineering items in order to
| repair them.
|
| Examples are components which, while identical to the component
| requiring replacement, will refuse to work until coded to match
| the intended device with some proprietary cable (which is
| really a normal cable with a couple of wires reversed or some
| other dick move).
| oytis wrote:
| The "dick moves" can probably be tracked and forbidden, but
| IMO it's not the main reason why modern gadgets are hard to
| repair. Rather if you optimize for size, price, power
| consumption, performance, security, IP protection,
| development time etc., and just don't prioritize
| repairability, it naturally grows up this way.
| yakovdk wrote:
| It could have other interesting implications. Like, no more
| grinding labels off of chips so a customer has a fighting
| chance of replacing things. That would be a nice world to
| live in, I think.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-03-13 23:00 UTC)