[HN Gopher] UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer
___________________________________________________________________
UK 'Right to repair' law to come in this summer
Author : djaychela
Score : 229 points
Date : 2021-03-10 08:01 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| aboringusername wrote:
| I think any right to repair needs to solve 2 problems:
|
| 1: Fixing bad hardware (schematics and such)
|
| 2: Fixing old/buggy/broken software that renders said hardware
| useless. Without open kernels, drivers, frameworks your "right to
| repair" is meaningless. When you install a new camera to iPhone
| and it complains it's not genuine because the software says so,
| the right to repair becomes less useful as now Apple holds all
| the cards as to who gets to repair and how much that costs.
|
| You need to tackle both since often times these days they work
| together. For example, the Open Source community should be able
| to tinker with my TV's kernel and other parts to add new features
| rather than it being locked down and features being _removed_
| because the manufacturer couldn 't be bothered to pay a royalty
| license.
|
| What if the hardware is 100% okay but the software is broken? Is
| there a right to inspect the code? If not then all of these laws
| are redundant. All it takes is one update to "mistakenly" bork an
| older model or it to run a bit slower or janky animations or
| anything else and in the bin it goes.
| pabs3 wrote:
| Most TVs run Linux so asking them for GPLed code should work,
| failing that, it is a GPL violation that should be reported to
| Software Freedom Conservancy, who can help bring the vendor
| into compliance.
|
| https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
| simonh wrote:
| A lot of them run on ARM chips, or other SOCs, so you'll be
| stuck trying to get hold of binary blob drivers.
| suyjuris wrote:
| You can get the code, but you might not be able to do
| anything with it, as there is no obligation for the
| manufacturer to enable you to run the code on the device
| itself. GPLv3 intends to cover this case, but the Linux
| kernel is (not without reason) licensed under GPLv2.
| kenmacd wrote:
| My TV runs WebOS. It's all open-source by LG. That still
| doesn't mean I can run my own code on it without LG
| specifically allowing me to.
| KozmoNau7 wrote:
| There needs to be a clause that makes the software and other
| designs specifications openly available (or for some small fee,
| not exceeding a reasonable percentage of the product's retail
| price), once the product is no longer supported by the
| manufacturer.
|
| I.e. the manufacturer has produced a newer - presumably better
| - device that non-technical users will want to buy, and the old
| devices can be handed down to more technical and tinkerer types
| to play around with and improve upon.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Definitely. The problem here is that manufacturers will claim
| that parts old of software and design specs are used in the
| new device, which makes them a legitimate trade secret they
| shouldn't be forced to reveal.
| zepto wrote:
| > manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and
| design is specs are used in the new device
|
| It's not just 'a claim'. I can't think of many systems
| where this is not true.
|
| The iPhone still contains code from NextStep for example.
|
| I do think old (or new) hardware must be allowed to run
| open software, so I'd be all for mandating a 'bootcamp'
| equivalent, which did have open specs for implementers.
| Shivetya wrote:
| Totally disagree with your software claim.
|
| The manufacturers should simply be held accountable in that
| they provide a means to have approved replacement hardware
| providers. Having software modification available could lead to
| cases where safety is jeopardized; any claim it cannot be is
| laughable; let alone who is liable if modified software causes
| the issue. The manufacturer would possibly be stuck proving it.
|
| Plus people vastly underestimate how much replacement
| components will cost along with which components are reasonably
| designated as replaceable.
|
| When you get to appliance level items TVs are an interesting
| case because its highly unlikely panels will be as cheap as new
| televisions and creating a case where they have to be less than
| the television will simply pass that cost onto anyone buying
| that television. The controller cards, power supply, and such,
| likely will be more readily available but of them the power
| supply is the only true part which would be more universal
| across items.
|
| Which brings me to, the best way to have an easier to repair
| world is to eliminate non standard plugs along with customized
| power supplies or chargers within the same product type.
|
| edit: another concern with software, the expectation that
| camera code be open does not protect the manufacturer
| intellectual property in regards to new and interesting methods
| to provide better picture quality.
| foobar33333 wrote:
| I think the problem with unofficial repairs right now is where
| the parts come from. If you buy an iphone camera, where does
| that camera actually come from. I doubt there is an unoffical
| iphone camera factory. So those parts only have 2 sources,
| broken and stolen iphones.
|
| What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a
| serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets
| stolen, you get a message when you install the camera telling
| you this. And if the original user deregisters their phone on
| the icloud web ui, the camera works again. Then Apple should be
| forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x
| years.
