[HN Gopher] It's your device, you should be able to repair it ___________________________________________________________________ It's your device, you should be able to repair it Author : lsllc Score : 578 points Date : 2021-04-30 14:20 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com) | ilogik wrote: | a good video about what the right to repair is and isn't: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68 | bogwog wrote: | This is a really good video, it lays everything out clearly and | explains it well. I even threw $50 at Louis's gofundme. | | It's always bizarre to me to see regular people arguing against | right to repair in online discussions. Literally the only | parties who benefit from planned obsolescence is device | manufacturers, and it happens at the customer's expense 100% of | the time. Either these people are dumb, or (most likely) they | don't actually understand what "right to repair" means, or at | the very least are confused about it. | addicted wrote: | What's also hard to understand is that right to repair is not | a new concept. | | The auto industry has it. | | I don't think anyone can argue that the auto industry or its | customers have suffered from the fact that we have an entire | ecosystem built around 3rd party repair and services that | often provide better, quicker, and more easily accessible | support and services. | gohbgl wrote: | As far as there exist unjust laws that prevent people from | repairing their devices, by all means, get rid of them (IP laws | especially). But by all means, do not add more regulation. | rasz wrote: | "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, | education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water | system, and public health, what has regulation ever done for | us?" | toss1 wrote: | On a site called Hacker News, I'm surprised to see so much | criticism of a right to repair. | | What is hacking, if not the act of digging into the guts of a | mechanism or device? | | What is open source, but providing the ability for anyone to | read, modify, and rebuild their software? | | I'd expect nothing less than full-throated support for the right | to dig into things. | | Sadly, it seems that many here are more supportive of the right | to lock things. Perhaps because they are employed in the rent- | seeking parts of the industry that want everything to be a | subscription? | | "It is very difficult to get someone to understand something when | their salary depends on not understanding it". | | [edit: to be sure, I understand that surface mount technology, | adhesive bonding, direct-soldered-in batteries, etc., are | genuinely useful advances, and make certain component-level | repairs at least impractical. I would not propose to require that | these be undone. But, we should be able to have whatever level of | access is physically possible, without unnecessary locks the | perform no useful user function, so we can try whatever we want. | Anything less is surrendering ourselves to rent-seeking. ] | foldr wrote: | What about reliability? Battery aside, the components in a | smartphone _could_ all be built to last 10 years. Regulations on | component lifetimes might have a much more beneficial effect than | repairability requirements. A well engineered smartphone or | laptop shouldn't need repairs within the reasonable expected | lifetime of the device. But at the moment, manufacturers aren't | incentivized or required to target 10 year lifetimes. | | I see it as a bit like ETOPS. You can fly across the Atlantic on | two engines as long as those engines are super reliable. | Similarly, you should be allowed to build unrepairable devices if | you can show, say, an expected lifetime of 10 years for 99% of | units. | metalforever wrote: | Oh no don't give them ideas | antattack wrote: | Given opposition to 'right to repair' from corporations, some of | it on valid grounds IMO, I would be fine with the following | compromise: | | If company does not want to provide resources needed for consumer | to repair a device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the | consumer for free or a small fee. | ncallaway wrote: | > If company does not want to allow consumer to repair a | device- it ought to provide extended warranty to the consumer | for a small fee. | | I would modify that: | | If a company restricts a consumer from repairing a device | (either explicitly in warranty policies, or implicitly by | producing devices that are hard to repair, restricting part | availability, or not having manuals available), then the | company _must_ (not should) provide an extended warranty for | all damage scenarios _at cost_. | Koshkin wrote: | > _devices that are hard to repair_ | | Define easy? (Modern electronics, for instance, is highly | integrated, full of miniature surface-mounted components | etc., and so the "repair process" might as well be simply | selling you a replacement for the whole thing.) | fsflover wrote: | > Define easy? | | See the definitions by iFixIt. | rasz wrote: | Apple already does this, they define _at cost_ as a cost of a | new device. | fsflover wrote: | > hen the company must (not should) provide an extended | warranty for all damage scenarios at cost. | | So would you agree on $1 million fee per customer? (which is | what companies would probably ask if you made such law) | rocqua wrote: | It states "at cost" so only the extra costs made for the | repair | fsflover wrote: | How do you independently evaluate those costs? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Extended warranty or updates. Past a certain date I should be | able to buy future updates for a reasonable fee. | | Sounds fair, it takes work to keep software updated. | scientismer wrote: | How do you know how much it costs to provide an extended | warranty? If it actually costs money, that kind of rule would | make devices more expensive for everybody. | whereis wrote: | Counterpoint: We're all safer by using devices that can't be | repaired/tampered with by end users. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I don't buy it. Cars are far more dangerous and they've been | mandated to be repairable for decades now. | johncessna wrote: | Agreed, but the tide is shifting there, too. It's not a | problem getting an off the shelf part for your vehicle. It's | the software for that part that's the problem. | | We already see phone manufacturers locking 'easily' | replaceable parts to the rest of the phone in a way that the | phone rejects the replaced part. As our cars gets smarter, | look for similar tactics to be applied there. | CivBase wrote: | Since when have the Googles and Apples of the world genuinely | cared about "safety" beyond a means to advertise a product? | bogwog wrote: | Yeah, just look at all the people that die every year because | they bought a used car that was repaired/tampered with by an | end user /s | 34679 wrote: | That's not always true. Take the case of a company that | determines the cost of fixing a flaw is worse for profits than | letting the flaw continue into production. Remington famously | allowed a flawed trigger in one of their rifles for decades, | even after being made aware of it and its 5 cent fix by the | designer of the rifle, before it went on sale. | | https://www.guns.com/news/2016/11/18/trove-of-internal-docum... | ball_of_lint wrote: | Safer how exactly? | whereis wrote: | Harder to hack with device in hand, e.g. by replacing with | compromised components or accessing secure data | faeriechangling wrote: | Safer? I could cause a safety issue attempting my own car or | bicycle repairs and both of those things are much more | repairable than a modern smartphone. | | You know what's bad for human "safety"? Gratuitously burning | through resources and causing pollution by making phones out of | all sorts of rare materials and hucking them out. | bun_at_work wrote: | Pretty sure OP is not referring to physical safety here, but | more cyber security. | | Apple's devices offer a lot of cyber security that more | modular devices can't guarantee as effectively. | inetknght wrote: | > _Pretty sure OP is not referring to physical safety here, | but more cyber security._ | | Arguably that's because device manufacturers aren't _made | to care_ about cyber security. Were that to change, their | devices would be a lot more _safer_. | rasz wrote: | Like owners of John Deere tractors? The ones who all got | DOXXED? | johncessna wrote: | This was the argument used by the auto industry, it was wrong | then and still is wrong. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | where is the unsafety of using a 10 year old ebook or 20 year | old web client (for self-hosted sites)? | endisneigh wrote: | I wonder how the right to repair intersects with security. On one | extreme, full right to repair is full access to all source code, | schematics and documents related to the phone and all of its | hardware and software. It would necessarily also give you the | ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install software | without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for security. | | However the other extreme, no access to anything is tantamount to | no access at all, which is clearly secure, but isn't useful nor | practical. | | Is the government really capable of properly defining the line? | rank0 wrote: | > On one extreme, full right to repair is full access to all | source code, schematics and documents related to the phone and | all of its hardware and software. It would necessarily also | give you the ability to arbitrarily flash firmware and install | software without limitation. Clearly this can't be good for | security. | | Open source code and device schematics shouldn't be a | significant security threat. If device security is reliant on | obscurity, you have improper security controls. Frankly, that | should be on the device manufacturer, and not the consumer. | | As for the second point, I should be able to install whatever | software I want on my device...as its mine. | endisneigh wrote: | > Open source code and device schematics shouldn't be a | significant security threat. | | You don't see how a completely open device could be insecure? | | > As for the second point, I should be able to install | whatever software I want on my device...as its mine. | | This is a valid opinion, but the whole point of contention is | whether you can do _anything_ with a device simply because | you 've purchased it, as opposed to what has been exposed for | you to do. | pwg wrote: | > no access at all, which is clearly secure | | Not "clearly secure" -- rather it would be 'security by | obscurity': | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_by_obscurity | | Quote: Security through obscurity (or security by obscurity) is | the reliance in security engineering on design or | implementation secrecy as the main method of providing security | to a system or component. Security experts have rejected this | view as far back as 1851, and advise that obscurity should | never be the only security mechanism. | endisneigh wrote: | No, my point was that the most secure device is a device that | cannot do anything - I'm familiar with security by obscurity. | The point of the example was to give extremes, everything v. | nothing. | rasz wrote: | I can arbitrarily flash firmware and install software on my | laptop without access to source code. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | Please don't forget how jailbreaking your iPhone was illegal only | 9 years ago, and jailbreaking the iPad wasn't legal until 2015! | thereddaikon wrote: | And how it has to be renewed every few years because its only | legal due to regulatory fiat instead of federal law. | Epskampie wrote: | I've recently started repairing more of my own stuff, and it's | actually really fun. I've replaced the clickers and scroll sensor | on my Razer mouse, resoldered bad connections on our failed | washing machine, and removed a piece of dust that was behind a | layer right in the center of my new monitor. You feel more proud | of a product you've repaired yourself. | | In these repairs i noticed that information (manuals, but also | being able to discuss on forums) and parts are crucial, so i'm | glad to see that those are the things encoded in law. A further | measure could be forbidding forced (hardware level) linking of | parts. | operator-name wrote: | Depending on your product (more like manufacturer) I couldn't | agree more. Plenty of failures are small, localised and with | some learning easily fixable! | | Replacing the frayed cable on a good pair of headphones, usb | cable on a functning mouse or even broken display as part of a | laptop. | | I recently decided to take the more challenge task of repairing | a swelling battery in a phone. I didn't have to worry about the | back glass as it was already swollen such that the glass had | cracked. It was surprisingly easy to take apart, remove the | screws and little legos[0] get to the battery. Closing it up | was extremely rewarding, as if I'd completed some hard surgery | and was stitching just up the patient. | | [0]: https://youtu.be/ZRDLw5ortyU | leoedin wrote: | PCs and even most laptops have been very repairable for decades. | You can still run Windows or Linux on a 10+ (20+?) year old | laptop without an issue. The idea that a 5 year old laptop would | be unusable or not get the latest version of Windows is | unacceptable. | | Yet phones cost similar amounts and have nowhere near the | repairability. A decade ago you could argue that it wasn't that | important - specs were changing so quickly that new phones became | obsolete too quickly. But now it's a maturing technology, older | devices are perfectly good and we still don't have an ecosystem | which encourages longevity and re-use. | | This is eminently doable - phones are essentially integrated | computers. The only reason phones are locked and PCs aren't is | historical. If phone manufacturers aren't willing to do it | themselves, we should legislate before even more e-waste is | generated. | 34679 wrote: | 5 year old laptops are repairable, but fewer and fewer new ones | are not. I've been in the market recently and it's extremely | frustrating trying to find a laptop that doesn't have the RAM | soldered in place. Sure, it can technically be desoldered, but | that's not how it used to be. | GordonS wrote: | I'm hunting for a new laptop just now, and just about | everything has at least one DIMM soldered, with many having | both soldered. Driving me nuts! | | Is there a convincing technical reason _why_ everybody is | doing this nowadays? | operator-name wrote: | Apart from costs and size there's could be good reasons to | do this - power, inteferance, placement and cooling. | | Hardware specialisation (doesn't always but) can reduce | energy by allowing for more efficient designs. Just think | of the power circuitry required to support all the SODIMM | variants. | | Since soldered ram is smaller it allows greater flexibility | in board design - they can be placed to avoid inteferance | or to benifit thermals. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | To make it thinner. | | And I 100% blame Apple for this. IMO, Apple is not a tech | company, but a fashion company. Or more accurately, they | produce technology that's optimized to be fashionable. Thin | laptops are more sleek, but to make them thinner will | require parts to be soldered to the motherboard, since an | actual slot will add 3mm or whatever. | | Other companies feel like they have to match Apple, and so | they follow suit. | | The thing is, AFAIK, nobody is asking for laptops to be | only 0.63 inches (16.1 mm) thick, but that's what people | are buying. Apple advertises how thin the MacBook Air is, | and the masses go wild over it. | GordonS wrote: | I'm with you on this - the marketing spiel of thinness at | the expense of all else drivers me nuts! | | I do want a thin laptop, and as someone who travelled a | lot for work while living with a physically disabling | medical condition, lightness is important to me too. But | I don't care half a shit if it's 16mm thick instead of | 16.1mm, if you've disabled the device to do it! | FearlessNebula wrote: | Force you to choose more RAM from the factory where they | charge high margins. | JoshTko wrote: | The trend for lack of reparability in smartphones is because of | consumer preferences. Consumers are consistently choosing | devices that are smaller, lighter, higher durability, | waterproof, cheaper etc. vs. devices that are more repairable | that do not have those features. | operator-name wrote: | Smartphones are an interesting market. They've only been | around 14 years and their rate of growth and improvements | have been staggering. Just a few years ago every new | generation brought a leap in performance, battery, features | or design. | | Increasingly consumers are not buying phones every year but | every two or even three years. As a result manufacturers have | been designing planned obsolescence and fighting against the | _right_ to repair. | | We can see from the results of direct ballot initiatives that | consumers want _right_ to repair. They want the choice if | they accidentally dropped and cracked the screen to buy a new | one, get a repair from the manufacturer, an independent third | party or even learn to do it themselves if they 're feeling | up to it! | | So yes, consumers can want features over repairability but | they can also be against barriers for their right to repair | at the same time. | operator-name wrote: | For independent repair shops newer devices aren't inhenrantly | more ddifcult to repair. It's just more difficult to source | the parts or get around the "security features". | amelius wrote: | Even if the phone is glued shut, I should still be able to | install a different OS on the thing after the vendor drops | support for it. | doikor wrote: | Most of the the newest devices are perfectly repairable if | the manufacturer would release the schematics and not block | their suppliers from third parties buying the parts (and as | newest trend lock the parts together on hardware level). | Maybe not all problems but a lot of the most common ones for | sure. | | Repair shops have managed to source new screens and cameras | for the latest iPhones for example. Apple just firmware locks | them to the device that stops them from working even though | it is a identical part (except for the serial number burned | into the chip). | | Basically it is not about making designs that just happen to | be hard to repair but instead the manufacturers are making | them intentionally hard or impossible to repair for third | parties to protect their own repair line and/or force you to | buy a new one especially now that phones have started to last | 3+ years just fine as progress on cpu speeds have slowed | done. | fsh wrote: | Where does this crazy idea come from that you have to glue | shut a device to make it waterproof? A rubber gasket and a | few screws work just as well without compromising | repairability. Wristwatches have been constructed like this | for centuries, while being a lot smaller and lighter than any | smartphone. Maybe it would slightly increase the BOM and | assembly cost, but considering that it fits in the budget of | a 30EUR Casio, probably not by much. I guess the real problem | is that manufacturers really don't want you to repair your | phones and customer's don't care enough for it to make a | difference in the market. | ChrisLomont wrote: | > Where does this crazy idea come from that you have to | glue shut a device to make it waterproof? | | Glue helps with heat dissipation, physical shocks, | vibration knocking plugs loose, provides electrical | insulation, chemical resistance, and makes the components | less able to vibrate over time and knock things loose, | makes sensor positioning more stable, and even makes things | easier to assemble since less individual fasteners are | needed. | fsh wrote: | None of this makes any sense. In modern smartphones, the | PCBs (i.e. the parts that get hot and contain the sensors | and other components) are usually screwed into the frame | without any glue. Only the battery, display, and back | covers are glued in. This makes repairs of the most | commonly damaged parts much more difficult without | providing any functional benetfits. | ChrisLomont wrote: | You ignored a significant part of the list. The list is | not mine - it's listed on manufacturing process feature | availability when you source things. | chmod775 wrote: | Your response doesn't actually address the point you | quoted. | | But yeah. You can either do thoughtful engineering and | careful assembly... or you can achieve close to the same | thing with glue. | giantrobot wrote: | The demand for smartphones is hundreds of millions per | year. Manufacturing a hundred million of a complex thing | is orders of magnitude more difficult than manufacturing | ones of millions of a complex thing. A small complex | thing with tight tolerances is harder yet. | | Setting a part in a jig, brushing a dab of glue, and | setting a second part on top is much faster than the same | process but fastening a couple screws to the appropriate | tightness. It's also less error prone and creates a | better bond between the parts. | | Apple and Samsung pump out tens of millions of phones a | quarter. The more effort required for each stage of | assembly ends up the difference of millions of phones | manufactured in the same period of time. | passivate wrote: | Assuming you've already researched the time and material | costs - Why does it matter if more effort is required? | | We should put the environment and our own interests as a | society ahead of the profits of these already obscenely | profitable companies. | | We don't allow industries to pollute the planet, we | require expensive filters and waste-treatment for | chemical plant effluents and catalytic converters for | cars, and what not. | giantrobot wrote: | > We should put the environment and our own interests as | a society ahead of the profits of these already obscenely | profitable companies. | | It's not necessarily about overall profit. Apple profits | on iPhones because they sell them for many times their | cost. A marginal cost increase in manufacturing wouldn't | impact them much. | | The problem for Apple (and other large manufacturers) is | production volume. It is a massive (and expensive) | undertaking to mass produce something like an iPhone in | the volumes Apple does. There's a lot of orchestration | between component suppliers, component transport, | assembly, packaging, and channel distribution. Contracts | covering all of those things are signed years in advance | to reserve capacity. | | If final product assembly volume drops because a worker | has to spend five seconds screwing parts rather than two | seconds gluing that back pressure affects _everything_. | Supply chains are such that there 's literally no | warehouse space available to store backed up components | or finished products. | | That doesn't affect profitability but just economic | feasibility of whole lines of products. There's massive | demand for smartphones and there's only so many ways to | get the production volume to meet that demand. | | Consider PC shipments in terms of production. The global | demand is tens of millions of units a _year_ vs hundreds | of millions of phones per _quarter_. Like I said, there | 's challenges to making a hundred million complex widgets | that simply don't exist at smaller scales. Screws might | be fine in laptops but they're a volume killer for | phones. | teachingassist wrote: | > Setting a part in a jig, brushing a dab of glue, and | setting a second part on top is much faster than the same | process but fastening a couple screws to the appropriate | tightness. It's also less error prone and creates a | better bond between the parts. | | In my imagining of