[HN Gopher] Europe Is Guaranteeing Citizens the Right to Repair ___________________________________________________________________ Europe Is Guaranteeing Citizens the Right to Repair Author : janvdberg Score : 722 points Date : 2021-01-11 13:15 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (reasonstobecheerful.world) (TXT) w3m dump (reasonstobecheerful.world) | kevmo wrote: | The EU and USA are on completely opposite trajectories right now. | beyondcompute wrote: | > Fix it. | | Where? I'd wanted to repair the most popular electric kick | scooter in one of the Northern European countries for couple of | years and I couldn't find any place to do it (I asked all the | sellers, sent lots of emails to different web shops, etc.). The | economy in prosperous countries appears to be such that repair | (especially of less fancy products) is so costly that it makes no | sense often or is not possible as in the case described above. | rasz wrote: | Hacker space is a good place to start. | sigmike wrote: | A Repair cafe[1][2] if you have one nearby. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repair_caf%C3%A9 | | [2] https://www.repaircafe.org/en/visit/ | wombatmobile wrote: | I strongly prefer to repair devices and am reluctant to throw any | broken manufactured good out, even when I have poor prospects of | repairing them. Instead, I just hold on to them. Phones, stereos, | vacuum cleaners, clocks, computers. My shelves are full of broken | items, and good intentions, frozen in amber. | | Why do I think like this? | | I think it is a psychological condition. | | It isn't a rational choice. If I apply my educated, articulate | self to analysis, I can tell you it's an expression of how I want | the world to be, not a realistic evaluation of how modern | manufacturing commerce works. | | A stereo or an espresso machine that is non-serviceable costs | 1/10th as much to buy and performs twice as well as an equivalent | device from 50 years ago. The price we pay for that bounty is | that 5% of the manufactured items fail early. It costs more to | provide repair infrastructure than to run a warranty program, so | the dead stuff ends up as waste. I get it. | | Still, I don't like waste, and I love repair. My feelings are not | economics, they are emotions. And so so they persist. And that's | perfectly OK. | lostlogin wrote: | > an espresso machine ... performs twice as well as an | equivalent device from 50 years ago | | This is a terrible example. | | How coffee is made has not changed much, so machines don't need | to change much. New hardware trends towards more plastic, more | logic boards and at the worst end of the scale, more | proprietary parts, including the actual coffee. | | I have repaired and built up several 25+ year old espresso | machines and grinders, and currently run a 37 year old grinder | and a 23 year old espresso machine. | | Older machines are easier to service, easy to get parts for and | nice to work on. The quality of the coffee is hard to beat and | I would need to pay around US$3k for a new version of the | machine, where the old one is generally around US$250. | | Often the changes over time are few (eg La Cimbali Junior). | Brands like La Marzocco, La Cimbali, Rancilio and Mazzer have a | lot of great machines going back a very long time. Electric | parts often connect with spades or screws, there is | documentation and parts are easily ordered and you can usually | talk to someone at the supply end about difficult repairs. | | New coffee machines at the lower end of the price scale are | mostly just disposable crap, and make bad coffee. They are not | cheaper over their lifetime. | [deleted] | eeZah7Ux wrote: | > I think it is a psychological condition. | | People can have trouble letting go of obsoleted, unneeded | object due to some emotional attachment. | | [Unless you hoard socially acceptable items, like status | symbols or plain money, in that case most people will not see | the problem] | | > an espresso machine ... performs twice as well as an | equivalent device from 50 years ago | | ...or not. A rational reason for fixing stuff is that many | products are objectively worse. | | > My feelings are not economics, they are emotions | | Another perfectly rational reason is prevent environmental | collapse. It does not get more reasonable than that. | [deleted] | causalmodels wrote: | This is an anecdote but I think it's worth mentioning. | | Several years ago my washer dryer unit developed a crack in the | wash basin. Instead of buying a new machine, I ordered a | replacement basin from GE. When I received the part, it had | developed a crack from shipping. I was told to throw the broken | replacement part in the trash and they would send me another. | This happened two more times. It took four shipments of new wash | basins for me to actually repair the machine. | | Right to repair is a good thing in and of itself. We shouldn't | need to couch pro consumer movements in terms of other good | objectives like resource conservation or environmentalism. I | understand that my experience is probably not typical, but one | screw up like mine basically wiped out any gain conservationist | gains for me and several other people. If we want to further | conservation and environmental efforts we should do so explicitly | rather than achieving half measures on the back of other causes. | antattack wrote: | Speaking of waste. I researched about photoresistor (LDR) | recently and learned from Wikipedia that cadmium based ones are | restricted in EU. I wonder why they are not outlawed in US if the | substance is toxic and can leak into water supply, etc. | | As to right-to-repair, EU seems ahead on that front but US has | one regulation which EU does not which is Magnuson-Moss Warranty | Act. | simongray wrote: | > Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act | | I'm not that familiar with US consumer law. What makes this | regulation favourable compared to the equivalent EU laws? | jsmith45 wrote: | In the US it is illegal to "void" a warranty based on the | user swapping a part out with a third party component, or | having a third party service the device. There are of course | some exceptions. | | You can void a waranty with respect to damage caused by | impropper servicing, or damage caused by the replacement | parts. | | Alternatively you can void warranty on basis of using third | party parts or servicing if you provide said parts/services | for free. | | Idea was: Warranty void is non-GM parts are used => Illegal, | unless GM provides all parts for free. Waranty void for | getting oil changes at a non-dealer => Illegal unless oil | changes are provided completely free at the dealers. | | While I suspect that most EU countries have similar rules for | cars and the like, in the US these rules apply to any | consumer good that costs $5 or more with a warranty (there | could be some rare exceptions, as the FTC can grant waiver if | the manufacturer can show that it is not possible for a third | party to provide parts or service that will work properly, | and that granting the waiver is in the public interest). | Further free parts and services requirement applies to any | form of repair and servicing. | | In the US, if you don't provide free screen replacement for a | cell phone dropped by negligence, then you cannot legally | deny warranty on the battery solely because a third party | screen was used, unless you can show the third party screen | or the process of installing it caused the battery problem. | Of course, if you can show the battery problem was caused by | dropping it in the first place, then you can deny warranty | replacement. | fab1an wrote: | This is to be commended, though I wish the market itself would | provide this value as an emergent feature as it does in some | other areas (e. g. Leica cameras and lenses, hundreds of | thousands of which are still being used after _decades_ - I'm not | sure if it's true, but read somewhere that the used market for | Leicas is several multiples of Leicas revenue on new stuff) | DaedPsyker wrote: | Leica cameras are also some of the most expensive cameras in | the world. Their reputation for the build quality is part of | that. More like a fine watch than an iPhone so there will be | discrepancy. | joking wrote: | Nice, I broke a mixer cup, and now I had to buy a new mixer with | his electronics and motor because there is no way to buy only the | cup. My fault for buying a white labeled mixer instead of a | recognised brand one, but I don't get why there are so many | systems for mixers, there should have a compatible system and | mixers and cups should be interchangeable between brands. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | This measure shamefully disrespects the needs of shareholders for | endless profit and hampers large corporations from exploiting and | curtailing the rights of end users. | | It's the most un-american thing I've ever seen. | JoshTko wrote: | This doesn't make sense. I have sold every single iPhone that I | have owned (about 6), and virtually all were 100% functional at | time of sale. Making the products openable will likely to make | them heavier, more expensive, larger, and more prone to damage | (i.e., water damage), and thus less durable overall. I don't want | this as a consumer as it will lead to more waste. | nfriedly wrote: | I just replaced the battery in my Pixel 2 this past weekend. It | was a 2-3 hour project that involved a whole kit of tools in | addition to the new battery. | | It was a PITA, but I am thankful that a) iFixit provided a | helpful guide and a kit with all of the things I needed except | for the rubbing alcohol and b) it was legal and there weren't any | software issues to deal with. | | Aside from the aging battery and occasionally running out of | storage, the phone was completely fine for my needs. For ~$50 and | a few hours of time, I've essentially doubled the lifespan of my | $700 phone. | Mauricebranagh wrote: | But why not buy a cheap motog phone and save $500 in the first | place | nfriedly wrote: | In general, I am a big proponent of getting used equipment | and keeping it running for well after the manufacturer has | abandoned it. | | Before the Pixel 2, I hadn't purchased a new phone in like 12 | years - I had gotten a couple of used Android phones, and | used Windows Mobile before that. They all had the issue of | essentially 0 support from the manufacturer by the time I got | them, so I was dependent on community ROMs to keep them up- | to-date. The phone I was using at the time had multiple | issues, including an aging battery, physical damage, and | something wrong with the GPS sensor. | | A couple of the big reasons I bought the new phone rather | than another used one were the promise of 3 years of support | (which Google delivered) and waterproofing (which has come in | handy a few times). I also just liked the phone in general, | and there wasn't much on the used market with a similar | feature set. | | I like tinkering with my phone, but this was shortly before | my second child was born and I knew I wasn't going to have | the time to mess with custom ROMs to fix whatever was broken | that week. Now that my kids are a little bit older and I can | sleep through the night most nights, I think I'm ready for | that "fun" again. | larelli wrote: | I'm in the same boat. What kept me from replacing the battery | is that the device is EOL and won't receive any software | updates, including security fixes. Did you also change the | firmware? | nfriedly wrote: | Not yet - it's currently on stock software, but I've run | custom ROMs before and I'm planning to switch back to one | soon. I was basically waiting to see if I could successfully | replace the battery before putting much effort into the | software side. | ossuser wrote: | Just switch to Calyx or Graphene, Pixel 2 is well supported | nashashmi wrote: | As a someone who goes against anti-right-to-repair laws, I am not | so enthused with a mandate that all devices be repairable. | Because there maybe cases where devices can't be repaired. | | What kind of problems will something like this create for future | device manufacturers? | simion314 wrote: | At least publishing schematics, providing parts to third | parties and allowing third party repair by not using DRM or | other locks should not influence how the device is build. | | An example would be that if I won 2 identical broken | devices/cars I should be allowed to swap parts from one to the | other and fix one of them as it was possible before DRM was | invented. | | Also there should be a "tax" for products with no way to change | the battery or one time use electronics. | alexfromapex wrote: | What are those cases? This is just ensuring that consumers have | the option to repair so the manufacturers aren't mandating | waste or planned