|
| Just these small steps would move us a long way to
| repairability.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Actually it has been known for factories to run a shadow
| shift on the low down producing grey market parts
| lnsru wrote:
| Would you pay additional 5% for the traceability of the
| parts? Serial numbers must be stored somewhere. We print now
| them on the enclosure of the component. Actually be print
| batch number, individual parts cannot be identified. Putting
| numbers into silicon wouldn't make things cheaper.
| foobar33333 wrote:
| They already work this way. If you swap almost any part on
| the iphone it either refuses to work or shows a warning
| about a unofficial part. My suggestion is simply to make
| this functionality only target stolen parts instead of just
| refusing to work at all if the apple store hasn't used
| their software to bless the new serial number.
| simion314 wrote:
| Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If
| the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use
| batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not
| blessed by Apple's grace.
|
| When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by
| using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do
| is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the
| phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want
| their thing repaired will not be "tricked".
| zepto wrote:
| > Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone?
| If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to
| use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not
| blessed by Apple's grace.
|
| For a lot of people, this is a feature, not a bug.
|
| It prevents repair shops using substandard components, or
| even replacing good components with cheaper ones and then
| re-selling them.
|
| Edit: another _much more serious_ issue, is security.
| _3rd party components are an obvious target for supply
| chain attacks._
| simion314 wrote:
| That is also the risk with computers and cars, there
| might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM cars and
| computers but there are a lot more lots of people that
| would like to repair the car then buy a new one each
| year, or even the rich guys that buy a new car yearly
| they would like to be able to sell the old car and you
| can't sell an old car if it does not run because it needs
| a new memory stick in the main computer and the main
| computer costs 50% of the car.
| zepto wrote:
| > there might be "a lot" of people that would like DRM
| cars and computers but there are a lot more lots of
| people that would like to repair the car then buy a new
| one each year,
|
| This isn't a valid comparison - nobody is forced to buy a
| new car or phone every year.
|
| I strongly doubt you are right about the numbers in
| general.
|
| Very few people want to risk fraudulent parts.
|
| But, I do agree that at some point the user should be
| able to unlock the DRM and take their own risks.
|
| E.g. at the end of the manufacturers support of the
| software.
| simion314 wrote:
| Sorry I do not understand your point, nobody is forced to
| buy a phone or car each year, the difference is that I
| can change the lights on my car with an "unofficial" part
| if I want without Ford complaining that I am a pirate and
| trying to void my engine warranty. I have all the
| possible options with my car:
|
| - go to a Ford shop and have them do it for me
|
| - go to a reputable website and browse all compatible
| parts and decide if I want something more e pensive or
| something more cheap
|
| - when I have the part I can install it myself, a friend
| or a professional that is not a "Ford" genius.
|
| Ford would love to force me to buy only from them parts,
| oils, fuel and only repair or do maintenance on their
| shops but fortunately they can't force us. (but you have
| the choice to use only Ford blessed products and people).
|
| For stolen cars there are serial numbers printed on the
| car engine and body parts to make it more difficult for
| thieves but sure it still happens and I am for doing more
| to prevent crime and finding the criminals but doing
| exactly what Ford would like and is bad for society and
| environment is clearly a bad thing IMO.
| zepto wrote:
| We aren't talking about cars. As I said earlier, they
| aren't a valid comparison.
|
| Computers and cars are quite different in their
| components, and life cycle.
| simion314 wrote:
| I disagree. But let me know how do you define the line
| where this electronics should be repairable and the other
| ones should be DRM locked.
| zepto wrote:
| Personally I think the user should choose whether to buy
| a secure product or not.
|
| I have some open hardware for certain projects, but I am
| very happy to use Apple products for things like banking
| and various tasks concerning personal data.
|
| I'm also happy to recommend that non-technical friends
| use Apple products knowing that the ways that can harm
| themselves are limited.
|
| I think a lot of people would take a device to a repair
| kiosk, not understanding the risks, wrongly assuming that
| they would have some kind of consumer protection.
|
| You aren't forced to buy an iPhone if you don't want
| this.
| simion314 wrote:
| >You aren't forced to buy an iPhone if you don't want
| this.
|
| Other Android devices are also similarly bad to repair,
| with a locked Store and few have an supported way to
| actually root them. The mobile market is not as diverse
| like car market or say web/cloud hosting market. We can't
| give Apple or Samsung an exception from warranty laws
| because "the user should buy X that offers warranty" ,
| free market only works only if all the free market
| assumptions hold true.