this, a robot is doing it. Which makes | me think the opposite is true: the tightness can be | controlled and errors can be managed better with a screw, | than with glue. | giantrobot wrote: | Robots do not in fact do most assembly on smartphones. | There's a reason Foxconn's factories are the size of | towns. It's thousands of meat robots doing a majority of | the work. | passivate wrote: | You're saying "glue helps" but you seem to mean "glue is | required". Those are not identical concepts. Yes glue may | help, just like using bolts screws and gaskets may help. | The entire point is that glue is not _required_ to | achieve those goals. | ChrisLomont wrote: | What is glue is cheaper and works better at achieving all | those disparate goals? | passivate wrote: | It doesn't though. It fails when it comes to | repairability, re-use and reduction of e-waste. This is | the topic of the primary article, and therefore the | context for this thread. | | You can also weld an entire car together to make it | cheaper, but this is not something we should celebrate or | promote if it impacts the environment in terms of repair. | | But yes, I value your opinion so don't want to shut you | out of the discussion, I'm just saying there are more | important things than making sure an executive at Apple | or Google pockets a few more $100 bills. | ChrisLomont wrote: | >It fails when it comes to repairability, re-use and | reduction of e-waste | | Around 1.5 billion phones are sold a year. What percent | of phones are thrown out due to breaking versus people | want an upgrade? Then compare to the costs and waste of | using inefficient assembly techniques. | | It's also not hard or terribly expensive to get most | broken phones fixed at plenty of repair shops. | | I think you vastly overestimate the number of phones that | become waste due to using glue on parts. | | > I'm just saying there are more important things than | making sure an executive at Apple or Google pockets a few | more $100 bills | | I think this type of simplistic framing makes the | discussion end, not pointing out that there are good | engineering merits for using glue. | | I've worked on enough hardware design that needs MIL-SPEC | ratings that I know it is highly non-trivial to make | things rugged. And that things like glue go a long way | towards making it so. | | How much increased waste would there be if phones were | significantly easier to break? | JoshTko wrote: | Look at this comparison. Fairphone has a smaller screen but | is larger, heavier, lower quality screen, and is not | dust/waterpoof, and costs double compared with the Galaxy | S8. Fairphone only matches or loses on all other specs. | | https://versus.com/en/fairphone-3-vs-samsung-galaxy-s8 | operator-name wrote: | But also look at the AirPods Pro vs Galaxy Buds+: | | https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+Pro+Teardown/1275 | 51 | | https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Galaxy+Buds++Tear | dow... | | One has a zero whilst the other has a 7 by ifixit's | rating. | scientismer wrote: | Can you present me a sleek smartphone design with a rubber | gasket and screws? I'm genuinely curious what you have in | mind. | africanboy wrote: | but that's not a dichotomy | | you can have both | | we had smaller, lighter, more durable, waterproof, cheap | phones in the 90s and they were also highly repairable | PartiallyTyped wrote: | Repairable is not limited to just OS support, but fair and | equal access to replacement components. For example, apple can | ask Texas Instruments to not sell a particular chip that is | used on their logic boards to anyone else but them, rendering | odds of third party repair slimmer [1]. | | Apple went as far as to prevent genuine, that is, salvaged | parts, from legitimately bought phones, from being used to | replace camera units [2,3,4], or lock phones with replaced | batteries. | | [1] https://youtu.be/w4eHZCuHob8?t=175 Louis talks about part | availability | | [2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/30/21542242/apple- | iphone-12... | | [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnG3h3Jewq4 | | [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez3f1HgOa1o | Koshkin wrote: | > _or not get the latest version of Windows_ | | Not sure about this one: the continued support for older | versions - yes, but the latest? Nobody can give you such | promise (unless they explicitly do, for one reason or another). | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I have a 10 year old desktop and a 12 year old laptop that | both run the latest Windows 10 with no issues. | OkGoDoIt wrote: | I can easily install the latest version of windows 10 on even | a 10 year old computer. But more importantly, I can still | install Windows 7 on a 10-year-old computer if I want to. And | it will still work, and most programs will still run on it. | Or I can install an alternate operating system like Linux. | | Whereas with my iPhone, I literally can't install an old | version of the operating system or an alternate os, no matter | how old or new the device. And if I do happen to have a | device that still has an old operating system, most apps | refuse to run because the API surface area changes | constantly. And if you have old versions of apps, they mostly | all phone home to check versions now and won't run until you | update them. It's a never ending cycle and you have no | control over it. | libeclipse wrote: | > The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) says extending the life | of smartphones and other electronics by just one year would be | the equivalent of taking two million cars off the road, in terms | of CO2 emissions. | | Looking at you, Apple. | | https://uk.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed | djoldman wrote: | I believe that this right to repair stuff is really a reflection | of a superceding market breakdown: oligopolistic power. | | Consumers want to do what they like with the things they own and | some want the information needed to repair those things. Some | companies don't have to offer this information or can get away | with locking down their devices because they are immune from | competition. This immunity is generally acquired by having the | best product but then maintained by an abuse of market share. | | The solution is to encourage competition somehow. If someone made | a tractor that could compete with John Deere, John Deere might be | forced to entice consumers with the feature of repairability. | passivate wrote: | >Some companies don't have to offer this information or can get | away with locking down their devices because they are immune | from competition. | | Oh it is much worse that this. These 'Some' companies actively | block repair shops from purchasing spare parts so they can | repair end-users' devices. | djoldman wrote: | Agreed it can be much worse. | | From the econ standpoint it's a rational move. Once you | capture the users you do whatever you like. | | I'm a little surprised a quality (magical like how Google | used to be) search engine hasn't popped up. | dvdkon wrote: | I agree, more competition would be the ideal solution, but I'm | not sure we can achieve that goal without drastic changes. In | my opinion, having competition on details like "does it have a | headphone jack?" or "is it repairable?" requires competing | manufacturers to be able to create near-identical products that | only differ in those details, with the price delta reflecting | only that one difference and not other complex market | conditions. However, creating such "clones" is something our | copyright and patent system is designed to prevent. There's | some merit to it: preventing clones will force more global | diversity. But in the common situation where the user has | already decided on one area of the market ("I want iOS and a | great camera"), these systems force the user into one choice, | not letting them choose in important details. | | The way I see it, we either tear up all IP laws to allow for | drastically lower costs of entry and hope that solves the | problem (and other ones too), or we pass laws requiring some | minimum standard of repairability. Or maybe a little bit of | both (aggressive unbundling laws?). | mjparrott wrote: | Won't repairable phones be bulkier? I would think its hard to be | able to have as compact / integrated / low-toleranced of a design | if you make more exposed screws, clips and replaceable seals etc. | operator-name wrote: | Firstly repairability and the right to repair are distinct | issues. | | Surface Pro X and Galaxy Buds are great examples that show just | compactness and relative repairability can coexist. | bogwog wrote: | No. | | Also, "right to repair" doesn't mean manufacturers have to | change their product designs in any way. iPhones today aren't | hard to repair because they're thin, they're hard to repair | because Apple ships DRM that checks the serial numbers of all | the parts, so that it will refuse to work if you try to replace | something. | | Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY7DtKMBxBw | DaniloDias wrote: | I'm 20 years into my career and my perspective on this topic has | changed from being a supporter of RTR to being generally tepid. | | Most IoT is shit because they compete on very thin margins. This | presents a problem for folks who consider both security and | customer ownership rights- what is the more important priority? | Right to repair, or Authenticity of software? | | 1.) I currently index on authenticity of software. It should not | be easy for someone to augment your firmware with spying ability. | | 2) there is a plentiful ecosystem of inexpensive suppliers for | homebrew types that want to build their own purpose built | devices. This wasn't the case historically. In the past, I felt | like you didn't have an economical alternative path. Now you do, | so why is it so important to demand the ability to Jerry rig | someone else's appliance? | | 3) I don't think RTR is compatible with secure boot, | antirollback, etc. | | I do believe in RTR for laptops, John deer tractors and cars. But | I find it a waste of time for inexpensive iot gear. Am I alone? | Would appreciate others perspective. | Chris2048 wrote: | I think RTR is the wrong fight - things like controlling the | actions of software running on your computer, and right to an API | _into_ that software are as, if not more, important. And on the | mobile front, moving towards "apps" is the epitome of this (f | you reddit). | | Hardware is a harder problem, but meaningless if everything is | locked down, or practically disadvantageous to modify, at a | software level - corps can leverage software complexity by making | those that go off-piste have to manage it all (e.g app-stores). | joshgoldman wrote: | Very unfortunate but predictable that people here mostly defend | Apple on this | temp667 wrote: | The irony is despite all this right to repair stuff, apple makes | some of the more long lasting devices in terms of usability. | Their software updates keep coming, their phones are actually | surprisingly waterproof (plenty of great rescue stories here). If | you have parents who are older, you know how this works - they | keep their devices much longer in my experience. | | Yes, they glue the crap out of everything, solder stuff down | instead of hacking bigger sockets and plug in chips with pins etc | so do everything they are not supposed to. But the end result is | darn long lasting and useful. | | If someone thinks users will trade out for these right to repair | devices go for it. Android has TONS of folks playing in that | space. But I'd say let Apple try things there way - a phone that | just maintains great resale value because it's a bit harder to | get screwed buying one - it alerts you if the scammers swap out | the battery for a crap one even which used to be one annoying | issue buying used iphones that made me stop buying used. | Proven wrote: | Nonsense. | | Yes, you may repair it if you want, that's never been the issue. | But then don't come back asking for free service or free | replacement parts when you can't fix it or when it breaks next | time. | | The manufacturer has no moral or other obligation to provide | help, info or assistance beyond conditions under which I've sold | the device or equipment. If you don't like a deal, find yourself | a better one. | soheil wrote: | Should you have the right to repair the CPU inside your machine? | Does that mean the manufacturer must design and manufacture the | CPU in a way for you to be able to repair it? Where does one draw | the line as things get more and more complex? Sadly, we don't | live a horse and buggy world anymore where you could just get a | new horse or fix a wheel if it stopped working. | iotku wrote: | > Should you have the right to repair the CPU inside your | machine? | | Sure, if a component in a CPU failed there shouldn't be any | deliberate effort by the manufacturer to restrict it's | replacement/repair (especially by entirely artificial means). | | > Does that mean the manufacturer must design and manufacture | the CPU in a way for you to be able to repair it? | | That's unenforceable, but it is preferable for environmental | reasons that manufacturers consider the reapairability of their | products where possible. | | What isn't acceptable is deliberately ensuring parts aren't | available or are designed explicitly not to work with | compatible or identical replacements. | | >Where does one draw the line as things get more and more | complex? | | If something is _actually_ unrepairable it shouldn 't be too | much of a burden on manufacturers because there would be no | interest in purchasing replacement components for something | that is actually irreparable. | | >Sadly, we don't live a horse and buggy world anymore where you | could just get a new horse or fix a wheel if it stopped | working. | | Bad faith argument. | | Even so, the main argument in right to repair isn't "Oh my gosh | everything is so hard and modern nobody can do anything if only | we were still repairing something easy like wagons". | | The argument is that we should have the right for repairs to | occur without unreasonable impediments. | jjtheblunt wrote: | A thought: some things have long been accepted to need experts or | expensive tooling for their repair. | | So you never read something like "It's your ruptured spinal disk, | you should be able to repair it.". | | I wonder if hardware vendors claim this is analogous. | CivBase wrote: | "Right to repair" also means you can take it to an expert of | your choosing. I don't know how to fix many problems my Honda | and I could certainly take it to a Honda dealer if/when I | encounter such problems, but I'm also happy to take it to | someone else who has the knowledge and tools to fix it for me. | css wrote: | This article moves the goalposts on what "right to repair" is | several times. It generally means that manufacturers should not | hide schematics from device users or disallow third party | manufacturing of first party parts. However, the author states: | | > The law doesn't yet cover smartphones and tablets that she says | are getting harder to fix. One problem is keeping older devices | updated with new software. | | Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be | easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where | do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one yourself | or run older software on it indefinitely. | | Further down, the author writes: | | > But markets have now become flooded with products that are less | repairable. | | > "It requires laws in place that prevent manufacturers from | stopping [supporting] a product too early, or making it pretty | much impossible to repair it by design." | | Now the author has shifted "right to repair" to mean mandatory | first-party device support and design requirements around repair- | ability. | | We must very carefully define our terms here, because requiring | someone else to provide on one's behalf presumes a right to the | product of their labor. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to | be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? | | This is really the same thing, i.e. comprehensive hardware | documentation. If the hardware is well-documented then third | parties can use the documentation to create hardware drivers | and continue to support e.g. Android/Linux on that hardware | even after the OEM stops providing supported software. | | This is true even of iPhones; there is no technical reason you | shouldn't be able to port Android or any other OS to iPhone | hardware given adequate hardware documentation. People are | attempting to port Linux to M1 Macbooks even without adequate | hardware documentation, though of course the lack of | documentation is a severe impediment and the efforts | consequently have yet to produce a usable port. | passivate wrote: | >Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to | be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? | Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one | yourself or run older software on it indefinitely. | | You're argument is with the author, and his interpretation, not | with "right to repair". What "right to repair" is or isn't , is | not decided by the author of this article. There are various | organizations that are loosely related with a few shared | ideals. | | >We must very carefully define our terms here, because | requiring someone else to provide on one's behalf presumes a | right to the product of their labor. | | Not really. Anyone can propose anything in an article, and they | must be free to do so. Its upto us as a collective to think | over ideas and proposals and then push for policy proposals | that align. | | Ultimately the terms will be defined in legislation, not on | bbc.com | spamizbad wrote: | You are conflating Right to Repair efforts in Europe with those | in the US. Naturally, the US laws are more deferential to | capital interests and is less consumer-friendly, and simply ask | that companies don't ban the sale of components to independent | repair shops, firmware lockouts of replacement parts that only | the manufacturer can provide, etc. | css wrote: | What does the European definition of "right to repair" | entail, then? | spamizbad wrote: | The article gives some examples, but I think more broadly | the European Right to Repair efforts seem to align the | repairability of consumer electronics with what we've come | to expect from automobiles. | anticristi wrote: | That industry can also use some "right to repair". I | can't type www.peugeot.fr and find schematics, propriety | diagnostic codes and repair instructions. | | Granted, these are available from 3rd parties for a | rather modest fee. | GuB-42 wrote: | Not exactly the answer to your question but France recently | adopted a repairability score that has to be shown, just | like the energy efficency class or nutrition labels. | | The criteria are: | | 1- Documentation | | 2- Ease of disassembly, with a subsection on the necessary | tools and a focus on the parts that are most likely to be | serviced (for smartphones: battery, screen, ...) | | 3- Availability of spare parts | | 4- Price of spare parts relative to the finished product | price | | 5- Extra criteria which depend on the type of item, for a | smartphone, software updates are in this category | rasz wrote: | and Apple devices score 7 out of 10 and up. Its all self | assessment. This law is a farce. | GuB-42 wrote: | iPhones are surprisingly repairable. But yes, some scores | are... unexpected. | jll29 wrote: | The idea is good, the implementation needs improvement. | Germany hasn't adopted the French approach, but awaits a | Europe-wide initiative. Let's hope the lobbyists can't | pull its teeth. | mattmanser wrote: | They've got a whole study about it, if you've got time to | read it (I haven't :): | | https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648 | 7... | corty wrote: | The general aim of "right to repair" is to extend lifetime of | devices. All the things the author mentioned are means to | achieve this, and all are necessary: Schematics, repair | manuals, deliverable parts for a sufficiently long period and | software support ("repair" also includes software defects of | course). Sometimes also software extensibility and | replaceability, i.e. no signature lockdowns and other DRM | measures. | | There are weak versions of the right to repair that are only | suited to enable third-party repair shops, e.g. by making | schematics and parts available to "licensed professionals". But | that is not what is generally desirable. | | I agree that the article fails to make this clear. | Guest42 wrote: | Regarding software, I think that pushing updates that | essentially kill devices should fall under right to repair. I | generally delay my ios updates out of concern whether space | and ram will get eaten up. There probably won't be an os | update that enables a new app or feature I'm looking for. I'm | not one to run unknown software and with the walled garden | can't really download any executables anyways. | | Also had win 10 updates kill a laptop in this manner that was | then extended another 7 years by switching to Ubuntu. | corty wrote: | Updates that kill devices are at best a defect that is the | manufacturer's responsibility to fix or pay for. At worst | computer sabotage, which is a crime. | | Unfortunately courts have yet to get "bitey" on this issue. | I guess it needs to hit a few more judges until the hammer | comes down hard. | thinkharderdev wrote: | Are there cases now where an update bricks devices that | are still supported and the manufacturer doesn't fix it? | Genuinely asking as I don't know of any such cases. | overgard wrote: | I haven't had a device brick, but every time Windows 10 | runs an update on my old macbook I usually have to revert | it. Well, Windows reverts it itself; but it involves | multiple reboots and I have to handhold it by holding | down "alt" all the time so it goes into the right OS. | Very annoying. Especially when I just need the OS for a | quick thing and Microsoft has decided that I need to wait | 30 minutes to use an OS I touch every couple months or | so. | | I know the argument here would be "well keep your os up | to date", but the point is that the updates themselves no | longer work on this laptop for whatever reason; yet | microsoft insists on breaking my laptop every tuesday for | these "critical" fixes that I never really need. | tjoff wrote: | Win10 was released 2015-07. | corty wrote: | The expected use time of a dishwasher is 10 years. Which | is a machine with mechanical parts and a lot of wear and | tear, corrosive chemicals, decaying seals, etc. A | computer with fewer movable parts and a higher price | should last longer. That software manufacturers don't | support that notion is a problem that needs to be dealt | with. | AdrianB1 wrote: | If you read again, the claim is that after a failed | Windows 10 update that device ran another 7 years on | Ubuntu. As Windows 10 was launched less than 7 years ago, | that is a lie. | Guest42 wrote: | I don't have an exact timeframe in my head and wrote | things on the fly. The point is that Ubuntu is going | perfectly fine and will continue to do so whereas windows | bricked the system. I also think it's common practice | with year estimation to round up to the next year. | corty wrote: | With a sufficiently generous interpretation it might have | been a preview build. But then he wouldn't be entitled to | complain, because of course a preview might break. | | More probably you are right. | tjoff wrote: | I agree, but I don't think windows falls into that | category. For what it is worth, win10 is in my experience | pretty great (in this regard). And windows by and large | have also been that way. | | My 8 year old sony laptop had kludges to be supported