obsolescence | dghlsakjg wrote: | I make a small specialty electronic device that is optimized | for size and weight. Its a side hustle, so I do it just to | break even. | | It consists of three parts: a 2-piece plastic case, and a | single circuit board with around 25 smt components. The user | can replace the battery. | | I'm not going to publish my schematic or board design because | I already open sourced my code, and the device is designed to | be stupidly easy to manufacture for my own sake. Basically I | don't want people to start making their own. A competent EE | could figure it out in a day or two, but a anyone with that | ability could design their own in the same amount of time. | | If something on the board goes bad, I'm not going to offer | guidance to repair it. It isn't worth anyone's time. That | said, I do offer a lifetime warranty/buyback option since the | unit cost is less than $10. | | This is a bit of a contrived example since there is literally | only one part that can fail, but the point is that there is a | very fuzzy line around how far we can go with repairability. | Should I be forced to provide a full schematic/board design | (giving away my IP essentially)? Should I be forced to | provide 'parts' (there is really only one part, and that is | the product itself)? | | I'm sympathetic to the 'right to repair' movement, but I'm | curious how it would be implemented across such a broad | spectrum of products. Perhaps it could just be a transparency | rule: planned obsolescence (unrepairable) items should be | marked as such and an e-waste tax added. If you want to avoid | that marking you have to offer to trade broken parts for new | for 5 years after first sale at cost. | gostsamo wrote: | The legislation does not cover all devices so there is both | deliberation and lobbying when choosing which are going to be | regulated. | wintorez wrote: | I don't want to repair everything, but please let us replace | batteries. | apexalpha wrote: | This couldn't come soon enough. | | I just had my washing machine break. It kept giving error codes | and the door won't lock. | | I called the company who said the model is way to old to have | warrenty, which is true, and then said they couldn't assist me in | repairing. They said they could only send a (paid) technician. | | I Youtubed the model and found an array of DIY repair videos. I | used those to dissassemble the door lock mechanism only to find | out it had short circuited. Here's the pics: | https://imgur.com/a/ECM5AuI | | And after I called for replacement parts they started berating me | for trying to fix it myself, saying it could be dangerous and a | potential fire hazard. | | I hope this new law will help in this aspect; it's ridiculous I | have to go to YouTube to find out how to repair a washing machine | and the company itself refuses to help... | | And 2 year warrenty is way too short anyway. I hope they change | it into something dynamic like 1 year per EUR200 sale price or | so. | haakonhr wrote: | This is great, although it somehow seems to me to be starting in | the wrong end. The underlying problem is that it is more | profitable/cheaper to just give you a new product (if something | breaks while under warrantee) and then just throw away the old | instead of repairing it. I don't know if it is because the | externalities of waste are not taxed properly or if it is because | manufacturing products that are hard to repair gives more robust | products and less waste in the end. | titzer wrote: | > I don't know if it is because the externalities of waste are | not taxed properly or if it is because manufacturing products | that are hard to repair gives more robust products and less | waste in the end. | | It's because our entire economic system is oriented toward | growth and puts profit above everything else. | haakonhr wrote: | Profit is fine; the problem is that the true costs aren't | borne by the consumers. We subsidize by polluting, by relying | on forced labor, by relying on people working in dangerous | environments and so on | readflaggedcomm wrote: | When repair labor costs more than automated production, then | it's cheaper to replace whole units than mend parts. | | This is very much in line when what the Luddites understood. | Fixation on "waste" is a by-product of unrelated worries which | are fashionable today, but cheap production at a distance is | what labor should worry about, instead. | tsdlts wrote: | When the repair costs are controlled by the manufacturer, you | shouldn't be surprised when the repair becomes cost | prohibitive. This is why having only Ford being able to | repair Fords and Apple only able to repair Apple devices is a | negative. When they own the monopoly they can make any claim | they want and you have no option of a second opinion. | simongray wrote: | > Fixation on "waste" is a by-product of unrelated worries | which are fashionable today | | We have finite resources on this planet. Policies like this | that deal with negative externalities aren't driven by | fashion, they are driven by our long term needs. And we do | need to recycle more and consume less. This is part of the | solution. | | > cheap production at a distance is what labor should worry | about, instead | | You're simply describing the status quo. The same status quo | which has resulted in the warmest year on record for how many | years in a row now...? | readflaggedcomm wrote: | It's the most fashionable cause, since it can be shoehorned | into anything. Yet carping about warming, and unstated | assumptions about efficiency differences between levels of | consumption and locations of production, don't guide us to | fair labor practices. | zug_zug wrote: | >> When repair labor costs more than automated production.. | | When companies deliberately build products in unrepairable | ways then repair labor costs more than automated production. | | Imagine if mac butterfly keyboards were replaceable. Or for | example I recently fixed my dad's washing machine, but it | took a couple hours of labor to replace the pump because you | had to remove about 4 other things to get to it (when they | could have just made a door on the side/bottom. | | It's sort of like if you had to spend an hour disassembling | your case to swap the ram in your machine. | cbmuser wrote: | > When companies deliberately build products in | unrepairable ways then repair labor costs more than | automated production. | | They don't. They optimize for production costs, not | repairability, that's all. | | And glueing 100,000 iPhones together is faster and cheaper | than screwing them together. | macspoofing wrote: | >When repair labor costs more than automated production, then | it's cheaper to replace whole units than mend parts | | We're not there yet. There are profitable businesses that can | do repair and/or replacement of broken soldered IC chips in | laptops and smartphones (see YouTube channels of Jessa Jones | and Louis Rossmann). So cost of repair is not a barrier in | many cases. | | The problems they highlight, that should be very easy to fix | through regulation, is lack of access to technical manuals, | lack of access to diagnostic equipment and tech giants (like | Apple) bullying their suppliers to prevent sale of | replacement parts to independent repair shops. | Scoundreller wrote: | Yes and no, supply chain restrictions leads to some funny | outcomes. | | When I parted out my 2012 MacBook Air in 2016, I came close | to covering the full cost of my brand new 2016 MB Air. | macspoofing wrote: | Sure - there are repairs where the costs are higher than | replacement. There are repairs where the costs are lower | than replacement. The latter should be a low-hanging | fruit for regulation to assist with. And we have a model | how this could be done - car repair. Because of | historical factors, there are regulations that mandate | car manufacturers to provide diagnostic tools and | replacement parts to independent mechanics and though car | manufacturers gripe about it, the system works well. And | yes, in some cases, your mechanic will tell you that a | particular repair isn't worth it because the car isn't | worth it. | | Independent mechanic shops are also a sizable market | (around 150k+ businesses in US alone) providing good | paying blue-collar jobs for hundreds of thousands of | people .. and this competition also lowers repair costs | for consumers. | | No reason why it couldn't be the case for electronics. | recursivedoubts wrote: | A proposal: | | All durable consumer goods may apply for a repair QR code. At | landfills, items with repair QR codes are scanned and the company | is charged 50% of the cost of processing the item. | | If one is not applied for, the producer must pay the full cost of | processing the item up front. | | This would encourage companies to make repair & upgrade and | longetivity a priority. | | It's a rough idea. | gruez wrote: | >All durable consumer goods may apply for a repair QR code. | | What if the QR code is mutilated? | | >At landfills, items with repair QR codes are scanned and the | company is charged 50% of the cost of processing the item. | | This already exists in some jurisdictions, but the fee is | levied at purchase time. eg. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes- | and-fees/ewfaqsgen.htm | | >This would encourage companies to make repair & upgrade and | longetivity a priority. | | not really. if you made a phone that lasts 6 years rather than | 3 years, the fees manufacturers pays doesn't decrease by 50%, | it remains the same. That's because at the end of the day, | everything ends up in a landfill. The only benefit to the | manufacturer in this case would be the time value of the | deposit fee for 3 years. | rlpb wrote: | How about this, along the same lines: | | Manufacturers must pay 100% of the cost of safe, environmental | disposal of all consumer goods they sell. This is collected in | the form of a tax, for all manufacturers over some threshold | sales value/volume, based on an impact assessment of disposal | cost. The assessment is based on the typical practical burden | to disposal facilities to process each SKU. | | There's no need to individually account for every item going | into waste disposal facilities. It can be assumed that every | item sold will eventually be disposed of. And the problem is in | primarily bulk sales of consumer items, so accounting in bulk | is fine, and considerably cheaper in processing cost. | m000 wrote: | Bad plan. The problem is not have someone pay for the | disposal, but delay disposal for as long as possible. And the | ones who make the decision for the disposal are the | consumers. Having the manufacturer pay a tax in advance puts | little pressure on the consumer. | | Moreover, anything that involves an "assessment" is bound to | be gamed by the manufactures. See e.g. the recent VW car | emission scandal. | rlpb wrote: | The point is that the economic equation will change. Why is | it that it's cheaper to buy new than repair old? In part, | it's because the cost of disposal has been shifted away, | rather than being incorporated into the price of the | replacement. | | Having the manufacturer pay a tax in advance does put | pressure on the consumer, because that tax has to be | incorporated into the product pricing. | | > Moreover, anything that involves an "assessment" is bound | to be gamed by the manufactures. See e.g. the recent VW car | emission scandal. | | I agree it's a challenge. I wonder if there's some way to | close the loop - so that manufacturers who game the system | to achieve an artificially low disposal price end up making | up the shortfall when the fake price isn't achieved. | boatsie wrote: | I think a good way to ensure repairability is to require | manufacturers to honor a relatively long warranty. For example | many large appliances have 1 year warranties. After that you have | to pay to repair (which is often 25-50% of the cost of new and | not guaranteed) or toss it and buy new. If there were required | warranty service based on waste generated from an item, eg a | refrigerator must be warranted for 20 years, then you would see | much better reliability and repairability. | | Smaller, cheaper, more tech heavy items might have shorter | required warranties, but the point is that you need to align the | incentives by forcing manufacturer to bear the cost of the | repair. | fridek wrote: | I can't describe how much I hope something comes out of it. Not | because I have some illusion of this tackling corporate greed, or | helping the environment - devices will likely become more | expensive and bulkier as a result, supply chain of replacement | parts is generating heaps of waste too. | | I simply am surrounded by tens and hundreds of sort-of-broken | devices that don't force me to replace yet, but are not fixable | either. The laptop overheats, phone compass never works properly, | one port in the TV is dead, there is no light in the fridge (but | it still works). The list goes on. I just want a world where | stuff lasting a lifetime exists. | emteycz wrote: | But it exists - it's not that stuff is worse now than it was | before, you just have to spend the value (not amount) of money | you spent back in the 60's. Our family houses are full of stuff | that lasts a lifetime and/or can be easily fixed - you just | can't buy the first thing the ad in TV suggests. | vagrantJin wrote: | That manufacturers are actually hostile towards end users | says a lot about our current state of helplessness. | emteycz wrote: | I had multiple manufacturers of kitchen appliances send me | schematics so I could fix it myself instead of paying for a | service visit. Many vendors have service guides online, | including lists of parts. That's not hostile at all. You | have to choose what you're buying, but it's not hard to buy | from a solid company. | Scoundreller wrote: | I had to fix my circa 2005 Kenmore dryer and it had a | folded up paper schematic behind the panel!!! | | Note: whenever throwing those things out, save the knobs. | They're like $10+ each. | emteycz wrote: | Indeed, a lot of appliances have the schematics embedded. | My ETA oven does too. | fridek wrote: | Disagree. I'm willing to throw heaps of hard earned money to | recover my time spent being bothered by such problems. I | researched and tried many "premium" brands, with minor | exceptions they proved to be planned for obsolence too. I had | good experience with small companies/kickstarters. Once they | grow to the point of being "popular", economies of scale and | CFOs show up to the table and eat your cake. | | In all of the following I got a new thing looking for some | new feature or because I could I guess, and had the older | device outlasted the newer one: Bose headphones, any mobile | phone really, Thinkpad laptops, Audi cars, Brother printers, | any and all household appliances. | emteycz wrote: | Well... My headphones are 10 years old, my phone is 3 years | old and all my previous ones including my Galaxy S2 (my | first smartphone) are still in use by family, my kitchen | doesn't have _anything_ younger that 15 years - most stuff | is 25+ years old - except the fridge, I replaced it because | of power efficiency and the old one is at the cottage, | nearly 35 years old. None of it was bought from a | kickstarter as most of that stuff predates internet. | | I really don't see the problem. Like you're saying people | are buying new stuff because they want the new stuff, not | because old is broken. There are tons of extremely cheap | second hand things that could do the job and yet people | keep buying new things. | | How will this right to repair change anything? How much | money was spent making it reality that could've been spent | productively? | paradox242 wrote: | Common things that existed 20, 30, or even 40 years like | refrigerators, coffee machines, dishwashers, washers, and | dryers, often lasted 10 or 20 years in some cases, and could be | repaired. We have witnessed the steep decline of device | reliability in my lifetime, and our expectations are so low | that the latest appliance we buy we consider lucky if no | problems develop in 2-3 years. Anything serious requires you to | usually toss it out and buy a new one. | ska wrote: | This is true, but it seems to be mostly consumer preference. | That 30 year old refrigerator cost more (normalized) and does | less than most of the ones you can buy today. When people | offer longer lived, better built versions for more money, | most people don't buy them. | | The same thing happened to furniture. | inglor_cz wrote: | The situation is not so clear-cut with domestic appliances. | Modern fridges are much more energy-efficient. So there is a | tradeoff: either you buy a new fridge, thus polluting the | environment with the old fridge, but saving energy. Or you | let your good old 30 year old fridge run, saving the | resources needed for a new fridge, but burning a lot more | energy in the process. | gsich wrote: | It's a simple calculation. How much energy costs do I save | compared to keeping the old one. Also I wouldn't expect any | "modern" appliance to last more than 5 years. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Miele appliances (for example) still last decades and all | efforts are made by the manufacturer to find you spare parts | if you need. But they cost 3-4x more than a budget appliance. | | That's a key aspect of the market here: People tend to | compare on purchase price. If manufacturers have to compete | on price, of course something has to give in order to make | cheaper appliances... | | The market tends to give consumers what they want. | | It's not all bad, though, because this also puts pressure on | manufacturers to optimise, including by using less material. | Appliances tend not to be that bad either unless perhaps if | you buy really cheap cr*p. | mch0lic1 wrote: | What I really hate about Miele is their stupid will to push | their stupid branding on the retailers (online), it always | feels broken and its absolutely a pain to try to navigate | any sites that integrates with them. | | Their tight grip on retailers also makes it hard to buy | their products outside EU because nobody is willing to go | through the pain. Add higher than average price and most | smaller retailers just sell samsungs, lg and random chinese | brands. | | The biggest problem remains, manufacturers are not required | to sell repairable devices and parts everywhere, | requirement is only applicable to EU, so they will continue | to manufacture trash and will never have their parts | available outside EU. And no, those EUR parts will | definitely won't fit 99% of their products outside EU. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _The market tends to give consumers what they want._ | | The market tends to give consumers what they _buy_. This is | distinct from what they _ask for_ , which too is distinct | from what they _want_ , which too is distinct from what | they _like_ (and, while we 're at it, from what they | approve of). | BurningFrog wrote: | It's very hard to know what people, including yourself, | really want. | | So best we can do is observing "revealed preferences", | which is what Economists call "what people actually | choose". | wizzwizz4 wrote: | Have you tried _asking pe_ -- sorry, "market research"? | If you can make something that people _want_ to pay for, | that goes down a lot better than trying to _make_ them | buy what you 're selling via an elaborate multi-agent | optimisation algorithm. | TeMPOraL wrote: | And "revealed preferences" are mostly bunk, because of | what GP alludes to. It's evaluating people's choices out | of options available on the market, not what they would | buy if they could freely optimize the feature/price | matrix. Another way to put it: "revealed preference" is | just what one considers the least bad of the bad choices | available. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Perhaps but that should be an unstable equilibrium, i.e. | temporary. | | As long as real competition exist, if it is possible to | deliver what consumers really want then sooner or later | someone will discover it, make a killing and prompt | everyone in the market to follow suit or die. | | It's easy to blame corporations but _in fine_ I believe | that the current situation has been driven by the choices | of the consumers, i.e. all of us. | | Sure we want better quality, repairability, longevity, | but we also want cheaper, among other things. I think | product ranges simply reflect where our priorities really | lie. | ska wrote: | And on the producer side, what they market as is distinct | from what they make, what they try to make is distinct | from what gets shipped, etc. | | A major point of markets is to try and figure this out | iteratively. You can usefully think of it as an | optimization algorithm that in practics prone to local | minima but has some mechanisms to try and get out of | them, which sometimes work. | gruez wrote: | >Common things that existed 20, 30, or even 40 years [...] | often lasted 10 or 20 years in some cases | | It's worth mentioning that the common problem with these | anecdotes is that it doesn't account for survivorship bias. | That 30 year old refrigerator at your parent's house might | lead you to conclude all refrigerators back in the day lasted | 30 years, but in reality you're only seeing the refrigerators | that lasted 30 years, not the ones that broke down and were | replaced. | varjag wrote: | About any fridge you buy now would last a decade easily. | Several decades even, if you bother to invest into its | maintenance and repair like people did 40 years ago. | mc32 wrote: | Part of the problem with electronics is often a brand new unit | costs less than replacing a faulty part on an old unit due to | miniaturization and having everything on chip combined with | economics of scale. | | Still it's a worthwhile pursuit. At some point pocket | PCs/phones will be good enough, just as for many a 2014 laptop | is still good enough. | Ericson2314 wrote: | If we properly accounted for environmental externalities, and | frankly, the rat race of labor arbitrage (is a good use of | people's time in the 2nd world to work 9 days a week to crank | out replacements for this shit?), I think we would get there | faster. | | Though yes, thank goodness the end of Moore's law is here to | help. | mywacaday wrote: | Youtube on my mother in laws Samsung tablet from 2013 has | stopped working. It has stopped because it has android 4 and | you can't update chrome past V42 and youtube won't load | without a later version of chrome. I installed firefox and | she has access to youtube through the web for now. The tablet | is in immaculate condition physically. if it played youtube | in 2013 it should be able to play it now, it cost over EUR500 | at the time. How is this anything else except planned | obsolescence. I know there will be comments about security | etc but she only needs it for youtube and solitaire. | ako wrote: | That is not planned obsolence. Nobody said this tablet | should stop working by 2021. It's simply the result of | limiting cost of software development. If you are creating | a new version of android, you cant affort to support all | devices. If you create a new version of chrome, you cant | affort to support all version of android. If you create a | new version of youtube, you cant afford to support all | versions of chrome, etc, etc. | mc32 wrote: | While true, Microsoft used to be able to do a much better | job of it (and still does, compared to Android). | delecti wrote: | Agreed. I think there needs to be a better term for the | reality of the situation, something like "negligent | obsolescence". There's no technological limitation | preventing Samsung from updating those for a decade or | more, they just don't care. A battery degrading over time | isn't _planned_ obsolescence, and while not being able to | easily replace the battery _might_ be, more likely it 's | that they just don't bother to put in the slightly extra | effort to make the batteries easier to replace. Right to | Repair mandates would be a good start in ensuring | manufacturers are properly motivated. | steerablesafe wrote: | Maybe give Newpipe Legacy a try. | | https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.schabi.newpipelegacy/ | harrygeez wrote: | There's a good chance you can find a compatible version of | LineageOS. That should extend its lifespan considerably | gruez wrote: | If you go through the lineageos device list there's | literally no samsung tablets from 2013 that's currently | supported. If you count the devices that had builds but | aren't currently supported you get more devices, but I | suspect your odds are still not good considering there's | several unsupported models for every supported model. | codethief wrote: | I sympathize with your (mother-in-law's) situation! I, too, | own a Samsung tablet from that period. | | Have you checked whether you could install LineageOS or | some other custom ROM on the tablet? That way, you might be | able to extend its lifetime by another couple years. | onli wrote: | They already are. Phones from 2016 for example feel | completely usable today. That goes for the repairable ones at | least, like the LG G5, but even the older LG G3 holds up | well. | | If all modern phones were as repairable as those we could | eliminate so much garbage! | stronglikedan wrote: | My old phones are often usable, which is why I only upgrade | every three years or so. However, when I do upgrade after | waiting so long, it's like I've traveled through time with | the improvements. | | It seems that most people