| patmcc wrote:
| Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those parts
| at reasonable prices. You want me to only use an
| "official" battery? Then you can sell me an Apple one for
| the same price as a knock-off.
| zepto wrote:
| > Sure - then Apple should be forced to provide those
| parts at reasonable prices.
|
| Is there any product you wouldn't want to apply price
| controls to, or force people to make? How are you
| singling out one company?
|
| > You want me to only use an "official" battery? Then you
| can sell me an Apple one for the same price as a knock-
| off.
|
| This makes no sense.
|
| Knocks offs are cheaper because they didn't invest in
| R&D, don't have to be in compliance with global
| regulations, can make use of lower standard parts, and
| don't have Apple's warranty. Their suppliers also have
| zero interest in protecting you from supply chain
| attacks.
| bluGill wrote:
| Because a source of parts is devices that are stolen and
| stripped for the parts. The parts are then laundered so
| you think your source is legal. By putting a serial
| number on each part it means you go after the supplier
| who you otherwise thought was honest and so this whole
| scheme shuts down.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Well maybe i should not be allowed to buy used shoes,
| what if they are stolen?
|
| Why should my right of ownership be violated to help
| apple deal with 'stolen' parts?
| zepto wrote:
| > Why should my right of ownership be violated to help
| apple deal with 'stolen' parts?
|
| It isn't.
|
| Apple's products are designed to help consumers avoid the
| problems associated with stolen parts, including the very
| real threat of supply chain attacks.
|
| You always have the right not to choose that design.
|
| You seem to want to prevent _other people_ from choosing
| it, which seems odd to me.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "very real threat of supply chain attacks"
|
| Every year millions of devices are thown away because of
| this.
|
| How many phones suffered from supply chain attack last
| year? Probably zero.
|
| Apple products are designed to subvert the concept of
| ownership. They retain control even after i paid for the
| item.
|
| We live in a world where all of my equipment could be
| switched off if one of their servers goes down, you are
| legally forvidden from repairing it and people like you
| giht to defend these practices - you couldn't make it up!
| You are fighting to became a peasant without any rights.
|
| Other manufacturers are already following suit, and there
| wont be any choice left.
| zepto wrote:
| I note that you have changed your comment.
|
| > Every year millions of devices are thown away because
| of this.
|
| There is no evidence of that. iPhones are not thrown
| away. They are recycled.
|
| > How many phones suffered from supply chain attack last
| year? Probably zero.
|
| Given the obvious rise in cyberattacks at all levels of
| sophistication this seems like a very weird comment to
| make.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "There is no evidence of that. iPhones are not thrown
| away. They are recycled."
|
| Are you fucking kidding me?
|
| https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ghana-ewaste-dump-
| electronic...
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple products are deaigned to subvert the concept of
| ownership.
|
| No, they are designed for ease of use. Modern smartphones
| are way beyond the scope of most individuals to manage.
| Apple provides an increasingly managed service, which
| people choose because _it is what they want_.
|
| > They retain control even after i paid for the item.
|
| Yes, consumers want software updates, and they expect to
| be secured.
|
| > We live in a world where all of my equipment could be
| switched off if one of their servers goes down,
|
| It's likely false to say 'one of their servers', but yes,
| just like any service you choose, you are dependent on
| the service provider to maintain it. _It is in their
| interests not to disappoint you._
|
| > you are legally forvidden from repairing it and people
| like you giht to defend these practices - you couldn't
| make it up!
|
| You couldn't make it up _because it is completely
| untrue_. There is nothing legally preventing anyone from
| repairing an iPhone.
|
| > You are fighting to became a peasant without any
| rights.
|
| Weird rhetoric.
|
| > Other manufacturers are already following suit, and
| there wont be any choice left.
|
| There will be no choice left if people are not aware of
| the choice, and _if the choice is not a good one_.
|
| You haven't mentioned an alternative manufacturers. Why
| not? If you want people to have choice, why not discuss
| the options. Apple is not the only choice.
|
| You also haven't mentioned the downsides of choosing
| those alternatives.
| simion314 wrote:
| I understand the issue with the stolen parts, cars also
| can have similar issues and we still can buy after market
| parts.
|
| I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also
| financial extremely favorable to Apple or is just FUD and
| PR.
| zepto wrote:
| > I wonder if we can confirm this theory that is also
| financial extremely favorable to Apple
|
| As a metric, this is a useless gauge of what Apple does.
|
| Their whole aim is to do things that benefit customers,
| _and profit from it_.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most car parts are not coded. However some of the
| important ones are, and that enough enough to slow down
| the steal car for parts scheme.
