[HN Gopher] The French repairability index - one year after its ... ___________________________________________________________________ The French repairability index - one year after its implementation [pdf] Author : giuliomagnifico Score : 148 points Date : 2022-06-21 18:29 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.halteobsolescence.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.halteobsolescence.org) | acd wrote: | Lets create an open hardware itx like case standard for laptops. | Imagine if you had standard displays. L-ITX | | Imagine a similar itx like standard for phones M-ITX with | standard batteries and displays. | paulmd wrote: | That already exists - there are already open, modular phone and | laptop chassis standards. The market largely doesn't want that. | | Standardized components tend to be _significantly_ larger than | an integrated solution can deliver. A lot of the standards also | end up being pretty bad - like I 'm curious, why do you point | to ATX and its derivatives (ITX) as being a good thing? | | Some quick examples - ATX is a relic of the days when we all | had a full tower with a 5.25" floppy drive (or later optical) | and maybe a 5.25" hard drive, a 3.5" floppy drive, and the GPU | and CPU were an afterthought. It has no officially specified | location or keepout for the CPU and memory making cooler | standardization impossible. It devotes a huge amount of | airspace to the CPU while leaving the GPU (with a TDP multiple | times higher) with a cooler that faces the wrong direction for | convection to work and an add-in-card format that makes it | impossible to support the modern coolers. It has tons of power | rails that are essentially vestigial because the things they | used to power no longer exist (5V is only used for USB and | SSDs, 3v is a leftover from the floppy drive days, etc). And | all the attempts to rectify these weaknesses have been quashed | and become niche unsupported standards of their own. | | In the ITX space, even within homebuilder PCs, only the very | smallest "standardized" SFF builds can compete with garden- | variety mini-PCs, and those builds are _extremely_ fraught with | compatibility issues. A board that moves the cpu socket a half | inch one way or the other might blow compatibility with popular | coolers, because people have to optimize their builds to that | level to make it work. And none of them reach the form factors | that are possible with "slim" console-style builds utilizing a | fully integrated design. Engineered solutions are simply | smaller and usually cooler while doing it, because they are | thoughtfully planned in a thermal and layout sense rather than | having to work around layout decisions that were made literally | in the 1970s by IBM. | | For all these reasons, the ATX standard and its derivatives | (ITX) is _extremely_ unpopular outside the home-builder market, | virtually nobody actually implements it. For example the 12VO | standard is an attempt to standardize what OEMs are already | doing - everyone else has already given up on ATX PSUs and gone | to 12VO independently, so now there are a bunch of incompatible | implementations. Things like motherboard size and screw | placement vary hugely, because the market doesn 't want giant | full-tower cases for the computer in mom's den. | | Every new standard just leads to yet another thing to be | abandoned. Thin-ITX tried to fix the socket placement issue, | for example. Dead. 12VO is trying to fix the power issue... | dead. NVIDIA has been trying to fix the PSU power cable | issue... people hated it. | | It would be great if we had one standard that covered | everybody's use-case, but that leads to an overcomplicated | standard with a lot of nuance and boilerplate, and some things | inevitably still fall through the cracks. For USB-C, that | overhead is a huge amount of extra expense in the cables, | devices, chargers, etc, for cases the overhead will be wasted | space and weight. The market does not want to go back to phones | that are as thick as chocolate-bar phones were. | | Again, you can disagree all you want, but these products | already exist, there is Framework aimed at the laptop market | and Fairphone and others in the phone market. That is not what | the market as a whole wants. But hey, government intervention | can always force the issue, right? | onli wrote: | Did someone see an API? I'm specifically looking for a way to get | the repairability score for smartphones, via their codename. | tims33 wrote: | I find this statement hard to believe: "76% of those people that | in 2021 purchased a new device and indicated to have noticed the | index." It just doesn't jive with the real world understanding | most people have of their technology devices. | | I think this law is a net positive, but I can't tell from this | document if it really made a measurable impact in year 1. | thomasahle wrote: | I think you are misreading the sentence. It doesn't say how | many people noticed the index. It says how many of the people | _who noticed the index_ found it helpful. (See | nonrandomstring's comment.) | tims33 wrote: | I see what they are saying. I'm still not sure it is a useful | data point other than to say the index isn't detrimental. | | My conclusion from the report is that it is still too early | to determine the impact of the program. | bombcar wrote: | I could believe it if French law required it as a sticker or | otherwise on the product/ads, like US food details