by | windows 8 (which it came with...). Sony quit the laptop | game before win 10 and I figured it would be a nightmare | to ever get off win8. | | Turns out Windows 10 was way easier to install than what | was ever officially supported (especially if you wanted a | clean install) and there are no issues keeping it up to | date. | | And even that is dwarfed by desktops. | FridayoLeary wrote: | with all due respects, this article is neither extremely rich | or information nor exhaustively researched. Its more like the | kind of stuff you hear on BBC radio. Just a few interviews with | people whose experiences you might not hear from otherwise. | qzw wrote: | Isn't the underlying issue planned obsolescence as a business | model? It's anti-consumer and anti-environment, and maybe we | shouldn't incentivize it as a planet. | rapht wrote: | Planned obsolescence != suboptimal life expectancy | | On the left hand, you make design choices with the goal of | limiting the life expectancy of the product, and on the right | hand, you just don't prioritise life expectancy over other | considerations when making said choices. | | Of course the line is thin and the complexity of design | trade-offs in all directions makes it pretty hard to pinpoint | where evil actually happened... which is why the "right to | repair" is so complicated in terms of hardware. | | Software though is another matter: no-one can claim it's "too | difficult" or "too costly" to provide users with the | information that will allow them to use their device with the | software they want. | zepto wrote: | The problem is that planned obsolescence _is not_ in fact | everyone's business model. | | Apple's penetration into the US market is not because the | iPhone matches Android in terms of sales, it's because | iPhones last longer and get handed down or resold. Apple | literally continues to sell years old devices. | | That isn't planned obsolescence. | | A really simple step in the right direction would be mandated | labeling showing how many years of software updates the | device will get and statistical expected lifetime. | fsflover wrote: | > That isn't planned obsolescence. | | Yes, it is. Even though Apple devices last longer, _after_ | the support is ended, I cannot do _anything_ with them. I | cannot update, install anything. They effectively become | bricks. If this is not planned obsolescence, then what is? | colejohnson66 wrote: | Except they don't become bricks. They still work just | fine. In fact, on some more recent unsupported devices, | you can still redownload apps (but only up to the latest | version supporting your device). Did the Apple II become | a brick when Apple stopped supporting them? The IBM PC? | Why is an older iDevice a "brick", but not BlackBerrys or | Nokias? | fsflover wrote: | Security issues are found in browsers every day. You get | no updates anymore and you are not allowed to update | yourself. If you care about (not) leaking any of your | data, this is effectively a brick. | zepto wrote: | > They effectively become bricks. | | In other words this was complete bullshit. | | It's true that older devices are less capable than newer | ones, and you might not want to browse on an old device. | | But they aren't bricks. | [deleted] | splix wrote: | You can redownload supporting apps, but the problem is | that the official App Store doesn't have them once a new | version of OS comes out. | | I remember when in 2014 I decided to give away my unused | iPad 1st gen, just as a e-reader. So I've erased it but | no apps were supporting this device already. Even the | official Apple Books app. | | Yes, techicaly it wasn't bricked, it worked, you still | can turn it on and off. But without software it's | useless. | zepto wrote: | Ok - but that's true of any old device that developers | are no longer targeting. Classic Macs for example. | joshspankit wrote: | Here's another angle: | | An iPhone 4 with the "last supported OS" is significantly | slower than when it had the OS it launched with. | | This is true across the board, which leads to this very | convenient "they can buy used iPhones, but we don't want | them to _use_ them, so we'll gently guide them to new | devices by making it inconvenient and annoying" | | And before someone argues: Yes, much of the slowdown is | because of new features, BUT Apple could simply allow | users to disable most of them (such as ML-processing | photos in the background, or deep-indexing file contents | for spotlight. Those are _not_ required for the phone to | function as a phone). | | If someone wanted to use the iPhone 3GS with the original | iOS, not sync to the cloud, replace the battery every | couple years, and install a firewall to prevent intrusion | via known attack vectors, they could realistically have a | perfectly snappy and solid experience in _any_ future | decade. Doubly so if they kept a 2.4Ghz AP when the | industry is on some unknown future frequency. | | However: Apple has taken many steps to prevent exactly | that sort of thing, and they will continue to make as | many as they can get away with. | zepto wrote: | > An iPhone 4 with the "last supported OS" is | significantly slower than when it had the OS it launched | with. | | This ignores the fact that later iPhones with the newest | OS are significantly faster than what they launched with, | which contradicts the conclusion that this is | intentional. | michaelmrose wrote: | The lawsuit they lost suggests that the court found it | was intentional. | andrepd wrote: | Precisely, the iPhone does not work like an Apple ][ or | an IBM PC. After "support" is ended you cannot install | software on your device. How insane is it, I'll repeat: | you _cannot install software_ on _"your own" device_. | colejohnson66 wrote: | I personally don't care about installing my own stuff on | my iPhone. I bought it knowing full well I couldn't do | it. But you're right: when support ends, it is pretty | crazy how the only way to install unapproved apps is | through jailbreaks. If a manufacturer isn't going to | support a mass produced device anymore, they shouldn't be | able to just fold their arms and say, "we have a newer | model!" | zepto wrote: | Which Apple device do you own that behaves like this? | | I have owned many and _not one_ has become useless in | this way, not has any I have every heard of. | ska wrote: | It's only planned obsolescence if the lifetime of a | product is _artificially_ shortened by design choices. It | 's not clear this applies here. | splix wrote: | I cannot replace a battery on a perfectly working iPad | otherwise, and Apple is charging almost a price of a new | device to replace it for me, i.e. they are basially | forcing me to buy a new one. | | Wondering, can that be called a planned obsolescence or | not? | Karunamon wrote: | If we're talking about an unsupported devices, aren't the | downsides of third party repairs basically moot? There | are any number of above-board companies that you can ship | your device to and will do a battery swap for you so long | as batteries are available. | splix wrote: | Yeah, that's what I did. Found an unofficial repair and | replaced the battery for less that $100. Anyway, I don't | think it should be so hard to replace a battery. And I | still remember times when I was able to replace battery | manually at home. | ska wrote: | > And I still remember times when I was able to replace | battery manually at home. | | This is definitely an issue, but it's not the same issue | as planned obsolescence. | fsflover wrote: | Why is it not the same issue? By preventing the users to | replace the battery, you force them to buy a new device | after a couple of years. | ska wrote: | > Why is it not the same issue? | | Because the design choices are pretty easily argued to | have been made for reasons other than reducing user | access, but have the side effect of reducing user access. | Both size/weight constraints and case integrity drive you | to the same sort of thing. | | To be clear, I think it's fine to call out a company for | planned obsolescence, and I think it's fine to call them | out for emphasizing size, etc. over user serviceability. | I just don't think it's useful to pretend they are the | same thing. | zepto wrote: | They don't prevent users from replacing the battery. I've | done it myself. | michaelmrose wrote: | For many devices the devices themselves are glued making | the process of just opening the case interesting and then | require near complete disassembly to remove the battery. | ska wrote: | > Wondering, can that be called a planned obsolescence or | not? | | I don't think it can, for reasons elsewhere in thread. | fsflover wrote: | I would say it _is_ artificially shortened by design | choices. It is a perfectly capable device, the harware is | still fast and secure. However, I am just not allowed to | fix the software, even if I have enough resources for | that. This is exactly why we need free software. | ska wrote: | > I would say it is artificially shortened by design | choices. | | The design choices have to be made to artificially | shorten the life, not for any other purpose. For example, | I can make a device cheaper and use cheaper materials | that wear out faster - that's not planned obsolescence. | However if I include a little plastic tab that I know | will break before everything else for no good reason | _other_ than making it break faster - that is. | | I suspect you'll have a hard time arguing compellingly | that the purpose of apples closed update system was to | shorten the useful life, rather than as a side effect of | other product and design goals. | | Phones are sort of a bad example, because for a long time | the replacement cycle was driven by actual technical | obsolescence, arguably only relatively recently has this | ceased to be the case. | fsflover wrote: | > the purpopse of apples closed update system was to | shorten the useful life, rather than as a side effect of | other product and design goals | | So what _is_ the reason to prevent updates of software | after the support is over? This is a classical software | anti-feature. | google234123 wrote: | IT's a ton of work to make and push updates. | fsflover wrote: | I am not speaking about making updates. I am speaking | about _preventing_ users from making them. | zepto wrote: | You know the answer to that - it prevent large classes of | social engineering attack and is part of the overall | security model. | ska wrote: | I suspect the main driver was consistency of experience. | Obviously they didn't always nail this. | Der_Einzige wrote: | We know for a fact that Apple was artificially lowering | their battery capacity, and that's most likely just the | beginning. The PR speak about it being done to protect | batteries is BS and we all know it. It incentivizes more | purchasing. Much like how the GTA5 loading bug was never | solved because it led to more advertisements for digital | currency being forced upon one's eyes... | | Every update I get on my mac, or Iphone slows it down. | Bloat and "protecting the users battery" are the root | causes, and ultimately Apple is one of the best examples | of a company "artificially shortening" things via design | choices. | zepto wrote: | > We know for a fact that Apple was artificially lowering | their battery capacity. | | This is completely false. | shard wrote: | I'm going a little bit on a tangent here, and this may | not apply so much to recent Apple phones, but Apple | phones had planned obsolescence in terms of the design of | their physical appearance such that you can tell almost | instantly which generation it is. This allows | broadcasting of status, that this person can afford the | latest while that person can only afford to use a 2-year- | old phone, thus artificially driving the upgrade cycle. | zepto wrote: | That isn't planned obsolescence, because the people who | upgrade for status reasons don't destroy their phones - | they either pass them on or trade them in. | | Arguably it's the opposite of planned obsolescence - even | used phones are not obsolete and are still in | circulation. | | It's also worth pointing out that this is Apple's stated | policy - they want phones to last longer so that more | people have them and they can continue to sell services | to them. | KozmoNau7 wrote: | It is planned obsolescence, because at some point I am | artificially prevented from installing and running software | and/or security updates. This is done by Apple only | providing updates up to a certain point, and then keeping | the platform locked down, while no longer providing | updates. | | Any closed platform that becomes unsupported and stays | locked down is made artificially obsolete. | | I can buy an original IBM PC, write my own software and run | it with no limitations, despite it being an unsupported | platform for several decades. See the famous 8088 MPH demo | for an example of how much can still be done on an ancient | platform, way beyond what was considered possible in its | heyday. I can even write my own OS and run that. Remember | that Linux was originally written by Linus Torvalds because | there was no freely available Unix-like on x86, so he | decided to write his own. | | I can't do that with an original iPhone. You can jailbreak | it, but that's not a risk-free process and it still doesn't | let you install your own OS or give you direct access to | the hardware. | | Once a device no longer receives updates or official | support, it should be opened for hobbyists to experiment | with. | zepto wrote: | I disagree with the argument that there is any planned | obsolescence going on. Lack of support is not the same | thing. | | However this: | | > Once a device no longer receives updates or official | support, it should be opened for hobbyists to experiment | with. | | I agree with and I'd support legislation to that effect. | cbmuser wrote: | That's usually because these people don't have the slightest | clue how industrial mass-production for consumer goods work. | | They constantly think it's always about the customer, it isn't. | The products are almost always optimized for costs, nothing | else. | | If a manufacturer uses glue instead screws, they don't do that | to make it harder to repair. They prefer glue because it's | cheaper. The same applies for cheap components over high | quality ones. | | Want to increase the possibility of getting a durable and | repairable product? Well, prepare to spend ten times as much. | rasz wrote: | No, its not optimized for cost. Manufacturing is optimized | for _profit_. | | >they don't do that to make it harder to repair | | you mean cryptographically linking lcd screen to motherboard | is done for cost, not to stop third parties from being able | to repair it? | emkoemko wrote: | not just electronics, John Deer tractors and farming | machines... all the parts have encrypted links that only | John Deer repair shops can sync new parts... soon your car | won't let you change your tire without it not turning on, | unless you buy their "tire" | giantrobot wrote: | It's done for security because the screens are primary | input devices _and_ linked to the biometric sensors. | Without protections for genuine components anyone could | replace your screen with one that had a hardware key logger | and compromised biometric sensors. The security of the | system is as weak as the weakest component. | | Your phone has access to tons of personal data, for some | people just about all of their personal data. It's in every | user's best interest to have secure hardware since it's | inherently mobile and easily lost or stolen, easier than a | desktop locked in a house. | | But no I'm sure it's just some conspiracy to make iPhones | disposable. That makes way more sense. | swiley wrote: | my interpretation is that there should be no artificial | barriers. | | Don't hide schematics, don't lock bootloaders, don't use NDAs | to prevent sharing driver code, don't prevent component | manufacturers from selling to third parties. | duped wrote: | I think requiring schematic disclosure and non exclusivity | for venders of custom parts is entirely unreasonable with | catastrophic first and second order effects. Particularly the | latter. We want more contract manufacturing, not less of it. | If you take away the ability of companies to negotiate | reasonable deals with their venders, they'll just buy them | out and vertically integrate. | joshspankit wrote: | How about forcing disclosure only for products that are no | longer supported by the manufacturer? Not ideal from a | repair standpoint, but removes (imo) the argument about the | first and second order effects. | hilbert42 wrote: | _" If you take away the ability of companies to negotiate | reasonable deals with their venders, they'll just buy them | out and vertically integrate."_ | | Why was that argument irrelevant in the past when the | 'right to repair' was was accepted as completely normal+ | and manufacturers actually encourage it? _(See my point to | that effect above.)_ | | _+ That is, to the extent that back then no one would have | understood what the phrase meant. Had you mentioned it, it | would have been considered either an oxymoron or a non | sequitur and you would have received a blank and perplexing | stare._ | duped wrote: | Because JIT manufacturing didn't exist. | | It's not coincidence that we make more devices that are | more complex, and do it faster today than we did in the | olden days and they are simultaneously more difficult to | repair with tougher to source components in low volumes. | Everything from the design process to the assembly and | repair is completely different today than it was 50 years | ago. | | At the same time, consumers stopped caring about repairs. | Why buy something you can repair if it will be obsolete | in two years, and you can afford the replacement? | foxhop wrote: | There is no such thing as consumers in this argument. | These are citizens! | hilbert42 wrote: | _" Everything from the design process to the assembly and | repair is completely different today than it was 50 years | ago."_ | | 1. Yes, and that needs to change--and very soon at that. | A short while ago I counted over one hundred x86 | motherboards that were current and readily available from | just _one_ single manufacturer. I spent many hours trying | to differentiate the minor--almost insignificant-- | differences between many of these boards (in fact, most | of the differences were essentially trivial). | | This nonsense is a deliberate marketing ploy and there | ought to be definite penalties against it. It wastes | considerable time and human effort that ought to put to | better endeavors; confuses buyers as well as those who | have to get the equipment working (let alone repair it); | and it also screws up the development of software drivers | --as no one is ever quite sure what all those minor | changes are all about--and manufacturers haven't the | time, wit or inclination to resolve such matters let | alone spending time on providing upgrades for a PWA/board | that has such a fleeting lifespan. No wonder the world is | awash in e-junk! _[That 's just the beginning of that | narrative but I'll spare you the rest.]_ | | 2. Then there are the thousands upon thousands of bugs | that slip through software development and that are never | fixed due mainly to the fact that the compilation process | obfuscates them all and that there is no law or | obligation to compel the developer to provide the source | code that would reveal the underlying spaghetti code | (this is the modern equivalent of a doctor burying his | mistakes). ...Now, how many hundreds of examples would | you like me to cite? | | 3. _" At the same time, consumers stopped caring about | repairs."_ That's true but fortunately they've now | changed their minds--mostly because disingenuous | manufactures have made either substandard equipment or | equipment that has been deliberately designed to conform | to the manufacturer's planned obsolescence strategy (I | suggest you read my comments of several days ago on the | Phoebus Light Bulb Cartel (BTW, it's still effectively | alive and well)). | | The sooner goods that cannot be easily repaired--or that | are found to be deliberately designed to aid a | manufacturer's planned obsolescence strategy--are taxed | the sooner they'd fall into line. The classic example of | this caper is the notorious--diabolical--example of | smartphone batteries that are deliberately designed not | to be changed. No wonder the Right to Repair movement has | gathered apace and that new laws to regulate such wayward | behaviour are now pending. Smartphone design would change | overnight if every smartphone whose battery was not | removable was levied with a hefty e-waste disposal tax! | The same goes for smartphones whose manufactures | deliberately disable the FM radio circuitry (a tax or | levy on this can easily be justified from an emergency | stance: if cell towers go down in floods, bushfires, | earthquakes etc. and the FM radio works then phones would | have at least some basic connection to the outside | world). Right, that one's a no-brainer that everyone | ought to understand! | | 4. With respect to your comment about JIT, it was alive | and well when I was working in a manufacturing plant in | Japan around the time that I was referring to. | | Incidentally, I have worked in manufacturing and | specifically in an electronics prototyping laboratory | where much of my time was involved in liaising with | production. I know the arguments you are putting very | well, and whilst there is validity to some of them, many | are just opportunistic and have been done more to benefit | a manufacturer's coffers than to benefit users/consumers. | | Thank goodness that's about to change. | google234123 wrote: | > A short while ago I counted over one hundred x86 | motherboards that were current and readily available from | just one single manufacturer.... This nonsense is a | deliberate marketing ploy and there ought to be definite | penalties against it... | | This is authoritarian nonsense. | michaelmrose wrote: | There is no reason they can't have 100 slightly different | motherboards they just need to maintain and provide | proper docs on the lot and follow other reasonable | standards. | AdrianB1 wrote: | When I was born all electric and electronic appliances came | with a complete diagram in the box. I don't understand how | disclosing the schematic has any negative impact of any | sort. Also the vendor contracts in these cases are based on | volume discounts which are not affected by non-restricted | sale to other parties. | duped wrote: | Well two points on that: | | - Repair schematics and diagrams are not necessarily | complete schematics and may be abridged or missing some | details | | - Modern electronics are significantly more complex than | when you were a child, unless you were born yesterday. | Schematics for designs are barely useful for assembly | today, let alone repair. They are primarily design | documentation. | swiley wrote: | I've seen the macbook air schematic/vector art for the | board (I had to replace that BGA backlight driver on my | sister's laptop.) It's certainly big but at the end of | the day it's networks of chips and L/R/C like any other | circuit, you just walk through it like any other | maze/graph and get to where you need to be. | swiley wrote: | I wouldn't call an exclusivity agreement reasonable. | [deleted] | danogentili wrote: | These are all absolutely valid and sane points. | | Instead of arguing on the exact definition of right to repair, | we should all fight for the right to truly _OWN_ our devices, | where _OWN_ := we have the legal right to do anything we want | with the hardware AND with the software (because you can 't | really distinguish the two, now that all CPUs come with | embedded TPMs running parallel closed OSes with ring -inf | permissions). | salawat wrote: | And they should be required by law to come with the | respective datasheets and specs required to do so. | | You don't de facto have one without the other. | omgwtfbyobbq wrote: | It is goalpost moving, but I also agree with the author. If a | device is no longer supported by a company, or that company | goes under, there should be some mechanism to make any software | needed to modify software on the device available. | | Take the essential ph-1 as an example. Now that the company is | gone, if a device bricks during an update, that's it. Having | the firehose file would make it possible to unblock it, but | without it, a bricked phone is just spare parts (less the main | board). | hilbert42 wrote: | _" a bricked phone is just spare parts (less the main | board)."