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a
| reasonable price for x years.
|
| This means generating a vast amount of e-waste and increasing
| the cost of units.
|
| Since Apple doesn't make the components themselves, they
| would have to warehouse a supply of spares.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Apple must have access to these parts already because
| they'll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on
| products that they no long sell.
|
| Asking them to make that supply publicly available does not
| strike me as a huge ask. Hell they could derive the supply
| from their recycling efforts they're always showing off as
| WWDC.
|
| Also how does providing spare parts result in huge amounts
| of e-waste, that's a bit of a non-sequitur. The whole point
| of spares is to remove the need to throw away a device
| that's 90% fine 10% broken.
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple must have access to these parts already because
| they'll happily do out of warranty repairs, even on
| products that they no long sell.
|
| This is not relevant. Nobody is forcing them to do these
| repairs. When the parts are no longer available, they
| stop doing them.
|
| > The whole point of spares is to remove the need to
| throw away a device that's 90% fine 10% broken.
|
| Yes, and it may well be a counterproductive scheme that
| doesn't work as intended.
|
| 1. You need to warehouse components to comply with the
| law, or _continue to make_ otherwise redundant
| components, which means maintaining outdated industrial
| plant.
|
| 2. Devices with replaceable components have to be made in
| a _more complex way_ that is more liable to break,
| costing more up front, and more in repairs.
|
| There is no real problem with some hugh pile of slightly
| broken iPhones that are being wasted.
|
| The real problem is the huge number of _working_ iPhones
| that are too outdated to run modern software.
|
| If we need a law, it is one that requires manufacturers
| to make a bootcamp equivalent for devices at the end of
| their software support cycle, so all the still working
| devices can continue to be useful.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| What absurdity? By this logic we wouldn't repair cars
| either 'to reduce waste'
| zepto wrote:
| Cars and computers are quite different in terms of their
| components and life-cycles.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Pleaae demonstrate at least one occasion where making a
| device repairable increased waste
| zepto wrote:
| Android phones are much more repairable e.g. with
| replaceable batteries and non-drm parts.
|
| Despite this, they have have less than half the useful
| lifetime of an iPhone, and so generate much more waste.
| tpxl wrote:
| They may have a lower useful lifetime, but that is
| completely unrelated to their repairability.
| zepto wrote:
| This is false.
|
| iPhones are built to last longer by being more physically
| integrated, and the trade off is that they are less
| repairable.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| This is complete fantasy, there is no evidence that
| iphones are more physically resillient that a $150 crappy
| android phone.
|
| I asked for evidence, not talking mumbobo-jumbo out of
| your rear
| glitchc wrote:
| Maybe a fridge doesn't need software? I don't hear consumers
| clamouring for it.
| avianlyric wrote:
| But fridges do have software. There's code in there
| monitoring and regulating the compressor, monitoring
| temperatures and making decisions.
|
| Thankfully these problems are so simple companies rarely
| fuckup the software. But it does happen, and then hardware is
| run slightly out of spec resulting in failures.
|
| Have the right to replace the software would be amazing. It
| would give people the ability to replace slightly broken
| firmware with better firmware extending the life of their
| products or even add new featured.
|
| For a fridge new features could be simple things like the
| ability to change its temperature on a schedule, ability to
| respond electricity prices etc
|
| Agree that most people aren't interested in this. But if
| we're serious about increasing the usefulness and longevity
| of these products then giving people the ability to make
| these changes can only be a plus. And to be clear I don't
| think having a USB port of every fridge is a good idea, but
| releasing enough information that field technicians to make
| these changes easily would be enough.
| glitchc wrote:
| Oh please.
|
| I'm sorry, air compressor regulation does not require
| software. Compressor units have been working for decades
| without software. If the current industry is anything to go
| on, the reliance on software for compressor regulation has
| reduced, not increased, reliability. Older fridges would
| last 20-30 years. Last year I threw out a fridge that was a
| free hand-me-down. The gasket was so old that the door
| would not seal anymore, but the compressor still worked!
|
| Most of the other things you speak of, such as schedule
| based temperature changes, are possible in hardware alone.
| Responding to electricity prices is a no-go anyways, a
| fridge maintains a constant internal temperature. Turning
| it off to save money will spoil food faster, costing you
| more money.
|
| I think you come from a "software is everything" mentality,
| which is fine for something as complex as a smartphone, but
| completely the wrong way to go about things for an
| appliance.
| pitaj wrote:
| Software control enables far more efficiency.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| You can easily achieve this with a thermostat wired to the
| compressor. Its fully hardware based, analog and is
| perfectly capable of maintaining a specified temp range.