want more than just usable. They | may not want to pay more for a device up front, knowing | they will be missing out on the latest technology down the | road. | ganafagol wrote: | Considering 3 years a long time to replace a device is | part of the problem. | mc32 wrote: | Agreed but that part of a larger problem such as fast | fashion and throwaway trinkets for the home. | sergeykish wrote: | It is quite easy -- invest in the most limiting factor, | for example: | | * OnePlus 3, released in June 2016, 6 GB RAM. | | vs | | * iPhone 7, released in September 2016, 2 GB RAM. | | * iPhone 12 Pro Max, released in October 2020, 6 GB RAM. | | From my perspective smartphones have not changed much. | na85 wrote: | The processors have changed significantly. I had a | OnePlus 3T which I really liked, and recently pulled it | out of a box because my daily driver phone broke. The 3T | struggled to load modern, bloated apps like Google Maps. | The device would chug at most tasks more intensive than | scrolling a webpage (and sometimes even then... what a | sad state the web is in these days) | | By contrast the processor in my work phone (an Iphone) is | faster than my laptop. | onli wrote: | They do not need to pay more. The equation that | repairable means more expensive for the customer is | propaganda. It assumes that every cent companies save by | making devices worse lowers the price. That's trickle | down economics and has never been true. | | People can still buy new stuff earlier if they want. But | their old stuff can be reused by those that do not need, | want or can afford the new devices. There are many | categories of devices where that's a good option for | many, not only phones. Besides, it's always good to have | the option to repair that thing you have when it breaks | even if initially you did not think you would need that. | You might have grown to like it. | macNchz wrote: | I've had an iPhone since 2009 and I'm definitely familiar | with the "time traveling" effect of upgrading phones, but | I think it has diminished a lot as the technology has | matured. | | I've been using a 6S since 2015 (this thread caught my | interest because it's now somewhat of a Ship of Theseus | as I've replaced so many parts over the years), but the | 11 Pro I bought last year was the first time a multi- | year-gap upgrade felt rather incremental, especially for | $1100. I returned it and expect to continue to use and | repair the 6S until they drop iOS support for it. | syshum wrote: | My phone today is completely usable but the carrier has | decided to stop issuing updates to the phone.... | | This is the worst kind of planned obsolesces | onli wrote: | Right. Repairable hardware is just the one side, security | updates needs to be available as well. We need mandated | open sourcing of device software (including firmware and | drivers + unlocking of the bootloader) after the support | timerange, or at the very least alternatively the | obligation to continue security updates for decades. | harrierpigeon wrote: | OTOH, you can wind up with stuff like installing an OS | that _requires_ more than the device has to offer- like | installing the most recent version of Ubuntu Desktop on a | Intel Core2 Duo isn 't going to go well, nor did | installing iOS 7 on iPhone 4's- which I remember eagerly | installing without realizing the _major_ slowdown all the | new features added that I couldn 't undo. | onli wrote: | Linux usually works perfectly fine with old hardware, a | Intel Core2 Duo should be completely enough. That's even | 64 bit hardware. Worst case you have to swap out Gnome | with something more minimal, but that's unlikely. | martinald wrote: | Who is actually going to update this even if it is open | source though? There are so many drivers and firmware in | a smartphone, nevermind the tens of thousands of models | of smartphones out there. It would require an army of | people to patch, test and distribute everything. That's | even if you can figure out all this code. | fsflover wrote: | Have a look at Pinephone. It has no official developers, | but the community created >17 operating systems for it | with constant updates. | Nextgrid wrote: | I don't think this should be a consideration. | | I agree that the manufacturer or carrier doesn't owe you | updates indefinitely, but they definitely should give you | all the resources you need to develop these updates | yourself if you wanted to. | | The landscape can change. Maybe there's going to be a | huge open-source project that will make these updates. | Maybe someone will figure out a way to automatically | handle a large number of hardware configurations at scale | (a powerful enough hardware abstraction layer should be | able to deal with it). Maybe someone will make a business | out of it, providing security updates at a reasonable | cost. Either way, there shouldn't be any artificial | hurdles against the customer developing and running their | own firmware on hardware they paid money for. | reegnz wrote: | It's not about 'who's going to do it' but about 'if I | want to do it, I can'. | | I would really like to hack on a tablet I have that's 5 | years old, but I can't because the firmware and drivers | are both closed source. | | I think when I buy a device, I should get the source code | to it once the manufacturer decides it's not worth it for | them to continue patching the software for the device | I've bought. | onli wrote: | We see that happening all the times with devices that are | open and popular enough, as much as is possible now. Have | a look at the xda forum to see how it is done today. | RHSeeger wrote: | Creating those updates costs money. At what point is the | cost no longer worth it? It is not realistic for | companies to support every phone forever; I think that's | something we can all agree on. | | Would you be willing to pay whatever your share is of how | much generating the update would cost, in order to get | it? With a clear indicator when you buy the phone that | you automatically get a subscription to 3 years worth of | security updates; past that, you pay whatever amount is | needed to keep it up to date. | acka wrote: | In my opinion, manufacturers who cannot be bothered to | provide updates to their software should not be allowed | to claim intellectual property rights on the hardware. | When support ends, drivers and documentation should be | made open source, enforceable by law if need be. | syshum wrote: | In my case the Manufacturer (LG) already did the updates, | the phone was offered on 2 of 3 carriers, of the 2 one of | those carriers are still offering updates for it, but | because it was a less popular model on the 2nd carrier it | is not longer getting updates | brendoelfrendo wrote: | I think that the problem is central to how phones are | developed and constructed. Dell doesn't determine how | long my XPS 13 gets updated; they provided the hardware, | and I can put any software I want on it. It can keep | running a secure, up-to-date OS as long as I want it to, | until the hardware truly can't keep up (which, based on | computer lifetimes these days, is a long time). | | Conceptually, I dislike that mobile development hasn't | followed a similar path. Samsung should not dictate how | many updates my phone gets and for how many years. | Practically, I realize that this is a consequence of how | we've built SOCs and mobile hardware and there's no | incentive for companies to change. That doesn't make it | less problematic. | mc32 wrote: | I tend to agree if we consider current use cases. Issue | comes when we add new use cases which require more | processing power or new components. | | Also, we'll have to figure out how to manage with a sort of | stagnation. | | Essentially this entails curbing change. Curbing change | means slowing progress (initially in this niche), but if we | extend this into other areas it can mean significant | stagnation because since things are good enough we don't | need to improve and progress (ie. we're at equilibrium ) | | We'll have to grow comfortable with that outlook. | onli wrote: | Sometimes it's more a question of software. On older | phones badly made sites like the new reddit for example | were unuseable in all browsers - until the new Firefox | came along. | | But sure. Repairability is one thing, it just means that | devices can continue the things they were made for. For | new workloads they would need upgradeability, which is a | completely different beast. | | I don't think having repairability will slow things at | all. It will simply prune some behaviors corporations | engage in that destroy the planet, like glueing in | batteries. Stopping such practices will not even make new | devices more expensive - we have old designs that did it | right. Falling back to them and innovating there could | even save money. | alxlaz wrote: | > Part of the problem with electronics is often a brand new | unit costs less than replacing a faulty part on an old unit | due to miniaturization and having everything on chip combined | with economics of scale. | | That's simply because "make it easy to replace" has not been | a design constraint in a very long time -- in fact, making | things _hard_ to replace or fix has been a design constraint | that product management has enforced more or less explicitly | in lots of places. "Miniaturisation" has been a reality of | electronics design since at least the 1950s -- not being able | to fix things is a more recent phenomenon. | | Even if that weren't the case, IC manufacturing reliability | has come a long enough way that, in fact, "everything on- | chip" doesn't account for all that many broken units. | Virtually all of the phones I've repaired in the last 10 | years or so had broken volume buttons, cracked displays and | so on. The phone I currently use had a blown battery | management controller, which was trivial to replace. | | "Everything is small now" is just one of the excuses that | companies bring to the table. It is a legitimate reason in | that, yes, the fact that everything is small amplifies the | effect of the fact that, _at best_ , making things easy to | repair hasn't been a design goal. That doesn't mean the | design can't be improved. | | Edit: also, a lot of the high repair cost comes from | constraints that derive directly from the fact that repairing | things is all sorts of faux pas. E.g. replacement screens | often have to be shipped, in small batches, halfway across | the world, which isn't exactly easy or cheap if you're a | small repair shop. If repairing things were easier and | carried less of a stigma, replacement parts would be cheaper, | repairing things would take less time and so on. | mc32 wrote: | I agree with you; however making things discreet and | replaceable will increase costs significantly and slow | progress --however, if we consider phones to have reached | "good enough" status then that makes sense. Double the | price but make it easy to repair or replace components. | alxlaz wrote: | > making things discreet and replaceable will increase | costs significantly and slow progress | | Nobody is asking to split the current, high pin-density | SoC into eighty chips with DIP sockets, they're mostly | asking for things like: | | * Publishing service manuals and schematics | | * Making replacement parts available (replacing the SoC | isn't _that_ big a deal, the problem is that you often | can 't _get_ that SoC anywhere) | | * Not selling things with an EULA that explicitly | prohibits "unauthorized" repairs | | "Making things discreet" is pretty much a red herring. | Sure, making everything discreet would result in bulkier, | pricier, and probably worse phones, but you can massively | improve the general public's access to repairs without | doing that. | Slikey wrote: | > Part of the problem with electronics is often a brand new | unit costs less than replacing a faulty part | | This is only partially true. The true cost is hidden and at | least by average people like me immeasurable. We are putting | a lot of cost out of sight if you consider the environmental | impact of e-waste. | mc32 wrote: | Good point. What is a good estimate for e-waste costs? I | don't think it's more than 10% of a phone's unsubsidized | costs. | throwaway3699 wrote: | With China clamping down on E Waste imports, the EU may | actually be happy to push for something that's pro-environment. | I think aligning the incentives properly will be a great thing | long term. | titzer wrote: | > I just want a world where stuff lasting a lifetime exists. | | I think this is part of the point you are trying to make, but | _everything_ requires maintenance. Not sure what model fridge | you have, but a bulb replacement should be not too hard to pull | off on your own. | interestica wrote: | 'maintenance' requires maintainable/replaceable parts. | iamsb