are on each | product. | bchanudet wrote: | I'm not sure if it's actually required by law, but usual | retailers have been communicating a lot on this in the last | year. Most of them display a sticker in their stores, but the | score is also prominently shown on their websites[0][1]. I'm | really not surprised that a lot of people willing to buy | something noticed the repairability score, because it's near | impossible to miss it. | | [0]: Some examples on two of the biggest | appliance/electronics retailers: | https://www.boulanger.com/ref/1157777, https://www.darty.com/ | nav/achat/gros_electromenager/lavage_s... | | [1]: One last example on the Orange (mobile services | provider) shop: https://boutique.orange.fr/mobile/details/one | plus-9-pro-5g-n... | chrisseaton wrote: | > It just doesn't jive with the real world understanding most | people have of their technology devices. | | Obviously the French are quite a lot poorer than the US, if | that's where you're coming from, so values for things like | repairability are going to be different. | tims33 wrote: | No, I definitely wasn't saying that. My point is that people | are generally pretty oblivious of the vast majority of facts | and features of their electronics devices. | boudin wrote: | That's just not true | chrisseaton wrote: | That the French are poorer? People in the US are about 50% | richer when you account for purchasing power and things. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income | pseudojim wrote: | We're already way off topic, but it's 40%. And we're | talking about two countries with significantly different | tax rates and social contributions. | kkfx wrote: | The first repairabilty key is the standardization of parts, witch | exists but only limited to VERY common parts, another is the | availability of spare parts. | | But the real key is the fight against crap: you sell a mixer with | a plastic gear, easy to speculate that will break after few year, | ok, you are allowed to do so, but you get a progressive tax: as | much as durable and repairable is your device you pay less. For a | mixer that means: 30% of the sale price as tax if it's expected | lifetime is less than 10 years of normal usage. | | Another fraud is "spare parts available ONLY to 'certified | technicians'" witch means repair is as expensive a get a new | gear. | | Personally, for standards: | | - anything "commodity like" must be made of standard parts for | anything critical to it's functionality, that means a washing | machine must have a water pump with flexible connection and | standard threads / diameters and fixing that you do not need an | original one but any "common pump" can be found, whiskers with | standard whips inserts etc; | | - all spare parts on sale from the company website, at a | reasonable price, witch means buying all cost no more than +10% | of the assembled device on sale, no restriction on buyers, no | need to be "certified" by the company etc. Spare parts MIGHT have | a mark to avoid warranty issues but nothing else; | | - ALL software MUST BE open sourced, no restriction allowed, no | bullshits on IP and so one, any black box can't be on sale in 5 | years (to give time to adapt) and the code must be practically | readable and usable by anyone; | | - anyone who can prove planned obsolescence, like technicians | from inside the OEM, get rewarded SIGNIFICANTLY for their | publication and the OEM so badly sanctioned that the | whistleblower get no issue if is cut off some market, the company | loose so much that no one want even try. | bombcar wrote: | > anything "commodity like" must be made of standard parts for | anything critical to it's functionality, that means a washing | machine must have a water pump with flexible connection and | standard threads / diameters and fixing that you do not need an | original one but any "common pump" can be found, whiskers with | standard whips inserts etc; | | This is a huge one for things that aren't phones and laptops - | parts should be as "loosely" coupled as they can be, so that | similar but not identical parts can be used. This may involve | slightly more complicated designs (think: wash machine that has | a pump AND a flow valve or switches in the drum to measure how | full it is vs just "run this pump for X minutes and it will be | full) but allows for much more durability/long lasting. | | However, an additional thing should be done to encourage these | repairs - _make it so that out-of-warranty repairs /repaired | items sold are VAT-free_. Once the financial incentives are | lined up, people will be _begging_ for dead items they can fix | and resell. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > make it so that out-of-warranty repairs/repaired items sold | are VAT-free | | Customer goes to appliance store. Breaks a $5 part. Store | repairs it, and now the customer gets to buy the appliance | without VAT plus $5 for the repair? | | If the goal is to reduce people's consumption and incentivize | them reuse, then simply increase taxes on newly manufactured | goods. It will also incentivize people to buy more repairable | goods, and hence incentivize manufacturers to make and sell | them. | bombcar wrote: | The idea would be for _out of warranty_ repaired items; in | other words, the device was bought years ago and is | otherwise destined for the landfill. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Oh, I see. Still seems like more labor required to verify | and audit warranty status. Seems simpler to enforce an | excise tax on the manufacturer/importer. | dale_glass wrote: | Plastic gears that break can be intentional, good design for | better repairability. | | If a mechanism jams, something has to give. This may be the | motor, which may survive being jammed indefinitely, or it could | burn up, causing a more expensive problem. In a mixer, the | motor is probably decently powerful and doesn't tolerate being | jammed. | | If there's enough gear reduction, then a jam can develop enough | force to bend shafts or break mountings and other components. | That can make the product impossible to repair, if some | injection molded bit that was supposed to hold stuff in place | was broken. | | A well placed plastic gear that breaks and saves the rest of | the mechanism can make repair far easier and cheaper. And gears | are very standard components that are far easier to find | replacements for than some weird injection molded thing being | made for one specific model of mixer. | spockz wrote: | But then it isn't planned obsolescence. It is planned | obsolescence if the plastic gear wears and breaks down | without a jam occurring. In your model it is a fail safe or | circuit breaker. In the GP it a part designed to fail sooner | (in wall clock time) to make sure you buy a new product. | msbarnett wrote: | But that's the crux of engineering: these two things are | _in tension_ - the part which is designed to fail safely if | a jam occurs will, by its very nature, also be subject to | wearing down sooner than if it were made of cast iron and | caused the entire mixer to fail catastrophically during a | jam. | | In reality, nothing is so simple as waving your hands and | declaring "no plastic 'planned obsolescence' parts!". | Everything is a trade-off. A more effective way of pushing | companies to position the trade-off in a way that rewards | long-term durability would probably be to mandate longer | warranty periods, rather than try to dictate what gears | ought to be made out of in a vacuum divorced from the | tradeoffs involved. | mrob wrote: | There are overload protection mechanisms without | sacrificial parts, e.g. ball detents. They don't | inherently have to wear down faster. Plastic gears are | likely cheaper and lighter, though. | InitialLastName wrote: | The key would seem to be if the part that fails is easily | replaceable, then. If I make a design that has a part | meant to fail-safe in a situation that would otherwise be | dangerous to the other devices (I'm an EE rather than an | ME, so we'll call it a "fuse"), the good-faith | repairability practice is to put the part in an | accessible location and make it a part that is readily | available. If I wanted to encourage replacement of the | whole device, maybe I make it a soldered-on part in the | potted section of the PCB. | bombcar wrote: | But taken to an extreme each car would look like a military | truck (because each component could have been made | stronger) - to prove planned obsolescence you'd have to | show that the _rest_ of the device will last longer than | the part _and_ there 's a comparable part that would work | better. | | For example timing chains vs timing belts, apparently there | are reasons they choose one over the other, but maintenance | is part of keeping them operational. | simion314 wrote: | >Plastic gears that break can be intentional, good design for | better repairability. | | If it was a planned safety features then spare gears could be | included or easy to find and buy for cheap(a device I bought | had a safety fuse and it comed with 3 extra ones , also it | was designed to be simple to replace it, no screws or | "genius" needed. On the other hand a laptop of mine got | destroyed by a high power voltage, but not destroyed at once, | made me spent some more money on repairs until it finally | died, all because some cheap safety feature was not included | (even if hard to replace)) | Stratoscope wrote: | Here's a comment I posted a year ago about the sacrificial | plastic gear in a Baratza coffee grinder: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27018629 | | One of the replies is a truly frightening story about people | who broke the sacrificial gear in the tailgate window | mechanism of their Toyota Landcruiser and machined a new one | out of brass! | Hellbanevil wrote: | katbyte wrote: | There are other (better) but more expensive ways to prevent | damage to the motor. The plastic gear in a mixer is the | cheapest way to solve the problem while also ensuring the | device wears out fairly quick compared to a better built | unit. It's a win win for the manufacture while a total loss | for the consumer (and environment) | nonrandomstring wrote: | Great example of why "planned obsolescence" isn't always bad. | In this case the weak gear acts alike a kind of mechanical | fuse. So long as it's within a context of easy replacement. | the-smug-one wrote: | Poor quality products are typically cheap. Such a tax will hurt | poor people, those who most of all need lower priced products. | Poor people will need support in buying high quality products. | nonrandomstring wrote: | Some ambitious targets there, but I support your general | attitude. | | > sell a mixer with a plastic gear, easy to speculate that will | break after few year, ok, you are allowed to do so, but you get | a progressive tax | | A poor quality tax, like a sugar tax, seems interesting. Don't | sell crap. Measurement and enforcement isn't so