| This is how it was done for decades and it worked fine.
| watwut wrote:
| I dont see any utility at all in "ability to change its
| temperature on a schedule". What you want in fridge is
| constant reliable temperature.
| TomJansen wrote:
| Fridges need software because only then the manufacturer can
| drop the support after 5 to 8 years and you need to buy a new
| one.
| [deleted]
| luxuryballs wrote:
| Oh gawd what kind of bullshit is this going to lead to I wonder.
| An even more obtrusive physical version of how I have to click
| "accept cookies" all over the damn internet now? As if using a
| web browser wasn't consent enough.
| draklor40 wrote:
| Only a matter of time before they modify the Law to introduce a
| catch that makes it practically worthless.
|
| A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it is
| to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you or I
| can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the right
| 50,000 GBP tool.
|
| B - Modify right to repair as good for the environment rule.
| There will be an escape clause that says that right to repair can
| be suspended, if the product is very eco-friendly (or needs
| specialized, exotic materials for construction). Manufacturers
| will take this route by claiming that they use "exotic" materials
| and therefoere cannot allow users to repair it at home.
|
| Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory
| capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK are
| separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying, universally)
| intricatedetail wrote:
| I don't have high hopes if laws are essentially written by big
| corporations (still tax loopholes have not been closed,
| barriers to entry increase for small business etc)
| bluesign wrote:
| Spare parts will be the biggest problem (especially pricing).
| dsnr wrote:
| > Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory
| capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK
| are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying,
| universally)
|
| That's probably how the concept of ,,legitimate interest" made
| its way into the GDPR law, make it practically worthless, with
| the single upside of making people more aware of cross-site
| tracking.
|
| Another example of half-assed EU law: EU data roaming. Given
| that EU is all about the free mobility of people, the data
| roaming ,,fair use policy" makes no sense. If we're pretending
| to be in a single market, why don't we have a single market for
| telecommunication services? I can order stuff from amazon.fr
| and have it delivered, yet I can't have a mobile phone contract
| from say... a Spanish company.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > That's probably how the concept of ,,legitimate interest"
| made its way into the GDPR law, make it practically worthless
|
| Does it though? Is there case law supporting this?
|
| From what I can see the big problem with the GDPR is a near-
| total failure to actually enforce it, so such questions
| barely even matter.
| zaarn wrote:
| It's mostly the Irish DPC dragging feet, from experience my
| own local DPC has been excellent and in one case a
| complaint of mine resulted in a fine. They just can't do
| anything about companies registered in Ireland.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Which is also where all the major offenders are, because
| of tax trickery. This is starting to be really annoying.
| zaarn wrote:
| The solution would be a small amendment of the GDPR that
| local DPCs can take matters in their own hands if 1-2
| years pass without the other DPC doing anything about a
| violation. (This would still be different from the other
| DPC finding there to be no violation).
| varispeed wrote:
| As predicted only few small players were fined and the
| giants continue as they please. EU can tick the box and
| claim PR points for "solving" the problem, when in reality
| you got more points of data breach and people are trained
| to click boxes without reading.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The EU aspires to a single market for telecommunications
| services but is taking a long time to get there. I found an
| entire master's thesis on the remaining obstacles: https://ww
| w.researchgate.net/publication/278390832_Title_A_s...
| blub wrote:
| If everybody were such a pessimist, we'd never try to improve
| anything because there's a risk it might not always work or
| need adjustment in the future.
|
| And a certain someone would also be there telling everyone not
| to go outside of the cave because there's tigers :)
| slx26 wrote:
| If everybody was such an optimist... well, they would
| eventually become pessimists when they realized good
| intentions alone aren't enough, but there are few optimists
| with good plans.
|
| Ok, there are also very few pessimists with good plans, but I
| didn't mean to turn you into a pessimist now ;)
| hnhg wrote:
| Do you have any citations for your claim about EU innovation
| being bogged down by regulatory capture? In general, I've found
| that it's more like risk aversion in VC and other local
| cultural aspects before anything at an EU level comes into
| play.
| secfirstmd wrote:
| Yeh I agree. I hear this a lot but my experience working has
| been that the US has waaaaayyyy more redtape and regulation
| stuff to deal with. Taxes for example or the absolute mess of
| applying for government grants.
| zepto wrote:
| I have experience in both places.
|
| Taxes and government grants are pretty much _the_ main
| areas where this is true. Taxes especially.