_ | | The main board should be just as repairable as any other | device. If that requires changes to copyright law, the DMCA | and or even WIPO treaties then that will eventually happen. | | It's not that many years ago--certainly well within my | lifetime--that 'deep' repairs of this kind were not only | commonplace but actually encouraged by manufacturers. (If you | want examples then I'll provide some). | | By such action, we would only be returning to the status quo | as it was some 40 or more years ago. | | _(To detractors of this comment, I accept and understand | that you never lived through that time to see it in action, | if you had then very likely you 'd have a changed point of | view.)_ | jpttsn wrote: | I like the better performance of computers now. If lower | repairability is a way to pay for that, that's great. | ziml77 wrote: | Man that would be amazing. I don't see that ever happening, | but it would be great to not be stuck with hardware that is | unusable or near unusable because the manufacturer abandoned | it or went under. Though it would be important that all | functionality be able to remain intact if they hand over the | tools. In the most technical sense the hardware is still | usable even if you have to write new firmware from scratch, | but practically it's useless without having something to work | from and enhance/bugfix. | stjohnswarts wrote: | It's clearly written by an author who isn't very technically or | legally savvy, however it gets the point across to the general | public about the importance. We can let the pros determine the | goalposts but clearly what we're doing now and letting | manufacturers get away with is insufficient. | quotemstr wrote: | Why are you surprised? This is the common pattern of tech | activism: start with a kernel of a legitimate grievance, grow | it into a whole crop of outrage, and harvest that outrage to | make new rules that actually make everything a bit worse. | | Designing for repairability has costs both monetary and | functional. Why should everyone have to pay these costs on the | say-so of a few people whose main claim to legitimate authority | is their social media follower count? | | I believe this push for repairability is bad and that it will | lead to bad outcomes for consumers. The market ought to be what | tells us what product features are really important. | thinkharderdev wrote: | I tend to agree with this position. This all feels a bit like | "I want everyone else to finance my niche desire to hack on | my device." It seems like if this were really a thing that a | lot of consumers wanted then someone would be filling that | market demand. But I suspect that the overwhelming majority | of consumers don't in fact want this. They want a secure | device that just works and they upgrade regularly before | their old device is EOL. | AdrianB1 wrote: | You are right, but then let's make it mandatory for the end | user to safely recycle all the components from their devices; | they should not be allowed to sale or donate old devices, but | have to recycle every piece of it. The purpose? Safe | disposal. If you don't want to extend the life of the | devices, keep it forever or safely dispose it. | quotemstr wrote: | Modern landfills are safe disposal sites. Recycling can be | economically incentivized where it makes sense. | andrepd wrote: | Make -> consume -> put in landfill is not a sustainable | process. | quotemstr wrote: | Yes it is. In the distant future, we can mine landfills | for raw materials. | AdrianB1 wrote: | Do it now, don't leave the future pay for your current | debt. | google234123 wrote: | You are against any deficit spending? | harimau777 wrote: | Re: Legacy software support | | How does this work with physical products such as cars? Is | there a statute of limitations for automobile recalls? | shoto_io wrote: | I don't know why we shouldn't let the market handle this. If | people want everything to be repairable then why isn't there a | phone which solve that issue? | | Maybe people don't care that much after all. | emkoemko wrote: | i not sure what your talking about... people get their phones | fixed all the time, its just the companies make it very | difficult or not possible at all when you can't get access to | parts, or you have companies like Apple who prevent you | importing parts even if the parts are ripped out of broken | devices. | | Then you have Apple who lie they say you can't recover your | data or repair your device, yet you go to a repair shop and | you get your data back and phone fixed... | shoto_io wrote: | But that's my point. Why do buy a phone from company like | that? Just stop buying from them and buy from another | manufacturer instead and the problem will be solved. | emkoemko wrote: | okay true, but you think its fine for Apple to prevent | you from taking out say your broken camera and replace it | with a working one? or a LCD... or any part? You think | its fine for say John Deer to prevent you from repairing | your own tractor? if any part is replaces with exactly | the same part but your tractor won't turn on because the | "encryption link" is not correct? | | would you be fine with your car preventing you from | changing your tire? unless you get them to do it and only | install their "tires"? | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | You're not making a convincing argument when the person | you're arguing with is coming from the "free market" | angle. | | Someone arguing in favor of allowing market forces to | solve the problem truly do think it's fine for Apple and | John Deere to do those things. The solution for lack of | repairability isn't to enact legislation to force them to | make their products more repairable, it's to stop buying | Apple and John Deere. | | To a point, they're right, but relying on market | solutions assumes rational consumers, which we have | anything but. I think back about 7 years when I bought a | Motorola Droid Turbo. Back then, consumers were asking | for phones with longer-lasting batteries and screens that | wouldn't shatter because you sneezed. This phone was | exactly what consumers were asking for, with it's | monstrous 3950 mAh battery, and a screen that could | survive a 100-foot drop onto pavement (Saw a video of | it!), but most people had never even heard of it, and | still bought their iPhones and Samsung Galaxy phones | which couldn't even survive a waist-high drop onto the | sidewalk without cracking the screen. | | Consumers are not rational, and so the market will never | be rational, and relying on market solutions does not | always work. | shoto_io wrote: | Sorry, I'm not sure if I follow. Consumers are not | rational, ok fair. But should we then listen to their | demands to have things their way? Like devices, which can | be repaired? Seems like a rational want? I don't get it | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Recognize that on HN, you're in an echo chamber. | | Yes, we on HN are far more likely to demand repairabiliy, | but most consumers don't care about the ability to repair | their devices. Or at the very least, don't care so much | that they'll choose not to buy the latest phone because | the battery is not easily replaced. | | And it boils down to what are consumers actually | _buying_? If consumers are demanding something and the | corporations are not providing it, but they buy the | products anyways, the corporation has no incentive to | provide it. | | There was a lot of uproar when Apple removed the | headphone jack when they made the iPhone 7, but that | didn't stop consumers from making it the best selling | smartphone in the world at the time, with ~40 million | units sold. And now guess what? Other phone manufacturers | followed suit. I guess headphone jacks aren't that | important after all. | | The market can demand whatever the hell it wants, but | rarely follows through. | m4rtink wrote: | Asking the manufacturers to not pull dirty tricks with the | bootloader (AKA Tivoization) does not sound to me like asking | much of them and could cut quite a bit of ewaste as old devices | are reused with new software. | | Of course many would try to block that as it cuts into their | planned obsolescence roadmaps... | kbenson wrote: | > Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to | be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? | | Any right to repair law that doesn't also include provisions to | ensure you can run your own code on the device is hobbled. How | "repairable" is a device that is cloud based but they disabled | the cloud service? | | I don't care that manufacturers support the software beyond | what they've contractually signed up for, but I _do_ care that | I 'm not left holding a brick afterwards _by design_. As long | as the capability exists to put other firmware that exists on | the device, or write my own, I 'm protected from that, at least | in the general case. If nobody has provided that firmware and I | can't do it myself, that's still a situation I think it many | times better than the alternative. | ryandrake wrote: | I'd argue that when a security vulnerability is made public, | patching the operating system with an update is a form of | repair. The device is as broken as my Gen-1 iPad that can no | longer browse the web safely. If the manufacturer stops | releasing such updates, AND actively prevents the user from | developing and applying their own updates, then they are | preventing repair. | dnh44 wrote: | To be fair that first gen iPad is too slow to browse the web | at all unless it's a really lean site like HN. | prosaic-hacker wrote: | I have a First Gen iPad with a dozen or so contemporary | applications the still work because they do not touch the | net at all. I also have hundreds of books that were legally | downloaded. (humble bundles and creative common). It is my | Replacement for an alarm clock beside my bed. I do have a | list of sites that are lean enough to be read on it. Text | mostly. I serves its purpose. | | I really do not want this machine to fail because use it | often. It would be lots of work recreate the convenience | and familiarity of use if all the failed was a 50 cent | button. | | (PS it is on the net on my IOT "don't trust the IP stack" | "vlan" of my home network [3 dumb router style DD-wrt | units] in case it does get hit by a site attacking 10 year | old iPads. I have my TVs, DVD players with apps and Guest | access on it. May I will get another dumb router for the | guests) | joshspankit wrote: | But if we (users) _choose_ to only browse lean sites with | our first-gen iPads, why should we (society) say "stop | doing that"? | thinkharderdev wrote: | I don't think that it is correct to say that anyone is | telling you anything. Apple has decided that they will | drop support for devices after a certain period of time | because the development effort of maintaining support is | too costly given the number of users with the old | hardware. | | If I could be emperor for a day I would just mandate that | when they drop support an old device, they have to | provide a way for users still owning that device to have | unlimited ability to load and run any software on it. | That way if you really want to keep using your first-gen | iPad then you can support it yourself. But it doesn't | seem right to mandate that someone else continue to spend | effort supporting idiosyncratic choices of all users. | joshspankit wrote: | I _fully_ agree with the idea that ending support means | you're agreeing to hand the keys to the community | ryandrake wrote: | While I agree with your "emperor for a day" solution, I'd | like to point out that wanting to use a device I paid for | longer than two years after I bought it is not an | idiosyncratic choice. Apple's last OS update for the | device (iOS 5.1.1) was a mere 2 years after the device's | initial release. This is IMO totally unreasonable. I have | a PC next to me that's 20 years old which still functions | and runs a very recent Linux distribution. | thinkharderdev wrote: | Did the device stop working or did they just stop | updating it? If it actually stopped working then I agree | it is really shitty of them and even if they stopped | providing security updates it is kind of shitty of them. | But I think the solution is to take your business | elsewhere. It's not as if Apple has a monopoly on the | smartphone market and you don't have other options. | ryandrake wrote: | It happens gradually. A vulnerability here, a service | turned down there, an app no longer available on the app | store. It adds up to a device that does not do what it | was advertised to do when it was new. | | Everything else I buy for my home (except for things with | obvious wear items that physically wear out), I expect to | function forever exactly as the day I purchased it, or be | repairable. I have hand tools that were made 100 years | ago, inherited from my grandpa, which work exactly as | they are supposed to. Yet, we're expected to accept that | software "wears out" after a few years. | joshspankit wrote: | What I mean about we (society) is that it's public | opinion that supports or limits legislation. If a small | group of people decide to use devices after they are | unsupported, they also need support from society in | general to be able to _get the right_ to exercise that | choice. | | If we (society) don't make the choice to actively support | those rights, we are making the choice to let them die on | the vine. | thinkharderdev wrote: | Fair enough. I would just draw the line at mandating | continued software support and updates. I was actually | thinking earlier and would amend my "emperor for a day" | plan. I think we should mandate an analog to Matt Levines | Certificate for Dumb Investment (https://www.bloomberg.co | m/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...). Vendors like | Apple should be required to provide a mechanism to | "jailbreak" any device they make so a user can run any | firmware/software they choose, but to get access to that | tool they need to go to apple.com and sign a form that | says in big, bold red letters: | | "THIS IS A REALLY BAD IDEA AND DOING THIS VOIDS ANY | WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE WE MAKE FOR THIS DEVICE. AND IF YOU | INSIST ON DOING THIS YOU WILL PROBABLY EITHER GET HACKED | OR LOSE ALL YOUR DATA. SO PLEASE DON'T DO THIS UNLESS YOU | ARE 100% SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING. AND IF YOU | THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING YOU ARE PROBABLY | WRONG." | | And if you sign that you can download a tool to jailbreak | your iPhone. | anticristi wrote: | There is an EU law that mandates selling supplies (e.g. | vaccum cleaner bags) a certain number of years after the | device is released. I would argue that "security updates" | should be treated like "supplies". | alexvoda wrote: | Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the | documentation. | | As an example, this (1) is how the manual looks for a | ~1970-1974 stereo record player I have. You have diagrams of | the boards and lists of parts as in individual caps, etc. | | We should strive to move in that direction, not away from it. | Permanently locked bootloaders, DRM for componets, etc. are a | move in the oposite direction. | | To move the overton window even a little bit towards where it | was before, the demands have to be disproportionate. I say | those demands are still reasonable. We should demand that any | device and any component in any device be second source-able | (just like AMD was a second source for early x86 chips). And | for that matter since I am from Europe, any component should be | second source-able from Europe. If IP transfers worked for | China, they should work elsewhere. | | (1) | https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1012672/Pioneer-C-5600dfv.... | ChrisLomont wrote: | >Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the | documentation. | | Nearly every electronic device I bought in the 1970s did | _not_ have included schematics. TI-55, Pong console, digital | watches, Speak 'n'Spell, transistor radios, Mattell football | and baseball handhelds, Simon... and on and on. | | Nearly everything then was also not easily repairable, and | certainly not by an average consumer. | anonymousiam wrote: | Open up that old transistor radio and you will usually find | a tiny printed schematic diagram affixed to the inside of | the removable cover. | ChrisLomont wrote: | Nope :) As a kid taking everything apart, and as an adult | collecting some old gadgets I had as kid, there is | generally no such thing. I just listed quite a few | gadgets that definitely do not have schematics glued | inside. | kaibee wrote: | > Nearly everything then was also not easily repairable, | and certainly not by an average consumer. | | Sure, but repair shops could exist that would specialize in | doing all sorts of repairs. | ChrisLomont wrote: | As they do now. I know a few people that repair most all | modern phones and iPads and other gadgets for a living. | inetknght wrote: | > _Nearly everything then was also not easily repairable, | and certainly not by an average consumer._ | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone's saying | that "an average consumer" in the terms of "I can't tell | the difference between a hammer and a soldering iron" | should be able to repair their devices. | | But I think that if the consumer can demonstrate some | minimum level of interest (education, certification, or at | least _competence_ ) then they absolutely _should_ be able | to repair devices they own. | | And, further, that _owning_ devices and software should be | the default and normal thing. The trend today of renting | /leasing things is clearly anti-consumer. | Spooky23 wrote: | Be careful. | | My dad replaced a defective memory chip on his IBM PC XT.. | but the computer cost the equivalent of $12k. | | I'd rather throw away a dozen modern laptops than fix one | that costs 10x. | markdeloura wrote: | I'd rather repair it myself, or be able to take it to | someone local with particular expertise. What's important | is that we have a choice! | creaturemachine wrote: | Your comparison does not work. Replaceable parts didn't | make that IBM cost what it did. | scientismer wrote: | Yes it did. Computers became cheaper because more and | more functionality can simply be combined on single | chips. You can not replace parts of broken chips at home. | | Look into Apple's M1. | michaelmrose wrote: | Average spend on a computer hasn't gone down recently. In | the era when it actually did go down it was because | volume and reliability went up, and cost of manufacturing | went down as process improved. | | Phones have been system on a chip since the dawn of the | era of the smartphone and few computers are. The | difference between repairable and not is the difference | between glue and screws and sockets vs solder. You have | basically misunderstood everything. | Spooky23 wrote: | I'm not talking about replacing a memory module. I'm | talking about replacing a defective 4Kb memory chip on a | $1000+, 384Kb ISA card. | | When I built PCs in the late 90s, the BOM included | motherboard, cpu, graphics card, sound card, nic, | sometimes a parallel port board, memory, hard disk, etc. | At this point, it was only really feasible to repair | modules that failed, few humans with the skill to replace | a component would do so due to the economies of scale and | cheap price. | | Now, it's motherboard, cpu, memory, disk. The cost is | much less, but most repairs are replacements of the | mainboard or disk. | | For most laptops, there's a tiny motherboard with most of | the functionality integrated into a few modules. The only | things that get repaired are memory and battery. | | For the M1 Macbook, you have one of the highest | performance devices on the market selling for $899 at | 40-50% margin. I just bought similar Dell and HP units in | quantities over 50,000 last fall for $100-150 less | (probably 6-8% margin to the OEM), with inferior battery | life, disk and cpu. | michaelmrose wrote: | You seem to believe this specific example where you are | literally making up the non public profit margin proves | that for the entire class of consumer laptops making non | serviceable parts greatly decreases the cost. First it | was an hyperbolic 10x and now it decreases costs by half. | All examples are not only fictional misuse of both real | and hypothetical numbers they say nothing much about the | entire class of things. | | The M1 is a fresh design on a new iteration of an arch by | very smart people and its likely that there are far more | factors at play than presence or absence of sockets in | terms of determining profitability. | | What we are trying to do is determine all things being | equal how much cheaper can the same machine be with and | without replaceable parts. I don't have any numbers | either but I strong doubt its 2-10x cheaper. | opencl wrote: | You can replace the memory and storage on just about every | desktop computer today that isn't made by Apple, and a | decent fraction of laptops. | | They do not cost 10x as much as devices with soldered RAM | and SSDs. | ABeeSea wrote: | One electronic device from the 70s doesn't support the | statement "Electronics used to come with full schematics as | part of the documentation." | CountSessine wrote: | This was in a very different era, when manufacturing was | difficult and expensive. Having the schematic didn't | necessarily get you anywhere. That's no longer the case - now | the design is expensive but the manufacturing is cheap. | dthul wrote: | Component level schematics should be freely available for | all products. It's not like there are no schematics | available for e.g. Macbooks. Third party repair shops use | them all the time. It's just that they are not legally | available. | | I might entertain the argument that you don't want to show | all internal details of your 6 layer PCB but those are also | not necessary for repair. Just hand out the component level | schematics. | asddubs wrote: | a lot of consumer electronics are a bunch of strung | together reference implementations. the schematic isn't | really the secret sauce, especially since with a soldering | iron, a multimeter (and maybe an lcr meter) and time, you | could completely recreate it without difficulty. not | practical for a repair shop's level of income/device, but | if you wanted to steal a design, you could easily do this | OrwellianChild wrote: | Can you articulate what that has to do with repairability? | CountSessine wrote: | For one thing, I think it's an important point to make | when someone else makes the, "look how repairability has | regressed since the golden era of getting the Apple II | schematics in the box with the computer!". At the time, | design was cheap. Why not give it to your customers? It's | not like they're going to go out and make one themselves. | | The fact that manufacturing is cheap now and schematics | are not only the key to repairability but also | counterfeit Chinese knock-offs is a problem worth | understanding. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | I think Americans are still largely clueless about how | extensively the PRC has infiltrated the governments and | companies of the world, and how much IP they have stolen. | If they want it; they have it. Heck, my company is doing | everything they can to prevent users from messing with | our firmware, but we have to give all the keys to China | to sell our products there. All they had to do was ask. | There's no need to make it hard for owners to get to. | simion314 wrote: | >The fact that manufacturing is cheap now and schematics | are not only the key to repairability but also | counterfeit Chinese knock-offs is a problem worth | understanding. | | I think you have a BIG misunderstanding here. The | schematics do not include any Apple secrets, it is the | repair schematic that is only high level stuff AND this | schematics are already on the internet so China has it | already (so honestly stop bringing the China argument | here). | | Is the same with diagnostic software, many companies only | show you a error LED and you have to send the device to a | repair person for that person to use the software and | tell your the error message. Making the software(or the | Google doc) available that translates and error code | numbers into error messages will not make iPhones | insecure or allow China to copy them (btw isn't iPhone | already made in China> wtf is this About China FUD?, | China's Apple factory must have much more info then only | repair schematics ) | OrwellianChild wrote: | I don't think this argument is related whether or not | people should be able to source and repair the devices | they own. R2R doesn't require redesign of products - only | that parts and documentation should be made available so | indie shops and DIYers can have the option. | | This is as opposed to the status quo, where manufacturers | like Apple and Samsung currently cause their phones to | malfunction when replacing parts without proprietary | software switches - even when those parts are OEM. [1] | | [1] https://www.ifixit.com/News/45921/is-this-the-end-of- | the-rep... | jimmaswell wrote: | I wonder how big the manual would have to be for a smartphone | with the equivalent of those old stereo diagrams. | tratax wrote: | Maybe not that big, unfortunately a lot of the connections | will end up going to that SoC that does most of the work | and is probably obsolete by the time you want to repair it. | thereddaikon wrote: | Look up board view files. Those are the kinds of schematics | people are talking about. Louis Rossman uses them on his | Youtube channel to do board level repairs of Macs and iOS | devices. | | They are not all you need copy a device outright, contrary | to what some people in the comments think. But they are | sufficient for you to track down faulty components and de- | solder them. | maxerickson wrote: | Can't you do that without imposing it on everyone else? | | I care about consumption (I'm on my 2nd laptop since ~2003), | but I don't particularly want to pay $15,000 to replace this | one with one that is worse. | michaelmrose wrote: | The average computer is around 700 including ones that are | relatively repairable and ones that are not. Pretending | that repairable laptops cost 20 times as much is | disingenuous. | dang wrote: | > disingenuous | | That implies intent to deceive, which crosses into | personal attack. Can you please not do that on HN? If you | feel that someone else is wrong, it's enough to provide | correct information in a neutral way. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | michaelmrose wrote: | Would you prefer hyperbolic? | maxerickson wrote: | (In the comment) They want to be able to source a drop in | cpu from 2 different supply chains. | | And they want that for every piece and part on the thing. | michaelmrose wrote: | That would pretty much require standardization of cpu | socket between vendors to allow one to drop a compatible | generation of intel or amd processor into a slot. This | sounds onerous but I doubt it would require increasing | the unit cost by 20 times. | usaphp wrote: | I see a good intention behind it, but it only works only if | only honest people and companies exist. It's not the case in | real world. | | What would prevent a competitor simply copying the whole | product and offering a cheaper price because they didn't have | to invest in R&D, and those engineers who spent many years | working on a finished schematics will be out of job because | the company won't be able to make a living selling more | expensive products? | reaperducer wrote: | _What would prevent a competitor simply copying the whole | product and offering a cheaper price_ | | Whatever it was that kept this from happening from the | advent of electronics up to the invention of the | smartphone. | thaumasiotes wrote: | This isn't a totally unreasonable position to take, but | in some cases "whatever it was that kept this from | happening before" really is nothing more than "nobody had | thought of it yet". | emkoemko wrote: | there is a big big difference between a schematic that will | aid people in repairs and ones that are used to manufacture | the boards...and no one fighting for right to repair is | asking for that anyways | | system76 talks about this in this interview | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGle6z9KfZQ | snuxoll wrote: | Nor is anybody asking for mask files for ICs, just that | they be available for purchase at a reasonable price. | Stuff like Apple getting proprietary charging ICs from | Intersil that nobody else can buy to replace a defective | one is unethical at best. | OrwellianChild wrote: | You're basically arguing for IP protection via | obscurity/complexity, but I assure you that anyone who | wants to clone tech products at industrial scale can | already do so today. This just gives repair documentation | and parts availability to independent repair shops and | DIYers... | [deleted] | Retric wrote: | Patents and reputation aka trade marks. Speakers for | example are extremely well understood technology yet | premium speakers are still a thing. | operator-name wrote: | Speakers and computer components are great examples of | where companies provide less tangible benifits in quality | control and customer support. | 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: | > We should demand that any device and any component in any | device be second source-able | | Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore. That | ship has sailed, we waved goodbye, partied on the dock, and | took an Uber home. Now we're nursing the hangover. But hey, | our phones are now marginally thinner than last year's | phones, so that might be worth something. | | I don't see how we get back, considering the market just | isn't there: it'd rather treat devices as things that we | lease for a low cost from a vertically-integrated company. | echelon wrote: | > it'd rather treat devices as things that we lease for a | low cost from a vertically-integrated company. | | This is a nightmare. | | I built my PC, I repair my phone and laptops. I replace | joysticks and mod old gaming consoles. I fix my own car. | | I don't want the industry following Apple into the depths | of hell. | | We used to be allowed to record tv shows on VHS legally. | Look how far we've slid down the path of non-ownership. | | We've given up our privacy, we license media on | subscription, and even our employers rent premium and | expensive time sharing on "cloud". | | Open source has been captured and turned into hidden away | SaaS/PaaS. | | We're all being gaslighted. | ghaff wrote: | >We used to be allowed to record tv shows on VHS legally. | Look how far we've slid down the path of non-ownership. | | What's changed that prevents you from doing that today? | I'm guessing the answer is: "But that's a crappy | alternative to what people watching Netflix or even | renting DVDs are doing." And I would agree with that. | (Though in the case of music, owning versus renting is | still very much a legitimate choice at least for me.) | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _What 's changed that prevents you from doing that | today?_ | | What's changed is that technologies involved in modern | video streaming are designed up front to prevent end- | users from recording the stream, and are backed by | regulations making some of the workarounds illegal. | | MAFIAA may not be able to close the "analog hole" | completely, but it doesn't stop them from achieving the | next best thing - making it so hard to exploit that | almost nobody bothers. This is a positive feedback loop, | because the market in general doesn't like to serve small | niches unless it has nothing more interesting to do. | Thus: no VCRs for Netflix. | gsich wrote: | Doesn't have to. It's not that much to ask to release | documentation or code. | nousermane wrote: | You can choose to forgo owning stuff personally, sure. But | that is not everybody's preference. And please don't | pretend that "devices aren't built around discrete | components anymore". | | There are plenty of discrete components in a modern | phone/laptop/roomba/whatever, that could be | replaceable/upgradable by advanced user or entry-level | technician, but are not: | | - battery | | - screen | | - storage | | - RAM | | - list goes on and on... | olliej wrote: | Ram isn't separate, storage is soldered on, screens have | security sensitive components built in (the Touch ID in | modern android devices), etc | jolux wrote: | I believe the GP was talking about discrete circuitry vs | integrated circuits, not so much supporting peripherals. | [deleted] | TeMPOraL wrote: | But their parent wasn't (in fact, they mentioned x86 and | AMD, which are integrated circuits). | | Look at a random PC (or, until recently, a random | laptop): it's made from a lot of individual components | that can be swapped out or upgraded independently. | Storage, RAM, CPU, GPU, cooling, motherboard, WiFi chip, | Bluetooth chip, speakers, microphone, screen, all the | peripherals - they're all designed to work together _as a | category_ , and to be easily replaceable. I can source | each one from a different vendor, and they'll still work. | Hell, in many cases, you can even fix individual | components, with a hot air station and a steady hand. And | if I upgrade a component, my old one can often get a | second life inside another computer, possibly someone | else's. | | It's a good thing to have, and there's nothing stopping | modern laptops, tablets and phones to have the same level | of upgradeability and swapability. Nothing - except that | the vendors _don 't want to_[0]. These things run on the | same set of hardware standards as larger computers, and | on literally the same software stacks. I[1] should be | entirely able to open up my phone, desolder its battery | and memory, swap them out for newer and better ones, | apply sealant, close the case and have the whole thing | work. There's no technical obstacle here - the only | problem are the business strategies of the vendors. | | -- | | [0] - I have another long rant for the usual "it's | customers who chose integrated over repairable" argument, | and I'll post it elsewhere in this thread. For now, I'll | just say: it's not like anybody is _asking_ customers to | choose. These options are not being made available in the | first place. | | [1] - Or my friend who spent half his life tinkering with | electronics. Or the repair shop down the street. A point | commonly missed in discussions about Right to Repair (and | Free Software) is that it isn't about expecting consumers | to do hardware/software work themselves - it's about | making it possible for _local markets_ for software and | hardware maintenance and repair to exist. | notJim wrote: | I find this type of rant rather unhelpful in this debate. | It is not the case that there is no reason for soldered | parts. This decision was not made out of spite or | laziness. It was done because there was a belief that the | product would be better. In particular, it seems that | leaving sockets off enables you to make a thinner laptop, | and that some of the products use a type of RAM that is | not sold to be put into a socket [0]. I would guess that | market research also showed that very very few consumers | were replacing the Bluetooth chips in their Macbooks. I | have a great PC next to me, but it also weighs 20-30 lbs, | occupies a huge amount of space, and took me several days | of work to make sure all the components would actually | optimally work together. | | I would find it a lot more compelling to talk about | trade-offs than to just throw out uninformed ranting. We | used to have laptops like what you're describing, and | they no longer sell very well, or are no longer available | because they are thicker and heavier than the models that | replaced them. | | 0: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/2dyuxa/can_any | _engin... | [deleted] | lotsofpulp wrote: | >These options are not being made available in the first | place. | | Could it be because it's not financially feasible? If you | present the idea of a repairable alternative to an iPad, | are any investors going to take you up on it? | | I think a big aspect of this whole debate is that | manufacturing efficiencies have gone up so much, that | it's simply not economically worth it to sacrifice the | resiliency and cost effectiveness of making it completely | integrated. The cost to launch a new product and | manufacturing line is also very high, so that you have to | be really sure a sufficient number of consumers will want | it. | | On top of that, as a seller, you get to keep costs low | when you have to spend less on dealing with people | tinkering with it and then sending it in for warranty. | | Unfortunately, I don't think a "tinkerable" option can | compete on price to value ratio such that sufficient | people would buy it to make it a feasible investment. | | >it's about making it possible for local markets for | software and hardware maintenance and repair to exist. | | Efficiency is frequently a trade off for a word that I | can't think of, but maybe can be described as "security" | or "local security". It's similar to not needing a | butcher, produce market, shoe store once a Walmart | Supercenter rolls into town. I struggle to come up with a | legal requirement that would restrict efficiency such | that it does not give others (globally) a competitive | advantage, but still retains "local security". | foxhop wrote: | We don't need a tinkerers option we just need | unobstructed access to the docs and access to purchase | proprietary parts to replace failures and those parts | should be available at a fair price. | | I vote yes for right to repair, both with my dollar and | my desire to favor the rights of the citizens of this | country. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _Could it be because it 's not financially feasible? If | you present the idea of a repairable alternative to an | iPad, are any investors going to take you up on it? (...) | it's simply not economically worth it to sacrifice the | resiliency and cost effectiveness of making it completely | integrated (...) The cost to launch a new product and | manufacturing line is also very high (...)_ | | I believe all of that is true. | | Which is why this needs to be corrected by regulation. If | making a more user-respecting and environmentally- | friendly products isn't economical enough for the market | to do it on its own, the economical landscape needs to be | altered so that it is. | | > _as a seller, you get to keep costs low when you have | to spend less on dealing with people tinkering with it | and then sending it in for warranty_ | | This must be solvable, because somehow it isn't a problem | on the PC market, or on the car market. | | > _Efficiency is frequently a trade off for a word that I | can 't think of, but maybe can be described as "security" | or "local security"._ | | "Distribution" and "decentralization" are the words | you're thinking of. Despite the common propaganda to the | contrary, centralization is usually _increasing | efficiency_. That 's why the market loves it so much (and | why every country ends up with laws to limit it). The | cost to that efficiency is usually resilience (failure of | any single actor becomes a large-scale issue) and slower | innovation (bigger actors take less risks, smaller actors | tend to cover more of the possibility space, by virtue of | numbers). | | > _It 's similar to not needing a butcher, produce | market, shoe store once a Walmart Supercenter rolls into | town._ | | And it is a contentious issue. On the one hand, the food | gets cheaper. On the other, the jobs get worse, the local | community suffers, and money gets siphoned off the local | economy. On an international scale, the same thing is | called "globalization", which is both widely praised and | criticized. In particular, the current pandemic has | revealed the resilience problem of our globalized | economy, which is why so many countries are now making | moves towards reversing it a bit. | kiba wrote: | These devices can still be fixed, if only using | specialized tools. However, it's another issue when | manufacturers deliberately make these devices more | difficult to fix such as using security screws. | | Many of the modern smartphones can still be fixed as are | laptops. | | However, these repair shops only exist if they have the | schematic and parts available. | | it's not an efficiency issue. It's planned obsolescence. | devoutsalsa wrote: | A big reason that stuff isn't replaceable anymore is | because consumers wants some of the benefits that come w/ | non-replaceable parts. | | For example, it's nice that I can drop my iPhone in water | w/o worrying (too much) about destroying it. I spent | ~$1500 on an iPhone 12 Pro in November & dropped it in a | lake in December. Part of the reason it's (more) | waterproof if because it's not covered w/ | ports/hatches/openings that would allow me swap out the | battery/RAM/SSD/something. If I had to choose between | having a fully customizable phone & one that doesn't die | when it gets wet, I think I'd rather have one that | resists water. | | Just one person's opinion. | 8note wrote: | I'm not sure consumers per se want it, but that companies | think it's what consumers want, and only make things like | that. | | It's a self fulfilling prophecy that customers will buy | it. I dont have another choice | 6510 wrote: | Manufacturers want planned obsolesce more than anyone. | The problem in my view is that we take limited resources | and combine it with slave labor to create landfill. Those | few years of usage are not even that relevant. Recycling | should be the first goal then repair ability. I think we | can do this without the manufacturers drawing the | proverbial short straw. Maybe we should get a partial | refund when returning expired devices. Maybe we should | rent them rather than buy them. | olliej wrote: | Apple maintains devices for more than five years, the | devices themselves keep on working for far longer than | that. | | It's got nothing to do with planned obsolescence, new | devices get new features because technology makes those | features possible. | | You get non-serviceable devices because users want | smaller, faster, better hardware. Any latches, | connectors, or sockets are purely subtracting from | battery life as that's the only part of a phone that can | be resized, and even that is subject to constraints. | | Repairable/serviceable means by definition more expensive | and worse feature set. | OrwellianChild wrote: | I understand this thread is about "repairability" of | different product designs, and there are definitely | arguments on both sides of that issue that are valid... | | I just want to make sure you're not confusing | "repairability" with Right to Repair... R2R is not asking | for changes to product design - only that replacement | parts and documentation are made available in a | compulsory way. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _The problem in my view is that we take limited | resources and combine it with slave labor to create | landfill. Those few years of usage are not even that | relevant._ | | That's an important insight. | | I only recently realized this too, and conceptualized it | as a pipeline: RAW > PRODUCT > | FINISHED > A BIT > WASTE MATERIALS > COMPONENTS > | GOODS > OF USE > MATTER | | Now when we say that our economy grows exponentially, it | means that the amount of matter traveling through this | pipeline is growing exponentially too! The economy, as it | is today, is essentially a rapidly growing system for | turning usable resources into useless waste. | | Here's the bad part though: adding recycling to any stage | of this pipeline doesn't alter the overall behavior. It | only recirculates some of the matter - recycling is never | perfect. But as we know, if you recycle less than 100%, | and then re-recycle that, and then re-recycle again, it | still converges to zero. With an exponentially growing | pipeline, recycling is only delaying the crisis a little | bit. | | Ultimately, we need to remove the exponent (or at least | couple it to population growth, in the scenario where | humanity expands into space). For now, we need to reduce | it. And one of the best ways of doing that is... reducing | use. Buying less. The less matter flows through the | pipeline, the longer we have before it runs out. | vkou wrote: | > A big reason that stuff isn't replaceable anymore is | because consumers wants some of the benefits that come w/ | non-replaceable parts. | | This may be true, but we shouldn't confuse 'a decision | made by a product manager' with 'the customers want | this'. | | Some design decisions succeed because of the other | strengths of a product (and the competition cargo-cult | copies them), not because they are good design decisions. | Some design decisions are made because they are more | convenient for the vendor, not better for the customer. | Some design decisions are made because of inertia. | Pointing to any particular design trade-off in a | successful product, and saying that 'Well, this is | obviously what the market wants' is not always a correct | conclusion to draw. | | USB is unarguably the most successful mechanism for two | hardware devices to communicate with each-other in | history, and yet you need to flip the cable over three | times before you can plug it in. Should we conclude that | customers _want_ to play the cable fandango every time | they plug one device into another? | ghaff wrote: | >yet you need to flip the cable over three times before | you can plug it in | | I used to know one of the folks involved with the USB | standard pretty well professionally. At one point, he | told me that this aspect of USB is one thing he wished | they could have dealt with differently. | | (That said, the fact that the mini and micro versions are | more explicitly keyed doesn't make that much of a | different and I assume that a USB-C or Lightning-type | design just wasn't possible at the time without | undesirable tradeoffs.) | [deleted] | simion314 wrote: | If Apple would publish schematic, diagnostic software and | allow refurbishing and selling of parts to third party - | it will keep your iPhone water proof still. | | The reality is this, when your device gets old or your | screen cracks , Apple will offer to fix it for 70% of a | new device price, so you are pushed to buy a new device. | I hope this is not controversial and has nothing to do | with the water proof preference you have. | notJim wrote: | You can already buy some replacement parts, like screens | and backs. It doesn't seem like you can replace the | motherboard, so that would be a fair point. I wouldn't | objecting to coding this into law, but I'm not sure why | your comment is implying this is not currently possible. | OrwellianChild wrote: | Apple has explicitly made replacement parts