wrote: | I sincerely hope that providing upgrades to software is also | included as part of this. The only device I have which I dont | actively use or give away is a Samsung galaxy tab which never | received a single Android OS upgrade. I think it is reasonable | for a consumer of a software+hardware integrated device to | expect upgrades of software for say 3-5 years. | reegnz wrote: | Guaranteed upgrade cadence is not enough. I think what would | be regulated is that they MUST open source afther that 3-5 | years. | | Just as we have with pharma patents, after a protection | period it should be free game, and they should open-source if | they don't intend to continue pushing updates, say evety 6 | months or so. | Nextgrid wrote: | I think a better approach would be to force manufacturers to | provide everything necessary for someone (the user or a | third-party company) to develop alternative firmware. This | means source code, datasheets of the hardware, and a way to | bypass locked bootloaders or other code signature checks. | Essentially, if you can't provide updates yourself, you | should be giving away everything that's necessary for someone | else to do it. | iamsb wrote: | That is a brilliant suggestion. | nolite wrote: | I just had my 4000EUR MacBook Pro (2017) die, 5 months out of | warranty, because of a blown capacitor. (probably a $0.20 part | tops) | | They have to change the whole motherboard, lose all my data. | Price of a new machine... | | grumble, grumble | bmn__ wrote: | Go with third-party repair. It's cheap and fast. | evilos wrote: | Sounds like a job for Louis Rossman: | | https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup/videos | globile wrote: | Phone unlocking doesn't get much attention, but it is an | integral part that no one wants to address or get their hands | dirty with. | | There are many more locked phones in drawers or acting as mere | paperweights than people actually care to disclose. | | Several years back we ran a poll to understand lifetime | recycling habits. People aren't proud of dropping a phone and | shattering the screen, but they are less proud of having thrown | a phone into a drawer because they couldn't be bothered to run | the obstacle course set up by their telco to keep them in | check. | | Phone right-to-repair should be EXPLICITLY INCLUSIVE of | unlocking, otherwise it is only solving a part of the problem. | kwhitefoot wrote: | Mobiles in Europe are generally unlockable by calling the | network supplier after the contract expires. In Norway, in my | experience at least, this is free. | | But the reason I have a handful of paperweight mobiles is not | that they are locked but that they are no longer useful. They | have low resolution cameras, little memory, small screens, | obsolete operating systems, etc. I sometimes try to sell them | but no one wants them even free. | oauea wrote: | I live in the EU and have never encountered a carrier locked | phone. It's quite an amusing concept, and the first carrier | to come up with it must truly have been evil. | Fradow wrote: | I live in the EU too (France), and any phone you buy | directly from a carrier (generally heavily discounted, but | tied to a more expensive plan) is carrier-locked, and can | only be unlocked after a set amount of time has passed, or | earlier by paying a fee (regulated by the EU if my memory | serves me well). | | Perhaps it's because I was less financially literate in the | past, but I remember that as being the only way in the | 2000s. There might have been laws passed to limit that | practice and its abuses. | | The smart solution, provided you have enough money, is to | buy the phone elsewhere, and take a plan without a phone. | It's always less expensive in the long term. | oauea wrote: | Interesting. More specifically, I live in the | Netherlands. Perhaps we already had regulation about | this, or I've just been lucky. | SonicTheSith wrote: | Hmm, | | in Germany, the Telco's gave up locking the phones in | 2017. Because it was to expensive. I can not remember if | it was a hard lock - as in any other sim card is blocked | or just their additions to the OS. bought a phone in | 2017/early 2018 - Xperia 10, where on the boot screen a | Deutsche Telekom logo appears but otherwise the OS | unaffected by vendor edits/additions. But updates are | really slow since they go through Telekom instead of | directly from sony which is already slow. | jokethrowaway wrote: | I live in the EU and I've avoided carrier locked phone for | my entire life. | | I know many who can't do math and paid twice the value of | the phone for a locked device and some plan they never | really used fully. | Nextgrid wrote: | Carrier locks are an absolute scam. The argument is that it | allows carriers to offer subsidised phones and "repossess" | them if the customer defaults on their bill by making it | unusable. | | However, in reality, not only does the carrier not mind if | the phone keeps being used (as long as it's on the carrier's | network) but the lock doesn't expire once the customer pays | off their plan. | | Furthermore the process for unlocking a phone is | intentionally made convoluted. Until recently, you couldn't | even figure out which carrier an Apple device was locked to | without playing brute-force with all the carrier's SIMs in | the entire world and even Apple support couldn't be of any | help. And when you finally figure out which carrier it is, | getting in touch with them is a pain and some have stupid | policies like keeping the device on their network for 30 days | before being able to request an unlock (a scummy attempt at | getting some people to give up and just keep using their | network past the deadline, or revenge against someone who | doesn't intend to do so by essentially making their device | unusable for 30 days). | globile wrote: | Absolutely. Remember the "2014 Obama Unlocking Law" [1] ? | It was supposed to not only not make it ilegal to carrier | unlock a phone, but also forced all carriers to adopt a | specific code of conduct to assist users with unlocking. | | Fast forward 6 years, and it is much harder to unlock a | phone than it was then. The whole thing backfired for | consumers. It was actually easier to unlock a phone in a | "non-legal" way before the law than it was right after. | | This whole new code of conduct for carriers actually made | them convert their SIMlock departments to be more like a | customer retention lifecycle. | | This mainly applies to US carriers (in the US and Latam), | and there certainly are exceptions in Europe where EVERY | cell phone is unlocked from day one, regardless of your | contractual status. | | [1]: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/08/15/h | eres-h... | lostlogin wrote: | > This mainly applies to US carriers (in the US and | Latam), and there certainly are exceptions in Europe | where EVERY cell phone is unlocked from day one, | regardless of your contractual status. | | I had no idea this was still a thing, it's horrible. What | mechanism is creating the current situation? Phones are | all unlocked here in New Zealand. | Nextgrid wrote: | > What mechanism is creating the current situation? | | Lack of general consumer protection regulation (or their | enforcement), and specifically with regards to | telecommunications the regulator who's supposed to | oversee the field (the FCC in the US, or OFCOM in the UK | for example) is often in bed with the companies it's | supposed to regulate. | b06tmm wrote: | > However, in reality, not only does the carrier not mind | if the phone keeps being used (as long as it's on the | carrier's network) but the lock doesn't expire once the | customer pays off their plan. | | I recently paid off my AT&T iPhone X and the process to | unlock it couldn't have been easier. | | https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/ | SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: | That's if you meet the terms and conditions: | | https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1262649 | | Notably, you have to have been paid up (somewhat | understandable), active for 60 days if postpaid (not | really reasonable at all), or if prepaid, active for 6 | months (absolutely not reasonable). This basically | precludes someone selling a phone secondhand entirely if | they haven't unlocked it first by holding the value of | the phone hostage (phones are worth less when locked). | Completely anti-consumer. And AT&T isn't even the worst | about this. I once tried to unlock a phone through Rogers | and they wanted $120 to do it! This was back around 2011 | so their policy might have changed but given Canada's | terrible telco situation I doubt it has changed much. | tim333 wrote: | > "repossess" them if the customer defaults | | It's not usually like that - and I've had a few locked | phones. | | Usually the deal is that a network, say Vodafone, | subsidises the handset by PS50 of some such in return for | you being forced to use Vodafone services for a couple of | years, unless you arrange to unlock it. | | It's sort of ok as a deal but a pain in many ways if you | want to travel and use a local SIM or sell the phone for | example. | [deleted] | dijit wrote: | Selling locked phones in the UK and EU is already illegal | | UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54692179 | | EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Commercial_Practices | _Di... | ce4 wrote: | The new phone lock du jour is the manufacturer's anti theft | mechanism. | | I recently got two iphones from their owners, pulled out of | the drawer to monetize them on classifieds. Both locked and | unresettable without the previous owners help (one could be | unlocked because I got her account password over the phone, | huge nogo but she trusts me to not screw with her account). | The other not, account was lost. | | Apple also now tags and ties both battery and camera to the | logicboard. Shame. | ska wrote: | This one is a pretty obvious trade off, does anyone know | of good data on the impact of Apples policy on iphone | theft rates and/or sales rate of stolen phones? | emteycz wrote: | You can't find a Macbook in any second hand store around | Prague. It used to be full of them. | nousermane wrote: | SIM/operator locks have been already rare (in Europe) for a | while, and that's great! | | But there are Android phones that come with bootloader/OS | lock, which often means old device is stuck with some | ancient OS version (and some bundled bloatware), instead of | being able to be reflashed to a recent LineageOS. | BossHamster wrote: | Even LineageOS can only help so far. I've got a Galaxy S7 | Edge, bought it dec. 2016. It's not even supported by | Lineage OS any more. | [deleted] | emteycz wrote: | You should switch to the official OS then - it just got | an update. As it also did 3, 6 and 12 months ago. | [deleted] | kuzko_topia wrote: | Xiaomi's phones are locked like this, requiring a mi | account to unlock the device to allow flashing the | device... | bengale wrote: | > there is no light in the fridge (but it still works) | | I normally find these types of appliances make parts readily | available. I just replaced the locking mechanism on my washing | machine for example, it was cheap and easy to order the parts I | needed. | rusk wrote: | Pretty sure these are usually standard bulbs ... | echelon wrote: | Not modern fridges. | | That trend has become ubiquitous: cars, laptops, phones... | | Nothing is designed to be fixed at home anymore. If there | were regulations that required it, we'd still have the same | advanced tech, but it'd be repair friendly. | fridek wrote: | Trust me I'm an engineer? But always happy to have HN debug | my fridge, so here we go: turns out the light bulb, when | replaced, keeps overheating and even metled the surrounding | casing. Some electrical issue I'd have to take the fridge | apart to debug. I might be unfair with this one though, | it's a 20 year old fridge and is probably serviceable. | interestica wrote: | Sometimes the manufacturer makes it difficult. Replaced the | light bulb in my parents' oven last week. The manufacturer | only sold the bulb with the entire (expensive) housing as | well. A bulb! We managed to find a supplier with a compatible | bulb (which meant a quick swap). | | I'd like to think there was a reason the manufacturer wanted | the entire housing replaced? | harrierpigeon wrote: | My guess is that some product manager somewhere realized | that if they only offered the bulb housing assembly they | could make a bit higher profit margins | RankingMember wrote: | It depends. A lot of modern fridges use LEDs and have control | boards driving them that cost hundreds of dollars. If the | LEDs are out, the likelihood is not that the LEDs are dead, | but that something much more expensive failed. | Scoundreller wrote: | My