|
| Not so for other things, in my experience.
| draklor40 wrote:
| Used to work for a small Ad-Tech firm in Germany. GDPR
| massively dented the business WITH NO BENEFITS to privacy.
| Advertisers still collect shit tons of data, your website
| performance is still crappy and the end result was that EU
| users now have to navigate MBs of Javascript popups, that try
| to trick me into selling data using dark patterns (blue
| highlight on accept all instead of Reject all).
|
| All it succeeded was in consolidating the ad-tech space into
| a few big players and resulted in acquisitions of many small
| ad-tech firms.
|
| An acquaintance of mine started a medical Tech firm and is
| now a consultant for dealing with govt. rules on medical
| stuff. Not sure why he quit , but I believe that consulting
| for dealing with German/EU bureaucracy maybe far more
| lucrative than having a medical startup in the EU.
|
| Not to mention, despite the first world status, internet is
| Germany is Dog-shit. I mean worse than 3rd world crap. I was
| in Bangalore and I had way better internet 3 years ago.
| nindalf wrote:
| > 3rd world crap
|
| > Bangalore
|
| Shows how much you know if you walked into India expecting
| "3rd world" internet.
| fakedang wrote:
| I read it as a praise for Indian internet.
|
| And let's be honest. In spite of my aversion to the big
| telco magnates, Jio was a huge improvement over the
| status quo. I will agree that German internet is shit
| compared to Indian internet.
| draklor40 wrote:
| On the contrary this is a praise of how good Internet in
| India actually is.
| nindalf wrote:
| It is praise, but it's also obvious to anyone who knows
| anything about India. This person knew nothing, was my
| point. And yet they talk so much about related subjects.
| brnt wrote:
| Getting bogged down by the GDPR isn't demonstrating
| regulatory capture, just that the policy had a real impact
| (which may be what people actually want, even if that means
| it's a hassle for business).
|
| If anything, it's a demonstration the EU, on this point,
| was not captured by vested interests:
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp
| jjoonathan wrote:
| The popups aren't compliant with either the intent or the
| letter of the law and instead pass under the legal theory
| of "if all of us are guilty none of us are guilty," which
| so far seems to be holding.
|
| You could argue that it's not regulatory capture and
| instead it should be called enforcement capture or
| judicial capture, but absent that level of nuance I think
| the more accurate simplification should be "regulatory
| capture" rather than "real impact."
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I don't think the second shoe of big fines has adequately
| dropped to be able to determine how much of an effect GDPR
| actually has.
| scrollaway wrote:
| It's a shame there were no claimed benefits to privacy but
| adtech getting bogged down is very much an intended
| outcome.
|
| The shitty cookie popups and what not are a symptom of how
| awful the adtech industry is. The alternative to getting
| bogged down was probably getting outright destroyed, and i
| don't think EU businesses are ready for that.
| draklor40 wrote:
| Adtech did not get bogged down. It just got consolidated
| into fewer, more invasive hands (google, instagram,
| amazon, etc), that have far more data and most
| importantly can mine and analyze it better than the 1000s
| of small ad tech firms.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| So, I'm going to argue that GDPR didn't go far enough,
| since the intended (or at least, implied) goal was to put
| Ad-Tech firms out of business. If your business cannot
| operate without spying on people, it shouldn't operate.
|
| Being able to confuse people into "consenting" was an
| unintended consequence, but hopefully the European court
| system can put a stop to this dark pattern nonsense.
| CivBase wrote:
| > A - A classification system that makes defines how "easy" it
| is to repair something, but necessarily doesn't mean that you
| or I can repair it at home.It will be "easy" IF you have the
| right 50,000 GBP tool.
|
| Louis Rossmann did a video tearing apart France's recent
| implementation of this from the perspective of an Apple repair
| technician. Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued
| components, and no available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a
| pretty good repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to
| open the chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners
| (repair professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the
| company that they can basically only replace screens and
| batteries.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO7vdk_X5W4
| peterlk wrote:
| I think this pretty well sums up the loophole. You have the
| right to repair... what? If I buy a macbook, do I get to
| replace the case? keyboard? These seem pretty reasonable. But
| what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache? This is
| obviously a different story - it would be nice, but the part
| probably isn't manufactured by Apple (maybe it is on the new
| Silicon?). My point is that at some point, things start to
| get blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to
| continue blurring these lines. I don't think we can
| reasonably expect the government to do a deep dive into every
| product category to work all of this out - what would this
| look like for cars, where safety is a concern?