non-user- | servicable at this point. It's called "serialization" and | prevents even OEM parts (like a screen from a different | iPhone) from being recognized by the phone. [1] This is | the type of consumer un-friendly behavior that R2R seeks | to defend against. | | [1] https://www.ifixit.com/News/45921/is-this-the-end-of- | the-rep... | simion314 wrote: | >some parts | | Maybe things changed a bit but you could not buy screens | or use refurbished ones. But all parts should be | available for phones and laptops, including | screens,batteries, chips, ports. Also there should be a | way where parts from broken phones could be reused (I | know the argument about stolen phones but competent Apple | people can find a way to make it possible so we can reuse | components from borken devices and not send them some far | away to be "recycled" instead of reuse. | hellbannedguy wrote: | "Devices aren't built around discrete components anymore." | | Your right about most electrical products. That is not the | point though. (I know you were just commenting on this | article, but I feel strongly over right to repair laws.) | | I just want access to parts if they are available. I want | access to repair information. I don't care how complicated | a devise is--I want to see the factory repair diagrams. | There is someone out there who can fab together a computer | board if there's a demand for it. | | If the company doesn't want to sell parts to consumers so | be it, but release the information. Yes--trade secrets make | it more difficult, but not impossible. | | I would be content (now) with a huge sticker on every | product that didn't want to give out information, or sell | parts. | | Something like, "If you buy this product, the minute the | warrany ends, you are on your own. We don't provide any | repair information (because you're too stupid to repair, or | we are greedy), and never supply parts to anyone. We will | never release repair information. So the minute the | warranty ends, you will 99.99% of the time gave to buy a | New product from us!". | | I have a feeling after a few years, companies might put | screws back in, and use a bit less epoxy? And poof--repair | parts will be shipped overnight, and free? | | O.K. right to repair movement is covering more than just | electronics. | | Like your watch you have on your wrist? | | Rolex, and The Swatch Company (own mist watch brands)have | pulled all third party parts accounts. Watch companies | realized they could use Vertical integration, and "Quality | assurance" to bring that watches back to the factory for | repair, at factory prices. | | I don't want to be in a perpetual lease when I buy a | product. | amelius wrote: | Hardware is one thing. My sister has an iPhone 6 which will | soon lose support from Apple and apps running on it. Why | can't we install Linux on it and save us the e-waste as a | bonus? | operator-name wrote: | This article is a great example of how the market niche | exists and there are plenty of other markets (motor | vehicles, industrial equipment, the maker scene) where | right to repair is the norm. I'd argue the maker scene is | bigger than it's even been and still growing, hence the | increased increase in right to repair. | | Exact discrete components aren't important becuase your usb | IC isn't any more special than another usb IC that follows | the specification. Your laptop display isn't special versus | the others that use the same internal displayport ribbon | cable. | | Market aside this is effectively corporations attempting to | take a right/freedom away from the people. The market can | treat devices however it likes but if it crosses a | threshold then applying rules and regulations that restrict | it's freedom isn't a new magical concept. | anoncake wrote: | > it'd rather treat devices as things that we lease for a | low cost from a vertically-integrated company. | | It's weird how you defend Corporations' private property | while apparently disliking the idea of personal property. | 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: | It's weird how you read me describing the decisions of | the market and attribute them to my opinion/preferences. | unilynx wrote: | He probably missed the first t | anoncake wrote: | This. | anoncake wrote: | Sorry. | | But if you had designed the English language better, not | making "It" and "I" so similar, this wouldn't have | happened. | kzzzznot wrote: | I'm not sure he did design the English language. | OrwellianChild wrote: | Your approach will always be a valid choice, for those who | want it, and companies will be happy to provide that | device-as-a-service model. | | R2R is just seeking to preserve the practical access to | repairability for those who want to service their own | devices. | alwaysdoit wrote: | No it's not, it's looking to enshrine that standard by | law for everyone. Nothing is stopping consumers from | demanding phones that are self-serviceable, they just | simply aren't willing to accept the tradeoffs involved | (larger size, worse thermals, higher price, etc). If you | disagree, there's an unserved market segment wide open | for you! | munk-a wrote: | > No it's not, it's looking to enshrine that standard by | law for everyone. | | That's what's necessary IMO - since if it isn't required | for all consumers than there is no motivation to make it | available for any customers, we'll continue to be dragged | down by the LCD as devices get less and less serviceable. | Manufacturers don't like options - options cost money and | each additional model you offer drives up how much you | spend in storage and production line configuration, so | they'll target the majority which probably _does_ want to | be able to repair devices but either doesn 't realize | it's still an option or doesn't have the financial | freedom to invest in a higher quality device that has a | higher upfront price tag but a lifespan that outlives | that difference by leaps and bounds. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _Nothing is stopping consumers from demanding phones | that are self-serviceable_ | | It's not like anyone _asked_ the consumers. Nor were the | options put on the market, for the buyers to vote on them | with their wallets. The conclusions are _assumed_ in | advance by the companies. Meanwhile, consumers choose | from what 's actually available on the market - not from | the space of all possible products. | | > _they just simply aren 't willing to accept the | tradeoffs involved (larger size, worse thermals, higher | price, etc)._ | | No customer can truly evaluate the tradeoffs involved. | For starters, necessary information isn't publicly | available. Companies don't publish reports from their | product teams that describe the trade-off space they're | working on. Would a user-replaceable battery make the | phone thicker? How much? Does the glue actually helps | with thermals? What's the price difference? _Nobody | knows_ , outside the people involved in these decisions. | | Secondly, marketers run interference. Maybe a Joe would | pay $100 extra for a fully repairable phone, so that Jane | could fix it for him when he unavoidably breaks it in six | months. Maybe an environmentally conscious Carol would go | for one with user-replaceable battery, because she can | only afford a cheaper, mostly integrated device. But they | won't, because those issues aren't even on a typical | person's radar. Instead, the marketing focuses on vague | appeal to emotions, misrepresented specs, outright lies, | and bait-and-switch "value-add" services. Most people who | know better than to fall for such nonsense will just look | at the one clear indicator - price. | | The point is: when you have a system connected to a bunch | of input signals, you can't say that a particular signal | doesn't affect the system, if half of the other inputs | are flooded with noise that's 20dB higher than any legit | signal would be. You first need to shut off the noise! | | > _If you disagree, there 's an unserved market segment | wide open for you!_ | | Not for me. There are too many capital barriers to entry | around designing and manufacturing high-end electronics. | You can't _just_ start a business in this space and hope | to offer a comparable price to established magnitudes. | | Now if an established company like Samsung or Apple dared | to try this, then we'd know. Maybe it would turn out | there's no market for repairable smartphones. But I | haven't seen anybody giving it a shot in a meaningful | way. | RHSeeger wrote: | History is full of things that people did not want to | mandate via their purchases, but we as a society decided | was important... so we made it legally mandatory. | datameta wrote: | Let's set aside software RTR, which at first glance I | believe has no increased costs associated (besides a | decreased profit margin from lack of shortened support | windows and a locked-down ecosystem). | | Could you expand on the specifics of what changes RTR | would necessitate the hardware to have? Let's say beyond | the fact that a non-reversible bond/connector would | otherwise be the cheapest option (saving perhaps | fractions of pennies on the BOM). | LexGray wrote: | Mandated right repair would raise weight for battery | containers and latches, higher failure as connections | would not be soldered in place and hinges and latches may | fail, less water resistance as seals may get bumped | loose, easier access for hardware hacks for bad actors, | more potential consumer injury device damage during | repair attempts, and more likely fire scenarios in planes | and public areas from incorrectly installed parts. It is | attempting to deny consumers those benefits. | OrwellianChild wrote: | Important distinction here! Right to repair does _not_ | prescribe design considerations! You can glue | /solder/integrate all you want! Just need to make sure | replacement parts are available and documentation is | clear! | kiba wrote: | Sounds like exaggeration or either overblown concerns. | It's also ignoring the fact that manufacturers going out | of their way to make a device deliberately more difficult | to repair rather than just implementing tradeoffs. | | It's one thing to have a waterproof phone that you need | specialty tools to fix it, it's another thing when | manufacturers try to make repairing deliberately more | difficult than it should be, such as limiting the sale of | OEM components or using security screws. | | Either way, your thought what Right to Repair is only one | version/proposal of what RtR. | operator-name wrote: | The right to repair doesn't mandate any of that - you | could have a product that has glued internal batteries | and internal seals yet still release the schematics and | allow your suppliers to sell the components to consumers. | | Just look at motor vehicles - people have the right to | change their own brake pads yet or even engines! This is | arguably way more dangerous than a badly repaired small | electronic device! | 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: | > Your approach will always be a valid choice, for those | who want it | | This isn't "my approach" - it's the approach that the | vast majority of purchasers prefer. And pining for the | good ol' days of technical datasheets doesn't help | everybody who can't start their cars without the | successful interaction of nearly a hundred proprietary | microcontrollers running proprietary code speaking over a | high-speed data bus. | | And here's the annoying thing: I _want_ a car that doesn | 't have a hundred microcontrollers speaking over a high- | speed data bus. I want a car like my old '88 Camry, that | I could take apart with my dad and fix _almost all_ of | the problems I ran into with the help of a Haynes manual | and a trip (or two!) to the junkyard. But the market | clearly does not agree with my desires. | | So how do you get there from here? | _underfl0w_ wrote: | Do you have a source to cite for "the approach that the | vast majority of purchasers prefer"? | | That seems pretty speculative. The market can be | manipulated or directed by more than simply consumer | choice, e.g. by business incentives of product | manufacturers. | 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: | > Do you have a source to cite for "the approach that the | vast majority of purchasers prefer"? | | I mean, _gestures at every consumer-targeted product made | since at least the early 'oughts_. | | People want things that are some combination of more | capable, more convenient, more reliable, and less | expensive. Different consumers obviously make different | decisions, but there's a reason you can't go to a car lot | and easily find a car with a stick shift. There's a | reason you probably don't know anyone who has a Speed | Queen top loader (pre-redesign model of course ;)) in | their house, even though it is infinitely more reliable | and repairable than the competition. Those offerings are | less capable, less convenient, and more expensive than | the alternatives, so customers don't want them. | munk-a wrote: | Customers are incredibly short sighted when it comes to | purchasing new things - shaving 10% off a price while | cutting the expected lifetime of the product down from | ten years to three is likely to capture most of the | market. | | I think this is a case where actors are acting in an | irrational manner (i.e. not adhering to the perfectly | rational actor assumption that's required for free- | markets to function) and that necessitates government or | other intervention to ensure that consumers are | protected. | | It's depressing because I absolutely agree with you that | users aren't purchasing devices with an emphasis on being | able to repair them. It is a pain point but not one that | comes up at the register and so manufacturers are free to | exploit the situation to provide marginally cheaper goods | that require full replacement more frequently to ensure | consistent sales. | | Nobody wants to be like Hoover in the 90's that offered | free plane tickets with vacuum purchases[1] and caused | such an oversupply in the market that first party vacuum | sales dwindled to nearly nothing over the next decade and | that's fair. But we need to have a balance where we | aren't rewarding manufacturers who build products that | frequently break and for the consumer to make another | purchase. | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_prom | otion | michaelmrose wrote: | Given a choice customers would very likely prefer a | toaster that costs ten dollars less and has a 1 in 10,000 | chance of burning down their house instead of 1 in | 1,00,000 even though saving 10 bucks and accepting a in | in 10k chance of burning up your kids, cats, and stuff is | an insane choice. | | The free market is in short pretty garbage on its own. | Wohlf wrote: | You can't buy a new car like an '88 Camry anymore, the | government will not allow it to be sold due to safety and | environmental regulation. | OrwellianChild wrote: | All I'm saying is that R2R in no way changes the products | that are available to you if you want product-as-a- | service. You can still take your phone to the Genius Bar | or lease it from a carrier. It just guarantees that there | are also options for those who _want_ to fix their own | devices. | mntmn wrote: | Shameless plug: We're doing this with the MNT Reform laptop: | https://mntre.com/reform2/handbook/schematics.html | | There's also a print version of this book that is included | with the assembled version of the device: | https://shop.mntmn.com/products/mnt-reform-operator-handbook | reaperducer wrote: | _Electronics used to come with full schematics as part of the | documentation_ | | For a short time in college I worked fixing stereos at a big- | name electronics company's east coast repair facility. You | could always tell the gear that people had tried to fix | themselves before sending it back to us as a last resort. We | didn't begrudge them trying on their own. In fact, it was | encouraged because home repairs kept the cost of maintaining | the repair facility down. | | These days, since everything gets chucked in the garbage when | it breaks, I guess that logic doesn't work anymore. | | As an aside, the Commodore 64 didn't come with the | schematics, but they were part of the Programmer's Reference | Guide, which many people had, and could be bought in most | bookstores. | marcosdumay wrote: | > Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to | be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? | | Well, I would say it includes publishing the software interface | of your hardware, and not making it impossible to replace the | software. Those are the main roadblock on updating old tablets | and phones. | | I do really read those lines as fighting closed boot loaders, | DRM on real goods, dependencies on the manufacturer's servers, | and all kinds of purposeful hindrances that are so popular | between the large industries nowadays. | | I would really not include the "design for repairability" and | software upgrades into the idea. But one does not need to | include those to agree with the article. | spinningslate wrote: | >Well, I would say it includes publishing the software | interface of your hardware, and not making it impossible to | replace the software. | | 100% this. Case in point: I have two 'old' apple devices: a | 2009 mac mini and an ipad c.2011. Apple doesn't provide | updates for either any more. For the mini, that's not a | problem: it's running Debian just fine, and kept up to date. | | The ipad is a different story. Physically it's still in | perfectly good nick: it's a well-built device. Software, | though, is a different matter. Progressively fewer websites | render properly with the outdated version of safari; the | number of installable apps is down to a faint trickle. It's | broken. Doesn't matter that it's broken because the software | is outdated rather than a hardware component has given up. It | doesn't do what it was intended for, and there's no way to | repair it. | | I've no issue with apple - or any other manufacturer - | deciding there's a lifetime beyond which they're not willing | to support the device. But they shouldn't be allowed to brick | it. At the point it goes out of manufacturer support, there | should be the option to 'unlock' and install 3rd party | software. | | Of course it'll impact Apple's revenues. At least to some | extent; plenty people will still want "shiny new". And it'll | need 3rd party software to be available. But that's a whole | new market opportunity. | | More fundamentally, it's simply unconscionable to consign | devices to the scrap heap because the manufacturer built a | time bomb into the software. | II2II wrote: | Perhaps the author kept moving the goalpost since we have lost | so much over the years. | | Take that legacy software. For many technologies the software | is not distinguishable from the hardware to the end user, yet | faulty software could present a security risk or even pose | physical danger. At the same time, vendors are dropping support | for software at an accelerated rate while making it impossible | to use third party fixes or replacements. This is not about | having the latest features or being able to run the latest | apps. It is about having the device being an asset rather than | a liability. | segmondy wrote: | Are they also going to force "the right to sell" instead of | rent? Nothing is stopping companies from renting instead of | selling their products. We already see that with software, no | one is trying to sell software these days, it's all | subscriptions. It could happen with hardware, in which case | you don't have the right to repair since it never belonged to | you. | michaelmrose wrote: | The populace is under no particular obligation to allow the | company to continue to go about doing business in the US. | The populace of the EU and Canada and so forth likewise. | | An act of such naked greed could trivially backfire. | spaced-out wrote: | I've been wondering if we're going to need to do something | like that some day. | | With the way tech is increasingly getting locked down, what | if we end up in a future where all the major computer | vendors won't sell you anything, only lease it to you under | strict terms, which include the right for them to brick it | for any reason. Sure, you can still buy parts and build | your own computer, but you can't use it for any bank or | credit card transaction or government website because it's | not SECURE. If fact, even wanting to own your own computer | makes you a suspicious person to law enforcement because | why do you need it? Are you trying to distribute child | porn? In fact, child porn is the reason Comcast stated to | justify a new policy that will go into effect soon, which | will only allow devices running on trusted hardware/OS to | connect to the internet at all... | merlincorey wrote: | This is the crux of the argument to me - if I own the | device, why do some companies act like I am just renting | it? | beefalo wrote: | Most cell phones are leased already today | Karunamon wrote: | No they're not. Leasing implies a limited, fixed term. | Financing and leasing are two different transactions. | michaelmrose wrote: | That is only untrue because owning the phone would be | disadvantageous to them. It's vastly more advantageous | for them if you own it and are obliged to pay them for it | because you own both pieces if it breaks. | II2II wrote: | Depending upon what you mean by "sell", I can assure you | that software sales are still happening. (Though it's | probably better to describe it as selling a license for an | indeterminate period. I also suspect the "indeterminate | period" part will result in an increasing number of legal | actions.) | | Fundamentally, the repairs and sales are different things. | A consumer knows whether they are making a purchase or | renting when paying for a product. A consumer is much less | likely to know what the extended support (i.e. out of | warranty) options are, and they are subject to change as | time goes on anyhow. This means that the market is less | likely to accept a scenario where everything is rented and | more likely to end up in a scenario where nothing is | repairable. | | That being said, I suspect the right to buy would become an | issue if every vendor switched to rentals or subscriptions | only. | rasz wrote: | EU already established that licensing software means | selling it and comes with right to resale (usedsoft vs | oracle) | ImprobableTruth wrote: | No, because the key difference between renting and buying | is that if you rent something, the provider will be forced | to repair it for you. The issue is that they try to have it | both ways, the strict control of renting something (users | can't resell it, repair it, modify it) and the reduced | responsibility of selling it. | tachyonbeam wrote: | I don't think Apple or Google have to open source every part of | their software. They just have to make it possible for us to | install alternative operating systems on their computing | platforms. That would allow giving older devices new life by | putting Linux on them, for example. A fully unlocked iPhone 6 | with Linux on it could be very useful. | globular-toast wrote: | Only if they're selling a computer. I've never wanted my | phone to be a computer (although I don't mind if it is). | tachyonbeam wrote: | Good for you. You don't have to install Linux on your | phone, but it would be better for the planet (eg: | recycling) if we all could. | LegitShady wrote: | >Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to | be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? | Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one | yourself. | | Or maybe unlocking the bootloader? | | >Now the author has shifted "right to repair" to mean mandatory | device support and design requirements around repair-ability. | | It's part