guess is that the LEDs are in series on a strip, and one | burnt out. | | The fridge manufacturer probably assumed it'll always run | cold (it's a fridge right?) and overdrove them too hard to | get just as much light out of 20 LEDs instead of 24. | | Could bridge the faulty LED with solder to buy some time, | and find a donor LED from a "burnt out" LED light bulb or | whatevs and solder it in. | throwanem wrote: | The prices on those controllers are totally absurd, too. | You end up paying four hundred bucks for something with a | sub-$20 BOM cost. | wizzard wrote: | YouTube has been a game changer for me. I've repaired my | dishwasher, shower handle valve, refrigerator drain, replaced | thermal paste in my laptop, all kinds of things. It seems | like there's a decent video for everything, and some random | website (or eBay) selling parts. | megous wrote: | My experience: | | - no service/troubleshooting manual/videos available online | | - no way to identify what replacement part to buy unless | you're in the know already | | - getting access to locking mechanism looked like it would | lead to washing machine completely falling apart structurally | (there was a somewhat hidden "safety" screw that looked like | a last defense against people removing the front panel just | by removing the apparent screws and hurting themselves) | | So I bailed on this without a proper guide on safe | disassembly procedure. | | Thankfully wiggling the connector to the locking switch made | the lock and thus the washing machine work again, after a | first failure since 15 years ago or whatever. It looked just | fine inside (surprisingly). Vibrations probably don't allow | much dirt to accumulate. No obvious rusting/leakage. I was | surprised. | foofoo4u wrote: | Products are having shorter lifespans with ever decreasing levels | of repairability. Like what others have said here, our | expectations have become so low that it is commonly expected that | the things we buy will only last a year or two before we end up | throwing them away. This can be easily resolved if people simply | paid more money for better quality products and brands that | ensure repairability and longevity. But, of course, as time has | shown, cheapness has won over consumer behavior. I'd consider | this a market failure. I've always thought that this failure | could be corrected by simply increasing the cost of disposal | ("throwing things away") via some kind of tax. When my vacuum | cleaner, my toaster, or even my coffee maker dies, throwing it | away costs very little money. So little money that it is better | worth my time to simply dispose it in the trash and buy a new | one. But if I find disposing them to be costly, I'll certainly | reconsider my options. | MzHN wrote: | How do I as a consumer know if a product will last or not? High | price does not automatically signal longevity. | | The other thing is that nothing lasts forever, so eventually | you'd need to repair. Most things you can't repair by yourself, | so if the repair costs more than new, and the suggested | increase for disposal, I'd still end up buying new to save the | hassle. | | My wishlist is: | | - For consumers, incentivize repair over disposal and buying. | | - For companies, incentivize manufacturing quality and design | for repairability. | | But the question still stands how to do either? | foofoo4u wrote: | All good questions. I am not going to pretend I know the | answers here. I'll share my thoughts though. | | > How do I as a consumer know if a product will last or not? | | You, yourself, wont know. Not unless you are an expert on the | product, which most people are not. The manufacturer may know | what they are selling you is terribly engineered and will | break, but you will not. So how can we overcome this | imbalance of knowledge? I think the automotive industry is a | good example of this being addressed. If I want to buy a car, | how do I know that it is going to be reliable? I don't. Even | if I were an expert, I don't have the luxury to buy the car, | inspect its mechanics, and return it if I don't like it. But | yet, even when situated with this predicament, I can still | make a well informed decision that will give me a great | chance of obtaining a reliable car. Why? It's because there | is a plethora of institutions I have access to to evaluate | what brand I should go with. The IIHS, NHTSA, Kelly Blue | Book, J.D. Power, Edmunds, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports, my | local car mechanic, and more. As great as these institutions | may be, I believe it only part of the solution. The second is | there needs to be a *demand* for reliability. The demand for | automotives exists because the price of not having it is | costly. Failure can mean major surprise repair bills, a | ruined vacation, stranded on the side of the road for hours, | etc. Such a price doesn't exist for the failure of my little | toaster. But perhaps this can be artificially made with a | disposal tax as I suggested in my post. | musingsole wrote: | Paying more isn't enough. Consumers can't cover the liability | costs that come along with opening an electrical panel | channeling a household's mainline. The cost argument imagines | 5% more cost for a few features to aid some simple maintenance. | The off-the-shelf cost of those features could well be 5% more. | But the support logistics, legal coverage, manual drafting, etc | won't be covered by that 5%. | | The idea of repairing a washing machine is great. But our world | is growing more complex by the day. The average individual is | going to lose any hope of having even enough shallow expertise | to crack into these devices without endangering themselves and | others. If you pursue this fight, I'd put money in the | industries developing "needed" technologies that pack toxic gas | in vacuum parts to further increase the expertise needed to | touch their internals. | xixixao wrote: | There was a simple system for this with bottles: There is a | premium which you pay, that is returned when you correctly | dispose of the bottle. Perhaps a similar mechanism could be | applied. The "cost" of disposing is then the time to get the | money back, not the premium itself. | labawi wrote: | This might work. | | A big issue with paying for disposal is the motivation to | avoid payment. It's hard to get people to dispose of trash | responsibly. If they had to pay, we'd be surrounded by | illegal dumps. | | I think there should be disposal fees, but they must be paid | upfront. EU actually has recycling fees on purchase, but they | seem to be laughably small (like < 1 EUR for a vacuum | cleaner). | pkaye wrote: | They need to also demand "design for reparability". I had a dryer | where to replace a thermal fuse, you had to remove all the outer | panels and a bunch of other things to replace a tiny component. | They could implemented a service panel on the back which you | could unscrew to replace that part. | [deleted] | Proven wrote: | Translation: a minority made of vocal socialist fanatics assisted | by manipulative politicians have managed to introduce a new tax | on EU consumers. | | Whereas before you could buy a device that would be smaller and | cheaper to own because it was built with a minimal number of | field-replaceable parts, soon you'll have _no choice_ (whether | you want to fix old junk or not) but to buy a bulkier, more | expensive device for which suppliers have to stock and sell spare | parts and provide support. All of which will reflect in the price | of that product. | | "Europe is guaranteeing citizens the right". I'm touched! Thank | you, Brussels! | acd wrote: | We must mandate that all consumer devices can load open source | operating systems. That manufacturers provide open design | specifications and follow reasonable standards. That is after a | few years, manufacturers do not have an incentive to fix the | operating system of devices. Unless we can load open source | operating systems, old devices will have security holes which is | bad for security. | | What I want to say is we should be able to fix and repair the | hardware and software of devices. | | I want to reach out and thank citizens of France for leading the | way on repair index! | mkhpalm wrote: | How does this affect Tesla in Europe? | immmmmm wrote: | Louis Rossmann's youtube channel is a great source of information | on this topic. | dartharva wrote: | If the admin of this site is seeing it, please note that the | captcha guard you're using is broken. Not only is it mandating | storage of cookies, it is absolutely refusing to accept my | answers as correct despite several trials. | phaedrus wrote: | In my opinion, if they really cared about their stated goals, the | EPA should have also rolled right-to-repair protections for the | relevant equipment into emissions rules for car manufacturers. | They should have mandated interchangeable parts, standard | connections, and openly available documentation. | | Recently I rebuilt a 1996 car. The previous owner had misplaced a | fuel tank topper that contained valving for the emissions | controls. The parts needed were simply not available for purchase | from the manufacturer or the aftermarket. At the time I couldn't | source a used fuel tank for the 96, but I was able to find a 1999 | model year of the same car in a junkyard. | | Between 1996 and 1999, the fuel vapor emissions controls went | from "somewhat complicated" to "really complicated." In theory I | should have been able to either hook up just the plumbing needed | by the 96 system, or upgrade the whole car to the 99 system. | However in practice I could do neither. The fittings had all | changed. The charcoal canister was changed from round to square. | (And really what is the point of installing either canister when | both are probably "used up" at this point? Why can't I buy new | canisters at the same stores where I can buy new air filters?) | | But the biggest impediment was obtaining information on the two | systems. The information in the service manual was perfunctory | and nonspecific; multiple different systems had been used in | different years and regions. The diagrams of internal valving on | the tank toppers small enough that important connections (or lack | of them) were obscured by smudges. I had more luck reading EPA | whitepapers to at least get a theory of operation. | | In the enthusiast community I can find information about how to | put a cylinder head from one year of this car onto a block from | another. I can even find information about what ports to block | off or drill open to remount the cylinder head on BACKWARDS, if | I'm so inclined. There's not a similar subcommunity for people | trying to repair their emissions equipment. | | A similar problem exists with safety equipment. Most enthusiasts | of this car just delete their ABS, or they never service it. I | want to rebuild mine (this just consists of replacing internal | O-rings), but I can't find information or get parts except from | overseas. In Europe and other countries that are not the USA, the | manufacturer did service and rebuild these ABS units. | shimonabi wrote: | I recently bought a 50EUR electric chainsaw at an Aldi discount | store in Europe (against my better judgement). | | After a few uses, the chain tightening bolt broke into two | pieces. | | I begged them to send me just the bolt, but NO. They said I'm not | entitled to repair it. I was even willing to pay for it, but I | couldn't find it below 15EUR on the internet. | | So I sent the whole chainsaw to the repair service on their dime | and they sent me a brand new one. They probably tossed the | perfectly fine old chainsaw into the dumpster. Because of a | 0.10EUR bolt. | | The corporate throwaway culture is incredible. | grecy wrote: | Now you have one with an in-tact screw you should take it out | and figure out the size and thread-pitch so if it breaks again | you can buy a generic one. | | And then post the info online somewhere - even if it's a random | Reddit thread Google will pick it up and a search like "Aldi | chainsaw chain tightening screw replacement" should pick it up. | shimonabi wrote: | It's a special bolt. I would have to buy a lathe. I have a 3D | printer at home and I taught myself 3D design so I already | made a bunch of replacement parts out of plastic. | lostlogin wrote: | How is the saw? I went the expensive route and got an | electric Stihl. It's a monster. | | I find the proper use of the saw to be more important that | with a petrol saw as it isn't immediately clear if it's on | or not. Others in the area are immediately aware when there | is an idling chainsaw, but not so much with an electric | one. | macspoofing wrote: | If you follow the laptop/smart-phone repair community [1], the | problems they run into is lack of access to technical manuals, | diagnostic