|
| I think having the law on the books is a move in the right
| direction, but I don't expect it to have teeth until te can
| figure out how to actually measure repairability. Maybe the
| EU could experiment with a supply chain approach like VAT,
| but for a repairability score? This also sounds fraught...
| PeterisP wrote:
| "You have the right to repair... what?" - the key
| expectation is that the parts that wear out within 10 years
| or are commonly breakable (e.g. screens) should be
| replaceable. By this criteria, batteries and keyboards
| apply, but random solid state parts on boards and L1 cache
| does not.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| I agree 100%, but have these sorts of guidelines been
| included in the right to repair bills that have been
| making the rounds here in the US?
|
| They should be pretty common sense parts, but I'm not
| sure how they're actually determining these things in the
| bills which are being proposed. Do you have any more
| insight into what's being proposed?
|
| I know there are some 15 states who've introduced
| legislation, but back in 2018, it was just hearings
| taking place. I haven't heard or seen any updates since
| then.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Nevermind the M1 - what about an Apple watch? I'm wildly
| out of my depth with this but I look at stuff like this
| teardown and X-ray of the Apple watch where they describe
| the distance between components in microns and think that
| maybe that's reasonably difficult to repair that component.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple+Watch+X-ray+Teardown/
| 4...
|
| That being said, I would like it if the screen/battery/soc
| could be replaced independently.
| zepto wrote:
| > But what about the right to replace/repair the L1 cache?
|
| Are you suggesting the right to repair should include this?
| starmftronajoll wrote:
| They seem to be suggesting that the L1 cache is obviously
| a different story. Source: sentence immediately after the
| one you quoted
| zepto wrote:
| You haven't answered my question any more than they did.
|
| It's not obvious at all _how_ they think it's different.
|
| It's obviously harder to repair or replace, but it's not
| clear whether they think the goal is to make it
| repairable.
| CivBase wrote:
| To specifically answer your question, I don't think
| anyone's advocating for users to be provided with parts
| and schematics to repair a faulty L1 cache on a CPU, or
| for the CPU to be designed to support that kind of
| repair.
|
| Most "repairs" come in the form of replacing a component.
| Many products can be divided into components and those
| components can recursively be broken down into smaller
| components. At some point, though, a component cannot
| reasonably be further divided for the purpose of repair
| and peterlk appears to imply that a CPU is an example of
| such a component. Indeed, repairing a faulty L1 cache
| would probably require so much investment that even the
| manufacturer itself would not be able to justify such a
| repair.
|
| > My point is that at some point, things start to get
| blurry, and it is in the manufacturers best interest to
| continue blurring these lines.
|
| peterlk goes on to point out that manufacturers often use
| this fact to their advantage by convincing people that
| it's not practical to componetize bigger, more expensive
| parts for the sake of repair, such as the main board
| assembly on a laptop. In reality, component-level board
| repair is a practical solution for many repair scenarios,
| provided you can source the necessary components and
| schematics.
|
| We lack objective criteria to determine what parts can
| reasonably be made "repairable" via componetization and
| manufacturers abuse that to confuse people. I myself
| thought component-level board repair was a dead end until
| I stumbled upon Rossmann's channel. I think both you and
| peterlk are getting to the same point: we need that
| criteria if we're going to reach the full potential of
| the right-to-repair movement.
| peterlk wrote:
| Kind of. I mean, sure, I think it would be really neat to
| be able to replace the L1 cache myself, but this would
| probably necessitate a less efficient CPU. Is it fair to
| fault Apple for using an Intel CPU which itself has no
| mechanism for internal repair/replaceability? I think it
| is if we were able to apply the same standard to every
| product (this is where the VAT idea came from); then the
| repairability becomes the aggregate of all the parts
| used, and it's the manufacturer's job to pick repairable
| parts, but how far do you go?
|
| Does it make sense to lower the repairability score
| because I can't replace the L1 cache? If the answer is
| "no", then what is the difference between an L1 cache
| replacement and a CPU replacement on a fully integrated
| motherboard (like Apple's new computers)? The answer in
| my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the solution to
| this is to enshrine the Von Neumann architecture as a
| legal standard. But this solution seems like it could
| limit innovation.
| sharpneli wrote:
| What about smaller components? If we follow this to the
| logical conclusion we cannot use integrated circuits at
| all, as each individual transistor must be replaceable.
|
| The rules needs to be written in a way that allow things,
| like integrated circuits, to exist but at the same time
| prevent intentional preventing of repairability.