of the conversation on planned obsolescence but | you're right that's not strictly part of right to repair. | | But these companies have been crowing about sustainability for | a while now for PR purposes - now they may be legislated to | actually provide sustainability in terms of product support and | repairability. | msla wrote: | > Now the author has shifted "right to repair" to mean | mandatory first-party device support and design requirements | around repair-ability. | | I'm sure mandatory first-party device support is better for the | manufacturer than giving people the idea they should be able to | control what software runs on their device. I wonder if that | stance is a lack of imagination on the author's part or | something more deliberate. | michaelmrose wrote: | Perhaps compulsory software updates at least as far as security | issues for a reasonable time frame after selling a particular | device as new to stores. I'd say 5 years to go with the 5 year | warranty against defects in manufacture. This would discourage | waste and improve the second hand market. | | So moto, samsung, et all would be obligated to provided fixes | for 5 years after they sold the last unit. If an oem can't meet | that obligation just forbid their import. | | We presume a right to the product of other people's labor for | the privilege of doing business here all the time. See every | product in existence. | fouric wrote: | I'm not very happy with the quality of the article, overall. It | seems useful for a consumer, but obvious, and old-hat, to HN | denizens. | | HN submissions are supposed to be "anything that gratifies | one's intellectual curiosity", but we've seen dozens of right- | to-repair articles by now, and this doesn't bring anything | substantially new to the table (unlike the top previous | submissions https://hn.algolia.com/?q=right+to+repair). | rozab wrote: | I think the reason it was posted was more to point out that | the BBC was running this article on the homepage, rather than | the content itself. | kbenson wrote: | I agree, the increasing awareness of this topic is itself | interesting and worth note. | | Additionally, the fact that this submission has 350+ | comments at the time I write this is all the evidence I | need that this was worthy of submission. Many times, the | comments, even if it's a tangential discussion, are much | more interesting than the article submitted. | lsllc wrote: | I think anything publicizing "right to repair" in mainstream | media is a good thing. Agreed that for HN denizens, it's | nothing new, but most people are just unaware of this topic. | | Glad to see the BBC running this. | judge2020 wrote: | Maybe, but it's all over the place and thus might cause | confusion for readers who will later see 'right to repair' | and think it means that Apple should be forced to send iOS | 14 to their iPhone 4S. | LocalH wrote: | Maybe they should have to open iOS signing to all | versions a device ever received when it becomes EOL? That | also has implications with regards to preservation - if | you can never install a given version of the OS again, | then how can you trust it is properly preserved? | judge2020 wrote: | You can always install the old version, Apple just | doesn't think they can optimize new iOS versions to make | old phones work well with the new software (and the | bloat/feature creep within). | LocalH wrote: | No you can't, and you haven't been able to in some time. | Apple devices that need restoring post-EOL are generally | restricted to the last-released version. I think you have | to go back to the original couple of iPhone models to be | able to ignore SHSH and APTicket. | | There are ways around this with some models, but it's | been a long time since it was even "save SHSH blobs and | replay them" easy. | EvanAnderson wrote: | Without circumventing protections you cannot install old | versions of iOS. Many phone models have flaws in the | protections that allow you to circumvent the protections, | but officially installing old iOS versions ends when | Apple decides. | joshspankit wrote: | Exactly my point as I read down this thread: | | For this type of legislation push it is _very_ important | to keep the narrative focused on what's morally and | technologically reasonable. | | Very few people agree that a manufacturer should be | forced to spend time and money on supportting a product | for life, many (I hope) agree that we should force | manufacturers to give us the _ability_ to repair all | functions ourselves (or at least not stand in our way), | but almost everyone can agree that you should be able to | replace something as trivial as a button, a cable, or a | screen. | hilbert42 wrote: | _" I think anything publicizing "right to repair" in | mainstream media is a good thing."_ | | Absolutely, the more the merrier. Also, I believe that lay | people are now becoming aware of the fact, as I've seen | many articles both in the daily press and on the television | news about it (where I live the Government's current | inquiry into the matter seeking public comment has been | reasonably well covered). | criddell wrote: | If we are going to allow software patents on the basis that | software is a device, then laws affecting physical devices | should apply to software as well. | joshspankit wrote: | I'm curious but don't know what laws you're suggesting. Could | you dig a bit deeper? | criddell wrote: | I was thinking about right to repair laws. What's the | analog for schematics when you are talking about a software | device? It's going to be something like source code or API | documentation. | jryan49 wrote: | If you want to help support right to repair (in US) consider | donating to Louis Rossmann's GoFundMe for right to repair: | | https://www.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed?u... | mentos wrote: | Been a fan of his for years was more than happy to donate to | his campaign. | emptyadam wrote: | I joined this website to say this. | IronWolve wrote: | Louis explains its a david vs goliath situation, tech companies | pay lobbyists to argue against right to repair. Small working | repair shops cant afford to travel to these meetings, and not | get paid. | | This is why the fund raiser, the public needs lobbyists to | represent them against the corporate lobbyists. | | Its also bad that these companies are funding/donating to | politicians to go against the publics interest. | operator-name wrote: | I'd highly reccomended his video "What is right to repair? An | introduction for curious people." as it clears up many | misconceptions about right to repair: | https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k | OrwellianChild wrote: | Linus Tech Tips did an excellent rundown of the topic last week | and advocates for Rossmann's fundraiser as well: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68 | rasz wrote: | UK, Europe, Canada, Argentina, its as if the journalist went out | of his way not to mention US and Louis Rossmanns direct ballot | initiative fighttorepair.org | CivBase wrote: | Despite being a big fan of right to repair, I really didn't like | this article. It gave me the impression that the only way to fix | things is to impose regulations on manufacturers in the form of | design restrictions and support requirements. IMO, that's not at | all what right to repair should be focusing on. | | I disagree with any regulation which would force a manufacturer | to compromise on the design of a device just for the sake of | ease-of-repair or to provide parts or repair services. However, | there are some practices which I do think should be illegal as | part of right to repair law. Here are some examples: | | 1) Manufacturers should not be allowed to use serialization to | prevent a device from working with replacement parts. It's okay | for a device to user serialization to detect if the part has been | replace and if the replacement is known to be compatible, but | it's not okay for the device to refuse to work with a replacement | part outright simply because the part ID is different. | | 2) Manufacturers should not be allowed to make exclusivity deals | for parts with third party vendors. Apple should not be allowed | to make a deal with Intersil that gives them exclusive rights to | purchase the ISL9120 chip used in their Mac Books. This | restriction should not extend to parts designed by the | manufacturer whose production is merely contracted out to a third | party. | | 3) Manufacturers should not be allowed to restrict sharing of | schematics, specifications, or other legally acquired product | information. If someone takes the time to map out the traces and | identify the components on a circuit board, then they should be | allowed to share that information without fear of legal threats. | | 4) Genuine used good should not be seized by customs under the | pretext of them being "counterfeit". | | 5) Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to restrict the purchase of | replacement parts using "authorized repair" programs. If they're | going to offer parts for repair, they should be available for | purchase with no strings attached. | | Others have already pointed it out, but Louis Rossmann's YouTube | channel and Fight to Repair website have some great information | on the problems faced by independent repair. | | https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup | | https://www.fighttorepair.org/ | forgotmypw17 wrote: | hear, hear | | http and www and html are one of the most effective technologies | keeping long-lived devices usable and useful. | | it's why i've made a point of testing in netscape 2.0 and up. | tims33 wrote: | Repairability seems like a good goal for sustainability. The | challenge on electronics is determining what is a reasonable and | useful life for a product. Should an iPhone SE or a knockoff | Android last and be repairable for a decade? My worry is the | regulation will get this wrong. Moderate rules are probably the | best way to start. | thereddaikon wrote: | Remember, its reduce, reuse, and recycle in that order for a | reason. | | Companies like Apple and Microsoft love to claim they are green | because they put money into recycling old hardware. Except | their business model for hardware revolves entirely around | Increasing consumption and not reducing it. | | Its cheaper and better for the environment to maintain | electronics than it is to replace them every few years and | recycle them. Recycling is far from 100%, especially with | electronics. Its not like steel or aluminum where you can just | toss scrap into a crucible and get pure ingots on the other end | ready to be worked into something useful. | viktorcode wrote: | I don't think that repairability is better for sustainability | in general, if we are speaking about electronics. Making an | electronic device more repairable would make it more complex | (again, not in every case, but in general). Where before a | manufacturer could just solder numerous components to a single | board, now will be arrays of sockets each of which is a new | point of possible failure. Glue will be replaced by magnets, | clips, etc. which is great for repair, but again, makes device | more complex. And still most people will get rid of them after | a few years of use. Consumerism is the top enemy of | sustainability. | | Right to repair is a complex endeavour. There will be no simple | solutions. | scrose wrote: | > I don't think that repairability is better for | sustainability in general | | Sorry, but what? Being able to repair a device means that you | can (and usually will) be able to prevent demand spiking for | a brand new device that uses as many or more materials than | the last. | | For starters, imagine a world where vehicles were not | repairable. I'd argue that any mass-produced thing benefits | from repairability. | TideAd wrote: | I suspect that a minority of people would choose to repair | their old phones even if they were more repairable. When | your phone dies, it's a good opportunity to buy something | new and more fun. I don't know for sure but I don't think | this would stop that much consumption. | fsflover wrote: | > When your phone dies, it's a good opportunity to buy | something new | | If you have infinite money, yes. Most people in the world | do not have it. (And if you do not care about the | environment, too.) | scrose wrote: | > I suspect that a minority of people would choose to | repair their old phones even if they were more | repairable. | | Repair shops exist for this purpose. I'm not saying every | individual will repair their device themself if it | breaks. That would be as out of touch as saying most | people will just buy a brand new phone anytime theirs has | an issue. | | Making things less repairable means that whether you're | willing to pay someone else or not to fix something, you | will be unable to. | filleduchaos wrote: | The vast majority of people on the planet cannot afford | to "buy something new and more fun" every time something | of theirs breaks. | ben-schaaf wrote: | > Making an electronic device more repairable would make it | more complex (again, not in every case, but in general). | | Right to repair isn't about forcing manufacturers to make | devices more repairable. It's about giving you the right to | repair it in the first place. Right now we have paired | components that can't even be replaced by genuine parts from | a donor device, board components that aren't purchasable by | anyone other than the OEM and a complete lack of access to | repair documentation from OEMs. | | Even the most skilled repair technicians in the world with | the best equipment money can buy aren't able to repair your | device because they can't debug it without documentation, or | they've reverse engineered it but can't buy the parts because | they're not for sale, or they've taken the parts from another | device but they won't function because the OEM software | locked them to the device they came from. | | Linus from Linus Tech Tips said it best: "The vast majority | of the opposition to right to repair comes from people who | either haven't had it explained to them properly or from | folks that are on board with right to repair even though they | don't realize it yet" | | https://youtu.be/nvVafMi0l68?t=91 | nrp wrote: | I get where you're coming from on this, but from a design and | manufacturing perspective, it isn't correct. Fairphone has | published a pretty extensive lifecycle analysis of their | latest device that details the environmental impact of | designing for repairability vs the extended life that comes | from that change: https://www.fairphone.com/wp- | content/uploads/2020/07/Fairpho... | | There's a similar study focused on notebooks that goes into | the environmental benefits of extending longevity: https://ww | w.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1... | | Finally, we've spent the last year and a half building a | highly repairable notebook at Framework, and it is as robust | as any other premium thin and light notebook. | | I agree with you though that there is a behavioral change | required to maximize the benefit. There are many audiences | (like a lot of the folks on HN) who are ready to make their | devices last longer, but others may need more time to get | comfortable with it. | scrose wrote: | We used to have this right, but it feels like somewhere between | 2010-2015, companies realized they could make more money by | disallowing simple replacements. | | I used to make some money as a kid by buying batches of broken | Iphone 3G/3GS's on ebay, replacing parts on them, and then re- | selling them myself. Practically any part of that device could | be replaced in less than 30 minutes with $15 worth of tools. | | I have a 2012MBP and a 2014MBP that I gave to my family that | are still serving their purposes after a few quick(and cheap) | battery, RAM and HDD replacements over the years. | | I don't expect my 2019 MBP to last more than 5 years without | costing me at least several hundred dollars more when I | inevitably have to bring it to the Apple store for them to fix | something that very much used to be user-fixable in a matter of | minutes. | JKCalhoun wrote: | I draw the line at SMDs. We should go back to through-hole | components -- I can desolder and resolder those. | | Sorry, I'm not trying to mock you. Just saw an opportunity to | be facetious, not facetious. | | And, actually, to sort of make a point: | | I don't buy into the idea that companies are intentionally | doing this -- intentionally disallowing replacement parts, | although I maybe just be naive. I do in fact loathe SMDs (as | a hobbyist) but I am quite sure that companies have moved to | them for non-nefarious reasons as well. | rasz wrote: | Your argument doesnt work, because your smd is crypto locks | and monopolistic "you cant sell this part to anybody else" | business deals. Manufacturers are starting to use | cryptographic handshakes between components. | thereddaikon wrote: | There is ample proof that Apple pays off their parts | suppliers to prevent them from selling components on the | open market. Louis Rossman has documented it well. Failure | prone chips like USB muxers and voltage regulators that are | unique to Apple devices but made by suppliers who's | products are otherwise available on Digikey and Mouser | somehow those aren't. | | SMDs are not anticonsumer. They are harder to work with but | with practice anyone can deal with them just fine. I've yet | to see anyone argue for a through hole mandate. | | But I have seen people argue for banning clearly anti | repair design practices like gluing assemblies together. Or | designing a screen in such a way that you have a high | chance of breaking it when removing it. | jack_h wrote: | This is pretty much it. Why do we use a BGA or WLCSP rather | than a DIP package? Because we can't fit a DIP package into | the form factor, and manufacturing costs are higher. Why | did we glue/epoxy a few components to the board? Because | the device needed to pass a drop test such that components | aren't flying off. Why did we ultrasonically weld the | enclosure shut? Because we needed IP68 or above rating and | the price point we were trying to hit made that the most | viable. | | I don't necessarily have a problem with right to repair, | but a lot of people don't understand what goes into | designing these things and attribute a lack of | repairability with malfeasance rather than just the reality | of manufacturing, economics, and consumer demands. | rasz wrote: | Straw man. No right to repair movement is arguing for | making bulkier devices using older technology. I have | zero problem with underfilled BGA _as long as I can buy | replacement chip from legitimate source_. | operator-name wrote: | Apple is a very well documented example of companies | intentially disallowing replacement parts. | | Many of their parts are linked to the motherboard in | software, and even a doner replacement from another decide | restricts features. | | There's a line between warning the user that the repair is | potentially dangerous and removing their right of ownership | to repair their product unless apple had authorised it. | jbm wrote: | I have a mid-year 2012 MBP. The battery was glued in place | and it is generally a PITA to repair. | | I believe the generation before was the last one that was | repairable. | tims33 wrote: | Our expectations on the size and integrated nature of these | devices seem to be the thing that caused everything to get | glued together. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | I took apart my old smartphone at one point. It was old | enough that the battery was attached with screws and | connected to the board with a cable and a connector. | | It's not bigger than existing phones. It doesn't weigh | more, it's not thicker. The weight of a battery connector | and a couple of screws is what, a couple of grams, if that? | | "We needed to make it thinner" is just an excuse. | zepto wrote: | Regulation of designs will very likely get this wrong, and very | harm the environment and drive up costs. | | However there could easily be regulation of labeling that could | help. | | E.g. mandate display of statistical years of working life, and | number of years of software support. | | At least this way customers would be able to make a choice. | LegitShady wrote: | > Moderate rules are probably the best way to start. | | These changes almost never happen. Whatever change you put the | first time is likely the only change that will happen. Starting | off with a compromise for fear of 'getting it wrong' is the | easiest way to make sure you get it wrong. | tims33 wrote: | That is a fair point. I just have visions of becoming | cumbersome and limiting. | overgard wrote: | > 'It's your device, ... | | Sadly, while that /should/ be true, I'm not sure that on any | practical level it is anymore. There's about a 1000 ways the | manufacturer, carrier, os developer, etc., can make your device | entirely useless without you having much of any recourse, because | while they can't physically take the device from you, they can | stop providing you service. | joshspankit wrote: | This is _exactly_ why "Right to repair" rose up to claw that | ownership back. | | If we don't create laws, at some point down the road we will go | from "not much recourse" to literally none. | | What if Apple created a phone with no ports that was filled | with epoxy as the last step in assembly? What if powering it on | at all meant logging in to your apple account? | | They could in every meaningful way take that device away from | you at the run of a single function. | scientismer wrote: | If that would happen, and it bothers you, just don't buy an | Apple phone. Problem solved. | joshspankit wrote: | If that happens and there are no laws, it will affect more | and more products. | | Don't buy a laptop? A car? A building? A slab of wood? | | Yes, my examples are borderline unreasonable, but we're | _already_ at the level of unreasonable products being | licensed instead of owned (Tractors, DSLRs). | varispeed wrote: | I fear this is going to turn into some ambiguous law that only | big companies will be able to navigate through and you and me | still won't be able to repair anything, because it will be deemed | "unsafe". There also has to be many years of commissions, | banquets, meetings, dinners, bonuses before all civil servants | feasting on tax payer money will come up with something. | operator-name wrote: | I'm cautiously optimistic, I've been following Louis Rossmann's | efforts and Massachusetts recently passed their right to repair | bill (https://youtu.be/8XN98T0KLGI). | | If other industries can do it why can't we? | brap wrote: | Maybe they should stop wasting their time (and our money) and | simply let us decide for ourselves whether or not we want to | buy a device? | TchoBeer wrote: | That's the status quo, where the government doesn't intervene | in issues of repair. | oneplane wrote: | While calling things 'right to repair' is a nice easy wording for | the lifecycle problem, it doesn't really show the complexity of | the problem at hand. | | There are plenty of things you can do as a manufacturer to make | things repairable, but there are just as many things that you | can't do without creating major issues in other areas. | | Say you are a company that has a brand identity strongly linked | to a certain aesthetic and a law now bans that because you are no | longer allowed to glue on textiles on your product as a neat | design choice. (yes, this has obvious/glaring problems on its | own) What's the solution here? Ban a certain taste or preference | for the certain many in the name of making it better for an | uncertain few? This might also impact production processes in | this example when you have a 'compromise'; i.e. you are required | to sell spare parts because in the mind of policy makers "if they | can mount that part