easy. Quality | of design isn't trivial to assess. Maybe simple MTBF of | finished product. Punish excessive returns. | | > Another fraud is "spare parts available ONLY to 'certified | technicians'" | | I see that in the US outfits like Tesla and John Deere hide | behind "safety" as a shield. "Right to repair" needs to kerb- | stomp that whole conceit. Prove that only a highly skilled | technician could possibly perform the repair and that otherwise | the consequences are extremely likely to be lethal. | | > must be made of standard parts | | Mechanical interoperability and "class" part tolerances aren't | so unreasonable. The entire electronics industry is built on | standard component pitches and package layouts with equivalent | component classes published in most cases. Take the 741 op-amp | package and you'll find hundreds of pin-compatible devices in | any catalogue. We totally can do that for electro-mechanical | assemblies. | | > all spare parts on sale from the company website, at a | reasonable price | | No. I don't like the idea of compelled sales. I don't like | compelled anything. How about a law that says if you refuse to | manufacture and sell parts at a reasonable price you simply | lose your patent/trademark and cannot stop any other business | making the part for which there is demand? | | > ALL software MUST BE open sourced | | Gets my vote! :) | | > anyone who can prove planned obsolescence | | Not sure. Planned obsolescence isn't always a bad thing. It can | be a good design trade-off. Comes back to the quality | expectations thing. But remote kill switches and "updates of | death" should be punished mercilessly. | adamc wrote: | How do you know MTBF for recent (new) products? If they get a | waiver, why wouldn't manufacturers make every product model- | year-specific to avoid such a requirement? | stonemetal12 wrote: | If it is anything like hard drives, then you just make up a | big number that no one ever actually sees in the real | world. | bobthepanda wrote: | As far as enforcement, one could create a disposal tax | chargeable to manufacturers. High quality items should need | to be disposed of less frequently. | | This kind of tax already exists for recycling programs, so it | has to be at least somewhat possible. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > But the real key is the fight against crap: you sell a mixer | with a plastic gear, easy to speculate that will break after | few year, ok, you are allowed to do so, but you get a | progressive tax: as much as durable and repairable is your | device you pay less. For a mixer that means: 30% of the sale | price as tax if it's expected lifetime is less than 10 years of | normal usage. | | So the cheaper mixer is now as expensive as the better built | one. This means there's no more cheap mixer on the market. How | is getting a single mother of three to pay 30% extra taxes to | fund some civil servant's pension fund helping anyone? | | > Another fraud is "spare parts available ONLY to 'certified | technicians'" witch means repair is as expensive a get a new | gear. | | Thanks to the internet, this problem tends to solve itself. The | factory in China will generally happily sell you some. | | > anyone who can prove planned obsolescence, like technicians | from inside the OEM, get rewarded SIGNIFICANTLY for their | publication and the OEM so badly sanctioned that the | whistleblower get no issue if is cut off some market, the | company loose so much that no one want even try. | | The problem is what's the bar for proving it? Every design has | a component that will wear out first. | w-m wrote: | Wouldn't the simplest way to punish selling crap be to bump up | the years of required warranty significantly, for most product | categories? | bombcar wrote: | Don't some countries in Europe already have this? Minimum | warranties because the product must work for X number of | years no matter what? | | A sliding tax that got _larger_ the shorter the warranty was | would be interesting, perhaps avoidable if you showed a | certain amount of repairability (or longevity of product | model; a device that has been made for five years is going to | be more repairable than one that changes every year, if | everything else is the same). | nonrandomstring wrote: | A bigger success than I expected. | | - 55% of all people buying a device were aware of this resource | | - 76% of those people that in 2021 purchased a new device and | indicated to have noticed the index, found the index to be | helpful for orienting their final purchase choice | | - French authorities hope that the repairability index will | contribute to reaching a repair rate of 60% until 2025 | | I think people naturally, instinctively want to repair things, | and expect them to be fixable. A disposable culture of sealed, | one-use products is very recent, skin deep, and largely unwanted. | I hope we can get this level of awareness and action in the UK. | yodsanklai wrote: | > A disposable culture of sealed, one-use products is very | recent, skin deep, and largely unwanted | | I'm convinced this is only very temporary as we're living in an | era of abundant resources. Recycling and fixing things will be | the norm in the near future. | bombcar wrote: | Here's a link to the index in French (lawnmower, battery): | https://www.indicereparabilite.fr/appareils/jardin/tondeuse-... | | But you can see the pretty pictures and the numbers. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-21 23:00 UTC)