tools and in cases, being prevented from buying | replacement parts by suppliers under the direction of Apple (for | example). To me, it seems that this is where government or | industry regulation would be helpful and provide most value with | minimal impact on innovation and market disruption. | | On the other hand, I am uneasy with regulators mandating specific | designs (e.g. all phones must have replaceable batteries), or | specific standards (e.g. all phones need to use USB-C) or doing | things like forcing Apple to include a charge cable or headphones | with their devices. | | [1] I'm thinking of Jessa Jones and Louis Rossmann specifically. | tracnar wrote: | Europe imposed a standard for phone chargers and thanks to that | you don't need a different charger per brand, or even per | model, like it was 15 years ago. AFAIK they did not specify the | exact standard, except that it has to be some common industry | standard, so it did not prevent moving from micro-USB to USB-C | (and whatever Apple is using). | ogre_codes wrote: | I kind of wonder if we're looking at solving this the wrong way. | Instead of mandating that manufacturers take specific steps to | fix the waste problem, maybe it would be better to tag items at | manufacture and charge device makers a percentage based on how | long before it enters the waste stream. | | Manufacturers could solve this by either: | | - Making their things easy to repair | | - Creating in house recycling programs | | - Making equipment more durable and longer lasting | | Any combination of the above. By picking _one specific_ way of | reducing waste, we are ignoring other factors. Few people care to | repair Android phones because you can 't upgrade the OS after 2 | years regardless. It doesn't matter if the hardware is | repairable, the device is greatly devalued at that point. Like | wise, if it's super expensive to repair an iPhone, people aren't | going to bother and will just replace it. | | By focusing on the end result -> Devices entering the waste | stream <- the manufacturers are responsible for ensuring hardware | gets responsibly recycled, repaired, or just doesn't break. | Obviously, to make this work the cost per device entering the | stream would have to be significant compared to the cost of the | device. | | Also, the cost should be the responsibility of the maker. | Currently in some place in the US, consumers pay the cost to | dispose of/ recycle televisions. The result is we end up with TVs | on the side of the road. Often on the way away from the dump | where people refuse to pay the disposal fee then toss the TV out | the door on the way home. | jka wrote: | Your suggested strategy isn't mutually exclusive - consumers | could have the right to repair _and_ manufacturers could be | billed based on the value (negative or positive) of waste | material that they generate. | ogre_codes wrote: | What I'm suggesting is the problem isn't repairability, its | stuff breaking and getting tossed. | | I don't care how manufacturers address this issue, but I do | think it's clearly their responsibility to address it. | | Also, any legislation should recognize that these devices | aren't just physical devices that might need to have a screen | replaces. A device which you can replace the screen on, but | can't get secure software for is just as worthless as one you | can upgrade but can't replace the screen on. | PeterisP wrote: | The problem here is with the time delay between manufacturing | and the waste, especially as many manufacturers are abroad and | short-lived. | | It's feasible to enforce repairability conditions and | documentation requirements before a device is sold, at the | point of manufacture or import - if you're not compliant, you | get excluded from the market. | | It's not feasible to reliably and effectively enforce | consequences for manufacturers years down the road, when it's | plausible that the original overseas manufacturer and the | importer/wholesale distributor both have shuttered their | operations. | | We can't wait and see how much waste will be generated from | this device, we if we want to charge device makers a percentage | based on how long before it enters the waste stream, this needs | to be based on an up-front guesstimate - which IMHO is a | subjective metric _can 't_ be reliable and just invites | corruption and abuse. | ogre_codes wrote: | > It's feasible to enforce repairability conditions and | documentation requirements before a device is sold, at the | point of manufacture or import - if you're not compliant, you | get excluded from the market. | | Yes. | | Someone else pointed out just charging for waste at the time | of manufacture/ import and that is an excellent way to | resolve this. | | Though companies which reclaim/ recycle old products should | get credit for that effort as well. | tshaddox wrote: | Or go even a step further and directly address the fundamental | problem, which is externalities. "Time to entering waste | stream" still isn't the fundamental "end result" to optimize. | Just require that the cost of plastic and other materials | includes the cost of safe disposal or recycling, just like the | cost of gasoline ought to include the cost of the externalities | of burning it. | ogre_codes wrote: | Sure. I'd be all for a more generic waste tax. Include the | cost of packaging and as you suggest, the carbon cost of | shipping it too. | | I do think any reduction due to a manufacturer recycling/ | remanufacturing goods should be reflected in whatever fees | are charged. | oauea wrote: | It's difficult to predict how much something will cost in the | future. If your example was followed then a device that lasts | a year and a device that lasts 10 years would have the same | added cost. This is not ideal, since it may not be obvious to | consumers how long the device will last. | Buttons840 wrote: | I suppose there would be some regulatory agency that takes | samples and estimates the number of items disposed, and then | levies the costs? | ogre_codes wrote: | Much trash is already processed before it's buried to remove | recyclables regardless. | | I would suggest requiring some kind of RFID chip or other | scannable code which can be checked in the refuse stream. | bigfudge wrote: | Incentivise consumers by giving them a cut of the charge to | manufacturers when they report trashing an item. That is, if | you recycle a phone within 5 years you get PS5 (or some | percentage or sale price) which is charged back to the | manufacturer. | aembleton wrote: | Making the producers responsible for the disposal might be the | best way. I don't exactly know how it would be implemented but | I'd like to see it for packaging too. | | Local authorities should be able to collect up all Mcdonalds | packaging and hand it back to them. Make them responsible for | its disposal. Then they will be incentivised to reduce the | amount of packaging that they produce. | lostlogin wrote: | > Local authorities should be able to collect up all | Mcdonalds packaging and hand it back to them. | | Yes, with a bill for the cost of collection and at some point | (after repeated failures?), a fine to motivate a course | correction. | marcosdumay wrote: | > after repeated failures? | | Failure to do what? | lostlogin wrote: | Failure to address the problems they are causing. | | Eg near me is a nice park. Every single evening the car | park gets a dump of McDonalds and Wendy's rubbish. | | Yes, it's their customers and not them, but if those | companies addressed their waste by creating less, making | more efficient packaging or finding other ways to improve | the situation, they would make way more difference than | any customer could. | anoncake wrote: | More realistically, make them pay for the disposal of as much | garbage as they spread. | ogre_codes wrote: | > Local authorities should be able to collect up all | Mcdonalds packaging and hand it back to them. | | Absolutely! | | It is far too easy to create disposable crap that ends up | dumped all over the planet. I get so frustrated seeing | garbage all over the place in natural places. | | I do think its a lot easier to focus on the higher ticket | items first. | hippich wrote: | You guys are forgetting another part of the chain, which | can make decisions - consumers. If cost of throwing | something away increases - may be that will make consumers | choose something more reliable and serviceable. As if right | now residential trash pickup service probably covers just | the labor and machinery to get trash to the landfill | ogre_codes wrote: | They tried that with televisions in California. | | The result? Televisions are one of the most common forms | of road trash now. Often on the way to/ from the dump. As | soon as you charge someone to get rid of something, the | temptation to just dump it on the side of the road | increases. | TeMPOraL wrote: | Roads, or rivers. In rural areas of Poland, it's still | common to find illegal trash dumps in the woods or by the | streams; any ditch will do. And there goes everything, | from biowaste to furniture and television sets. | ogre_codes wrote: | Yeah. One of the places I ride has a few very conspicuous | dumps of obvious construction trash and it is extremely | irritating. In this case, it's a bunch of asphalt | roofing... very heavy and likely expensive at the dump. | | Its bad enough I almost think we should just eliminate | all dump fees and charge everything upstream. If you | charge for disposal at the time of sale, then you don't | need to charge at the time of disposal. Then you remove | the incentive to dump elsewhere. | Spivak wrote: | At scale this ends up being a public health issue because | if you disincentivize getting rid of rotting food people | get sick. | Spivak wrote: | Laws like this are basically doomed at the start because | consumers have very little choice in the amount of | garbage they produce. It just ends up being an extra cost | on consumers while the companies actually producing the | trash go unpunished. There are some discretionary | purchases like cards, wrapping paper, gift bags, single- | use plastic bags that might move the needle a little but | the bulk of my trash is packaging for stuff I have no | choice but to take on. I can't give it back, I can't | bring reusable containers, recycling won't take it. | dtech wrote: | Charging to dispose of waste is a bad idea. In my country | they tried charging for non-separated waste. It just | increased the number of illegal dumps and garbage | disposed in the wrong container by a massive amount. | mab122 wrote: | Sure but first there have to be products to choose from. | ryandrake wrote: | The amount of plastic and paper packaging/marketing that | you are forced to accept and dispose of when you buy | products is getting extreme. I recently bought a micro-sd | card, and had to dispose of: 1. the large shipping package, | 2. the enormous (in volume and mass) product plastic shell | package, 3. the glossy paper marketing insert inside the | package, 4. the user's manual (!), 5. the unwanted microsd- | to-sd adapter. Probably 99.5% of the mass shipped to me was | trash. Ridiculous that the manufacturer and shipper can | just externalize that cost onto me and inevitably the | environment. | | I'd expect they could ship me the bare sd card in a tiny | envelope without all that waste if they were incentivized | to. | tjoff wrote: | As a consumer though you could also have bought it in a | store or waited until you needed something else as well. | | I never understood the mindset of buying only a usb-stick | or similar online. | | Yes, the waste is obnoxious, but the consumer isn't | always innocent either. | cyberbanjo wrote: | I wonder how far you have to drive to offset the benefit | in waste from shipping | tjoff wrote: | Well I hope you wouldn't be making a long trip for the | sole purpose of buying an sd-card either. | | Some sort of emergency? Sure, but that is hardly the | norm. | ryandrake wrote: | I figure it is a wash. The shipping package can and does | get reused, so I'm really complaining about waste items | 2-5. Totally useless. | r00fus wrote: | Buying in-store or via delivery service (as opposed to | Amazon) is almost guaranteed to increase the amount of | plastic packaging. Many stores have those stupid anti- | consumer clamshell packages (mostly to reduce | shoplifting, but at high environmental cost). | | Let's not forget all the packaging in shipping the item | to the destination as well (that you don't see because | it's discarded in the shipping room floor). | | It's gotten to the point where I simply don't buy unless | I absolutely need it anymore. | konha wrote: | Ordering 2 items from Amazon will almost certainly result | in two separate packages being shipped to you. (At least | that's my experience here in Germany - YMMV.) | tjoff wrote: | Then don't order from amazon. | mikx007 wrote: | All we need is something like sci-hub for repair manuals... | Barrin92 wrote: | Gonna say thanks to the European Union for that one. Much | maligned, very bureaucratic, somewhat slow but honestly compared | to how much tech regulation in the world is solely focused on | surveillance and stripping privacy from people the EU still seems | to at least have the roughly the right idea most of the time. | amelius wrote: | Does this also cover the repair of software bugs? | maxekman wrote: | I have been helping friends and family replace their smartphone | batteries to give them new life. I recommend all of you who are | comfortable with tinkering to do the same, it can go a long way! | mytailorisrich wrote: | First reaction is that this is good news, but I think two things | needs to be looked at: | | One, what drives people to replace devices? I feel (not | scientific at all!) that wanting a new shiny device and, if | broken, cost of repair, are higher on the list than not being | able to repair. | | Two, the law of unintended consequences: Making devices more | repairable may increase their footprint in terms of material and | thus waste. If people do not have their devices repaired more | (e.g. because of (1) above ) then the net result might be worse | than the current situation. | dvdkon wrote: | At least for me, I wouldn't have bought as many devices over | the last few years if they were more repairable, and I do enjoy | having a large collection of hardware. | | I had to abandon my last few phones due to cracked screens, | water damage and other hardware faults. Even if I could find | replacements for the damaged parts (and I tried), they wouldn't | be official and would likely be of a lower quality. | Furthermore, most modern phones are really hard to put together | to the original quality standards, requiring for example new | pre-cut adhesive and whole new backplates, since the original | ones will get scratched during disassembly. | | My purchases are (at least partially) driven by wanting a | shiny, new-looking device that doesn't have any flaws. But, | perhaps counter-intuitively, _proper_ repairability would allow | me to maintain my devices in this state for a much longer time, | which would lead to me purchasing fewer new devices. | | Repairability this good would also be great for the used | market. Right now you never know what faults a | phone/notebook/other miniaturised device might have and if | they're there, getting rid of them might cost as much as the | device. This means that people who want 100% working devices | are more likely to buy new. For other products (for example | desktop PCs), the chance that an irreparable fault exists is | much lower, so buying used is safer. | mrweasel wrote: | If people don't adopt a mindset of repair/upgrade and just | continue to replace devices at the same rate, then sure more | material is going to be used. Those devices will be easier to | take apart and recycle though. | | This isn't just about phones and laptops, but also appliances, | and people aren't really upgrading fridges or stowes because a | new model is available. Many only get new cars because the | repair bill now exceed the monthly cost of a new car. | mytailorisrich wrote: | > _Those devices will be easier to take apart and recycle | though._ | | That's not a given. For things like smartphones I would much | rather they enact laws to make them more recyclable than more | repairable. And, let's be honest, smartphones don't require | repairs often, if at all. Most common issue is probably | shattered screen and that is already replaceable everywhere. | | > _and people aren't really upgrading fridges or stowes | because a new model is available._ | | Indeed, but they may replace an appliance (which already tend | to be quite repairable) that is 5-10 years old and that has | broken down because the cost of repairing it (parts plus | labour) is in the same ball-park as the cost of a new one. | Making appliances even more repairable won't change that. | dvdkon wrote: | > smartphones don't require repairs often | | I've had people come to me with broken screens, old | batteries, non-functional/muffled earpieces, wonky USB | connectors, cracked lenses and other problems. Smartphones | do require repairs and people, at least the ones I know, do | want to repair them. But when I tell them the part will | take a month to arrive and might not have the same quality | as the original, not to mention the non-zero risk of | cosmetic damage during disassembly, I can't blame them for | rather buying a new phone. | | My parents have a washing machine that's now over 15 years | old. It still gets repairs regularly. The parts cost is | going up though, because they haven't been made in a long | time now. Imagine how long we could keep this washing | machine if the parts were standardised or their CAD files | available online, maybe some manufacturer would be making | clones of them right now. | stvndvs wrote: | I'm the Digital Content Manager for Reasons to be Cheerful, the | site reporting this story. If you liked what you read, please | feel free to give us a follow for more stories of smart, proven, | replicable solutions to the world's most pressing problems. | | https://www.twitter.com/rtb_cheerful | https://www.instagram.com/rtbcheerful/ | https://www.facebook.com/RTBCheerful | TLightful wrote: | Great. Doesn't this impact Tesla too!? | | Good ... those fricking drivable iPhones need to be opened up. | franczesko wrote: | As a person who is living in EU, I didn't know that there's even | a discussion about whether you can or can't repair the things you | own. Sounds pretty weird. Repairing things is a common practice | since I can't remember when. | | Did I miss anything? | mrweasel wrote: | There really isn't much debate about "right to repair", | compared to the US. I think most just assume it's not worth the | hassel and cost. I would guess that the cost of repairing the | average TV be at least 25 to 50% of the cost of a new TV. | Highend stuff have always been repairable. | | The focus needs to be on making things repairable by the | consumer, and easy to recycle. Both mean that you need to be | able to take the item apart, and that will require redesigning | almost electronics. | modo_mario wrote: | >Highend stuff have always been repairable. | | As some have found out if you try to offer repairs of | something as a service because it requires a bunch of | technical knowledge in a way that the company doesn't like | you can get sued into bankruptcy. | | Things aren't repairable by consumers however easy it is to | take em apart if you can't get official parts (at a | reasonable price) and aren't technically allowed to use | alternative ones. | mrweasel wrote: | You're right, they are only repairable by manufacturer or a | "certified" technicians, so it's still a problem. It is | however going to be easier for a company like B&O who | already have a field servicable TV to comply with new | regulations | tomjen3 wrote: | This sucks, since it will probably mean that I can't buy the new | all in one apple laptops. Yeah they can't be upgraded (a bit of a | bummer), but when was the last time you upgraded any laptop that | you owned other than with more RAM, adding an SSD or a new | battery? When was the last time you wanted to? | | My grandparents old laptop finally died, and they offered me it | for parts but I had to straight out tell them that there was | nothing on it that was worth anything. | magicalhippo wrote: | Just yesterday my SO told me the subwoofer was broken. It's a | wireless unit, which pairs with the soundbar, which I got with my | TV about 5 years ago. | | I quickly come to the conclusion the power supply is broken. And | _of course_ the power supply is internal. | | I tried to open up the thing, being fairly competent with | electronics. But try as I might, I just couldn't figure out how | this thing comes apart. I don't want to brute force it, thing is | stylish and my SO likes that about it, but also a lot of plastic | so easy to break. | | Ok, I searched the web for a service manual. Nothing. Not even | close. | | In contrast, the DVD player my mom uses (mostly as a glorified CD | player) died before xmas. It's an old Sony unit, bought in 2000 | or 2001, and been on ever since (standby or active). I searched | and I found a beautiful service manual, with detailed schematics | and instructions for disassembly and reassembly. Even the PCB | itself has lovely markings making it very clear what is going on | where. | | Quickly discovered the issue in the power supply and ordered some | replacement parts (still waiting). | | Sure I could probably have found a second-hand DVD player for | cheap. But yeah it just seemed so senseless to toss away a | perfectly good unit when by all accounts it just needs $3 worth | of parts. | Scoundreller wrote: | Bad caps? | magicalhippo wrote: | PSU is a flyback design. | | I think the main freewheeling diode went (it's open now), and | the resulting switching spikes from the transformer caused | the switching converter[1] to fail. | | So far those are the only two parts that appear broken. | | As for the sub, I'd love to know! | | [1]: integrated switch, I misspoke earlier | yoran wrote: | Regulations like this are great and I applaud them. But they do | harm innovation, because often the cost to become compliant with | such new regulations is fixed. So the cost for a large | corporation to be compliant is roughly similar to the cost of a | startup to be compliant. This makes it comparatively harder for | startups to get going and thereby gives large companies an unfair | advantage. This stifles competition and innovation. | | We are seeing this first-hand with our startup in the EU | investment space. The costs to be compliant with the various | regulations (MiFID, AML, etc...) are mostly fixed, so they're a | lot harder for small firms to implement such as ourselves than | for large firms. That's also why a lot of smaller firms are | merging into larger firms. | | As a solution, there should be relaxed regulations for startups. | They would have to be fully compliant only once they reach a | certain scale. | tyingq wrote: | I wonder how far this goes. If the built-in Netflix app on my | really old smart TV isn't working because it hasn't been updated, | for example. | khawkins wrote: | Louis Rossman owns a repair shop in NYC and has been touring the | nation lobbying for Right to Repair. He's rarely sees success | though because the lobbyists for places like Apple have deep | pockets and there isn't a lot of public outrage. | | The article is wrong to give any credit to Apple for being on the | side of Right to Repair, as Louis explains in numerous videos. | | https://youtu.be/zFA3szW9nWk | chalst wrote: | I switched from iPhone to Fairphone mainly because of the fact | that my last two iPhones became irreparable for what I regarded | as stupid reasons. | Nextgrid wrote: | The problem here isn't just lobbying but that the people in the | government that we entrust to make these decisions are complete | idiots. The lobbyists' arguments are so flawed that anyone with | half a brain or a bit of common sense should be able to say | "hold on, this is bullshit!" and yet these people are | swallowing it whole. | | I'd have more respect for them if they outright turned around | and said "yeah we know we're screwing you over but the | lobbyists' money is too good to pass up" but in this case they | appear to be getting played without even realizing it | themselves. | ckocagil wrote: | Are they idiots, or do they get something out of it? | Nextgrid wrote: | Some of the arguments made by the lobbyists deserve | pushback even if you're secretly in their camp just because | of how absurd they are. | | Given this isn't happening, I'm not 100% convinced the | senators are doing this on purpose or if they're | legitimately too stupid to understand the argument at play. | Furthermore I remember Louis Rossmann saying in one of his | videos that one senator turned out to not even be checking | his official government e-mail account... that's not | someone I would entrust with understanding anything even | remotely related to technology. | bmn__ wrote: | > do they get something out of it? | | "robust conversations" | khawkins wrote: | Well they know corporations are going to be a colossal pain | in their ass if they pass something, but that the citizens | won't do anything. Might make the local news, but nothing | more. If only there was a little enthusiasm in this arena, | substantial progress could be made. But there are far too | many flashy "causes" out there that eat up the public | interest. As a people, we really deserve what we're getting | here. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-11 22:00 UTC)