in the factory, why couldn't they sell it | separately". | | Say you have a design that is now optimised for production and | the method with which a fabric or textile part is added is by | preparing a bunch of glue on the spot where the textile goes, | then laying a sheet of textile on top of that, and then using a | specifically shaped melting device to melt it into the glue, and | another cutting device to neatly cut all the excess off, and all | of this while under a specific amount of pressure, maybe some | inert gas etc. This is how industrial production works, and one | of the few ways it works at all (at scale). But that would not be | possible since it isn't repairable enough according to some | people in certain echo chambers. So now we would have to ban an | entire class of production and design methods... and that's just | one example. | | The goal is relatively simple, and there will definitely be an | impact that is worth attaining. But it's unlikely to be as simple | as "provide us all the specs, datasheets and parts". | | Just as unlikely that it could be "provide us with the private | key to your PKI so we can sign our own firmware". (which | ironically is practically banned by the FCC on all devices with | wireless communication modules - technically it's just an | implementation you can restrict to a data table in a driver for a | PHY, but practically this is much cheaper as a manufacturer to | just blanket-sign and be done with it, which isn't fun for us | hackers, but isn't surprising at all.) And not signing or | encrypting things is a whole class of problems on its own. We're | basically screwed, and since we're often on shared systems (like | telecommunication networks, or physical roads and buildings, or | we share the fuels and oils across many consumers) it's not as | simple as 'do whatever you want' either. | | It's tough. | kingsuper20 wrote: | >There are plenty of things you can do as a manufacturer to | make things repairable, but there are just as many things that | you can't do without making creating major issues in other | areas. | | Absolutely. | | Also consider the movement up the foodchain of product | development. How do you 'repair' something that's a SoC with a | few wires to the outside world. Mechanical items, car parts for | example, tend to move towards more complex unserviceable | items...there was a time when mechanical fuel pumps were taken | apart and rebuilt, headlights were a standardized $5 part | rather than a major part of front-end styling. | | I see the concerns of people although it usually all involves | some particular product family that they have a special kink | for. | | I would guess that the endgame consists of items that cannot be | serviced in any way (in order to push down manufacturing cost | usually) combined with a figleaf of published information in | order to satisfy the text of a 'right to repair' law. | quijoteuniv wrote: | I do not really understand the negativity on the comments. Seems | everyone can agree on the "right to repair" (it is politically | correct) but underneath there seems to be and undermining | resentment. | operator-name wrote: | It looks like there is a lot of conflation between the _right_ | to repair and repairability of products. They 're related but | distinct issues. | | A lot of dissent seems to be around forced repairability. | scientismer wrote: | It's socialism, yet again - government dictating to companies | how they have to design and build their products. Only 0,00001% | of people want to be able to repair their own stuff, but we all | will have to pay for the extra hoops companies will be forced | to jump through for political correctness. | | If you think people want repairable products, build them. If | you are correct, people will buy them, rather than the products | of the competition. Why do you need government rules for that? | | There are even companies trying to build repairable | smartphones, and some people (the 0,00001%) are buying them. | dec0dedab0de wrote: | A bit of a tangent, but I'm really surprised one of the android | vendors hasn't focused on the niche of easy to repair phones. | Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of the | latest i-sung devices. extra hot swappable batteries and the | like. | | I know the ostensible reasons waterproofing, planned | obsolescence, looking cool, and being light weight. Though I | suspect the real reason is they're just chasing the big players | and are afraid to be different. It just doesn't make sense to me | from a business perspective, if you know you can't compete in the | general market, why not carve out a smaller market and serve that | one well. An example of this is the Jitterbug phone. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | Take a look at corporate or industrial devices. | david_allison wrote: | Fairphone[0] is a European manufacturer which does this | (modular replaceable components, 10/10 on iFixit and usable by | non-techies). | | In my experience it's the annual release cycle of Android | coupled with the lack of OS updates by manufacturers which | contributes to e-waste, closely followed by the lack of battery | replaceability. My first smartphone (OnePlus One - 2014) still | has the specs to be a perfectly usable phone, at least until 5G | is widespread and 4G networks are decommissioned. | | [0] https://www.fairphone.com/en/ | Workaccount2 wrote: | Can anyone enlighten me about 5G? To me it seems to be | absolutely nothing more than a marketing tool meant to sell a | new generation of phones and phone plans. The fact that it is | pushed so fervently just sets of red flags galore for me. | | 4G is plenty fast and works well for me. I see nothing gained | for my phone by going from 100Mbps to 1Gbps(?). Nothing. But | its pushed like the second coming of Christ. | rocqua wrote: | Old comment of mine: | | Generally there is said to be 3 parts to 5G. The first is | eMBB: Enhanced Mobile Broadband. In other words faster | mobile internet. This is where most operators start. | | The second is URLLC: Ultra-Reliable Low Latency | Communications. This is mainly aimed at using 5G for things | like self-driving cars. But also things like long distance | remote control. This is where people see potential for | innovation without being clear what the exact innovation | will be. | | The third is mMTC: Massive Machine Type Communications. | This is meant for IOT but also for factory control. The IOT | thing is mostly allowing extra low battery useage, low | speed, cheap connnectivity. The factory control thing is | about getting the advantages of 5G (and e.g. URLLC) and | allowing a factory to quickly set up their own private 5G | network. | | This is on the consumer facing side. On the operator facing | side, infrastructure is moving more towards virtualization | and decoupling. Trying to make it easier to use multiple | vendors, and stop requiring custom made hardware. And in | general, moving towards commodity hardware and something | closer to 'infrastructure as code'. | | This also helps roaming and virtual operators (for e.g. the | factory control). It also helps a bit with the ultra low | latency part by decentralizing the routing part and moving | it closer to the devices. | | So "what is 5G gonna do for me" is mostly the 'faster | internet'. But the idea is that it will enable widespread | innovation that you can later use. With some luck | (governments are thinking) being ahead in deploying 5G | might also help boost your economy by boosting innovation. | cultofmetatron wrote: | this video should help | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-gGeAe-PJA | procombo wrote: | Having a new technology to bring to the market is good for | the industry. Service providers, hardware providers, | salespeople, etc. Most consumers love the hype! | | I needed a new test phone the other day so I bought a new | iPhone 11 at a Verizon store. The salespeople could not | wrap their head around my choice because it doesn't support | 5g. I gave them some great reasons and they relunctantly | took my money. | epanchin wrote: | Upload of 4k streaming video will be cool. I imagine we'll | get some really nice live news videos coming out from | independant journalists. | AdrianB1 wrote: | For the average consumer, mind blowing stereoscopic ultra | high definition 3D porn with no lag or buffering. /s | | On paper there are benefits, at this time there is no | killer need for it. | david_allison wrote: | I'm excited. Not for a specific use-case, but because it | removes constraints and that lets developers push the | boundaries of what's possible. | | As a European, I predict it'll be a catalyst for American | companies to rethink data caps and data pricing, as you can | blow through a data cap 10x as fast. That'll be massive and | measurable progress. | | Paraphrasing Liebig's law of the minimum[0]: progress is | hindered by the most scarce resource. I'm sure that | bandwidth will have been that resource for some ideas. | These ideas will have been 'before their time' a few years | ago, and are now viable. | | Take spellcheckers[1], and electron-based apps: they've | moved very quickly from "impossible" to "an everyday | occurrence", I hope 5G enable this for another class of | problem, and I hope it's unpredictable. | | I don't have a 5G phone, I don't plan to get one any time | soon, I'll have one in 10 years time, and I'm excited to | see what comes of it. | | [0]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum | | [1]: https://prog21.dadgum.com/29.html | fsflover wrote: | The problem with Fairphone is that it relies on binary blobs | which are not supported after a short time. Planned | obsolescence is there, even though it is not the company's | fault. | varispeed wrote: | I think current phones are just about enough performant to | withstand many years of use. I think such proposition using | some older tech than current generation just wouldn't sell. | People buy new phones not only because new ones look "better" | but also perform better than older phones. If I think about my | previous phone, the user experience was far from satisfactory. | The current phone I have also isn't great, but acceptable. | However, I'd love to change to get something more performant - | I missed so many moments, for instance, when I wanted to | quickly take a picture, but the phone just wouldn't respond for | seconds. | poisonborz wrote: | SoC vendors like Qualcomm do not support their chipsets more | than a few years. Without new drivers, no updated Android | versions. Without new Android version, no security patches. How | could a company support an unsecure device that might be | hackable by any Play store app or script kiddie? | | Software and hardware support (from the manufacturer) are tied | closely together, and the industry makes it really hard to | achieve this. | swiley wrote: | Android was explicitly designed to make it easy for component | manufacturers to keep their drivers closed. Now that Qualcomm | essentially has a monopoly on Android SoCs you can't really | build a modern phone that will have up to date software in 3 | years. | | This is why projects like the Pinephone and lebrem5 use such | weird SoCs. Open source drivers are absolutely the only way to | know that the phone manufacturer will _even have the ability_ | to maintain up to date software. | dec0dedab0de wrote: | Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the only reason you need a SoC | is if you're trying to make the phone small. If you don't | care about size you can have discreet components. There are | millions of people with big enough pockets (literally and | metaphorically) , who wouldn't notice the extra weight of | their phone. | | edit: discreet might be the wrong word because they would all | be ICs but not quite a SoC. | swiley wrote: | Find me a low power discrete CPU and we can draw the board | for another open source phone together. | operator-name wrote: | RISC-V is not only looking interesting but promising. | opencl wrote: | The other issue is that none of the SoCs on the market with | open source drivers available are remotely competitive in | performance with today's Qualcomm/Exynos/Kirin. | | The Pinephone and Librem 5 are both using chips that are | competitive with low end Snapdragons from 5 years ago. | | I think the RK3399 paired with an external modem is about | as good as you can do today without needing blobs, and | while it performs a whole lot better than the current | Pinephone/Librem 5 it is still quite far behind today's | SoCs. | | In most cases the open source drivers for these mobile SoCs | are reverse engineered rather than released by the vendor, | which is why they typically only exist for chips that are | at least a few years old. | filleduchaos wrote: | > Maybe even making them four or five times the thickness of | the latest i-sung devices | | Sure smartphones are quite thin these days, but there are | vanishingly few people that want a phone that's 2.96cm+ thick. | fancyfredbot wrote: | Have you seen the fairphone? It's exactly this. The first one | let you replace all components without any tools. The latest | one needs a screwdriver (which it comes with). | | You can upgrade a fairphone 3 to a fairphone 3+ yourself just | by buying the updated components. It's pretty cool! But it | isn't cheap. | | https://shop.fairphone.com/en/ | bogwog wrote: | If a phone's hardware lasts 10 years, it's going to need 10 | years of updates. This shouldn't be a big deal since Android is | open source and Google is the one investing in development; | hobbyists regularly port modern Android versions to ancient | hardware in their spare time, so even a small team of full-time | developers at a manufacturer should have no problems doing the | same for a company's devices. | | I wonder if the reason is really just that these manufacturers | are all blindly following Apple's lead? To an outside observer, | a lot of Android manufacturer's seem to be really stupid, | however the reality might be different from their point of | view. I don't know, but it's frustrating to see how little of a | shit all Android phone manufacturers give. It's why I can't | feel sorry when I hear that a company like LG or HTC are | shutting down their smartphone division; it's their own damn | fault. | ploxiln wrote: | It's basically because of drivers for the SoC (system-on- | chip, the integrated chip from e.g. Qualcomm that has cpus, | graphics, sound, camera, power management, etc). They're too | messy/hacky/low-quality to be "upstreamed", it is mostly | impossible for anyone but the SoC vendor to port to newer | versions (closed-source binary blobs), and the SoC vendor is | really not motivated to do so. | maxerickson wrote: | Is there a market for it? $200 Android devices with a big | battery and decent performance and so on are out there, so I | wonder how many people are worried enough about a swappable | battery. | | Jitterbug makes the phone to sell their service, so it's not | directly comparable (it does demonstrate that the devices | aren't that expensive to produce). | dec0dedab0de wrote: | I was using a Moto G8 Power for exactly that reason, but I | still think 3 days of battery life is just not enough. The | phone could have easily been 4 times the size without being | too big for me. Then the screen cracked and I made it worse | trying to fix it because I dont have the patience to properly | melt glue. Now I'm using a CAT phone which has cool features, | and is supposedly stronger, but mostly the same problems. | maxerickson wrote: | Better repairability is always better, I just don't think | people care about it. | | For the battery, I would certainly rather have an external | power pack (which are readily available) if the idea is to | last a week. | iso1631 wrote: | I have a Mophie for my 2016 SE, perfectly acceptable tradeoff - | when I want the extra power I compromise with a larger phone, | but most of the time I don't need the extra power, and don't | use it, thus have a smaller phone. | pmoriarty wrote: | _" I'm really surprised one of the android vendors hasn't | focused on the niche of easy to repair phones."_ | | With the right marketing, this could be very successful. | | "A repairable phone built to last," or some other creative | slogan and marketing campaign centered around how wasteful and | expensive other phones built around planned obsolescence are. | | Caring about the ecosystem, recycling, and reuse is mainstream | now (witness the BBC right-to-repair article itself, published | on a mainstream news platform), so a company showing that it's | sensitive to these concerns should do well. | balozi wrote: | A persistent question in my mind is why do customers buy | unrepairable products, from smart phones and high-tech tractors. | Why is the market failing? Or is it working perfectly? | antattack wrote: | Is there an alternative? This is a perfect place for government | to step in and nurture an environment that discourages waste. | zepto wrote: | I buy 'unrepairable' iPhones. | | I actually have repaired iPhones myself in the past, including | screens and batteries. | | That turned out to be a waste of time because the replacement | parts failed in a much shorter time than the originals | | The reason I continue to buy iPhones is that more recent models | don't typically _need_ to be repaired. I would much rather have | a phone that doesn't fail easily than one that can be easily | repaired. | endisneigh wrote: | How many customers do you think will even attempt to repair | their own device? That's the answer to your question. | mopsi wrote: | People don't think about repairs before their stuff is broken, | and by then it's too late. That's why things like seat belts | and fire alarms have to be forced upon people. | jahewson wrote: | I think it would help to ask: repairable by whom? And at what | cost? | | Apple will replace an iPhone screen for ~$100. I'm fine with | that. But my washing machine which is repairable and has parts | and schematics available from the manufacturer will cost me > | $400 in labor to replace a $20 part. Plus it's > 10 years old | so I know more parts will fail. I'm just going to buy a new | one. | procombo wrote: | I agree. However, the logistics of repairing a 200 lb machine | that sits in a cramped closet is very different. Phones are | measured in ounces/grams and are easy to transport. | | Yes it is more efficient for you to buy a new washer. | Delivery and haul-away are great upcharges (and worth it | IMO). They will then repair and resell your old one at a much | higher rate than phones are being reserviced. | viro wrote: | Because as "tech people" we live in an echo chamber. where we | conflate our specialized knowledge as "easy with just a quick | google". But in reality my Aunt that can barely troubleshoot | her computer(avg person) probably shouldn't be risking an $800 | device to save $80 on a repair. So when she buys a phone why | would she care about the repairability of a product, she's just | going to take it to a professional anyways. | bcrosby95 wrote: | The whole point behind right to repair is allowing 3rd party | professionals to repair products. | | Apple doesn't do board repair. They make you buy new, whole | components. So when your laptop breaks, instead of spending | $120 to fix it they say you need to buy a new $1,000 | component and with labor that's more than the price of a new | laptop. | Tyr42 wrote: | But it can drive down the cost of going to a specialist if | your device has parts available, etc. | rasz wrote: | Why did consumers kept buying cars with no ABS or airbags? | abawany wrote: | Also, imo the platform walled gardens considerably hamper your | ability to move away from a given vendor just because they made | the current model less repairable. Plus, as other vendors see | Apple's snowballing profit, they also adopt similar | construction and thus you are left with pretty much no choice | when you go out to buy a product. The only counterpoint I have | in this regard is Microsoft Surface: their earlier models were | terribly unrepairable but the newer ones seem to have | considerably improved in this regard. | riskable wrote: | It's simple, really: Newer devices are faster and have nicer | features (e.g. better camera) and it's not really that | inconvenient to pay an extra $20-30/month to get a new phone | every two years. | | You can pay $150 to get a new battery put into your old phone | but that doesn't seem worth it when you can get an entirely new | phone that's "better" than your old one for $500. | | If it were cheaper and easier to replace old batteries I'm | guessing that people would keep their old phones much longer. | That's my #1 reason for buying new phones: The battery in the | old one just doesn't last as long as it used to and replacement | batteries can be hard to come by and/or they're a serious pain | to install (high risk too!). | | Within the next two to three years though (assuming the global | chip shortage lets up) we should start seeing phones with | carbon cathode technology. Then again, car manufacturers might | hog all the dual carbon and carbon cathode batteries so it | might take a bit longer. | JoshTko wrote: | The market is working as expected. Consumers are choosing | devices that are less reparable because they come with other | benefits such as being smaller, lighter, and are waterproof. | Reparable devices come with tradeoffs that most consumers do | not want. | oth001 wrote: | Even if it's a Tesla. | skriticos2 wrote: | So what benefit would the right to repair bring? | | Even if all the schematics were published, parts be more | standardized and built in a way that things are easier to | maintain, would it really make a difference? | | People want the shiny new PS5 no matter how repairable the PS3 | is. Maybe in a few decades the technology development slows to a | point where this might be reasonable, but today people think on | how to get their hands on the new M2 chip even before the M1 is | fully rolled out. | | Then there is mechanical degradation, most components degrade | over time and start to cause problems. The longer you wait, the | more problems (basically the same as with cars). Most people who | can afford will go for a median timeline where the devices work | reliably and then dump them no matter what. So unless we make | them last for decades reliably (not likely in the near future) | this is not a viable thing to strive for. | | Then there is software support. Vendors continuously improve the | software and add new hardware capabilities to stay competitive, | because everyone else is doing it. So if we wanted to keep stuff | working, we'd have to strangle competitive innovation and mandate | a specific cap on technology for a given time. | | So I think that's all not reasonable. Instead we should strive to | make the stuff we produce recyclable (like really), so that the | materials can become the new shiny stuff that people crave for. | But stuff is not designed to be recyclable at all and if you look | at the global recycling industry (or fantasy really, so little is | recovered) you can picture a giant dumpster we leave for the next | generations. | Epskampie wrote: | Recycling and repairability are not mutually exclusive, more | often quite the opposite. | | Also, there are many devices where i don't care for newer | models, like the dishwasher. | theqult wrote: | Laughs in European <3 | jaworek wrote: | There is currently a fundraiser for direct ballot initiative in | the US. | | https://www.gofundme.com/f/lets-get-right-to-repair-passed?u... | | It was created by Louis Rossmann who has a Mac repair shop in NY. | | He talks a lot about it on his YT channel: | https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup | | Linus Tech Tips did a video about it: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68&t=5s ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-30 23:00 UTC)