| zepto wrote:
| > The answer in my mind is one of convention. Perhaps the
| solution to this is to enshrine the Von Neumann
| architecture as a legal standard. But this solution seems
| like it could limit innovation.
|
| Right - I think this is the issue. People cite cars as an
| example, but car architecture evolves much more slowly
| than computer architecture.
|
| Arguably at the present, as we come up against Moore's
| law limitations, architectural changes should be expected
| to increase.
|
| Government mandated computer architecture sounds like a
| great way to completely cede technological advance.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| How about this:
|
| A device's component is a Leaf Component if it:
|
| 1. Is available on the open market (without special
| contracts or minimum order quantities)
|
| 2. Can be replaced without specialist equipment or
| knowledge
|
| 3. Contains components that are not themselves Leaf
| Components
|
| A device's Cost To Repair is the List Price (price on the
| open market, before any discounts) of the most expensive
| Leaf Component.
|
| A device is taxed based on the square of the device's Cost
| To Repair.
| draklor40 wrote:
| > Despite serialized parts, soldered/glued components, and no
| available schematics, the MacBook Pro got a pretty good
| repair-ability score (7/10) because it was easy to open the
| chassis. Meanwhile, Apple certified repair partners (repair
| professionals, in theory) are so handicapped by the company
| that they can basically only replace screens and batteries.
|
| This is precisely my point. It has a 7/10 rating yet,
| serialized parts (probably locked down firmware as well) no
| availability of parts GLUE.
|
| How dafuq is this exactly repairable, by you or I ?
| Zenst wrote:
| > Given how much of EU innovation is bogged down by regulatory
| capture, I am extremely skeptical of this (note, I know EU/UK
| are separated, but nevertheless, lobbying is lobbying,
| universally)
|
| I share your scepticism about lobbying, was always mindful that
| Brussels in regards to the EU made lobbiests access to MEP's
| easier than the people they serve and all in one location - a
| lobbiyst dream that.
|
| So be interesting how the EU and UK versions of this law
| diverge over time.
|
| But however cynical I am, it's better than what we have now and
| from that, a start. How it goes from there will be future
| changes and debate down the line.
|
| I certainly hope the whole green/eco/responsible ethos is used
| to drive thru improvements like this and shift away from
| disposable, cheap, just engineered enough to last a few years
| when a bit of extra cost would of made it last longer.
| kitd wrote:
| OTOH, removing things like "Warranty void if this sticker is
| removed" clauses means the pressure is on manufacturers to
| actually think carefully about how their product can be
| repaired.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| Those stickers are probably one of the nastiest things that
| exist on any hardware, anywhere..
| nanna wrote:
| ifixit has only ever given two phones 10/10 in its repairability
| scores, the Fairphone 2 and 3, and only one other phone has
| scored above 7 since 2017. What we really need is system to
| seriously penalise manufacturers until they fundamentally change
| practices.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability?sort=score
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| I love ifixit. I think they overdid it a bit with the
| fairphone, but it's a great tool.
| retSava wrote:
| Hopefully such things bring forced availability of rare spare
| parts. If cookie cutter capacitors break, that's nothing really
| since you can just order them on Mouser et al.
|
| But if a more special part breaks, say a custom voltage regulator
| to a game console (just since I saw a video on that fail
| yesterday), I would like for a repair center to be able to buy
| one such for a reasonable price and have the 500$ console
| repaired for perhaps 100$ - not scrap it.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| This kind of stuff is how government "incentives" end up
| essentially banning devices with such fancy parts because the
| companies will realize complying would be taking a loss so they
| just stop participating.
| abainbridge wrote:
| I think the EU regs have tried to avoid that by specifying
| the requirements of spares availability case by case. For
| example, the requirements for washing machines are in C(2019)
| 2124, annex II. It says:
|
| manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives of
| household washing machines and household washer-dryers shall
| make available to professional repairers at least the
| following spare parts, for a minimum period of ten years
| after placing the last unit of the model on the market:
|
| * motor and motor brushes;
|
| * transmission between motor and drum;
|
| * pumps;
|
| * shock absorbers and springs;
|
| * washing drum, drum spider and related ball bearings
| (separately or bundled);
|
| * heaters and heating elements, including heat pumps
| (separately or bundled);
|
| * piping and related equipment including all hoses, valves,
| filters and aquastops (separately or bundled);
|
| * printed circuit boards;
| luxuryballs wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this, though I think it's probably even
| worse because now they get to essentially play favorites
| with their regulations which is a major breeding ground for
| corruption.
| maxbaines wrote:
| I fear the replacement parts for such a repair will be the
| entire power supply pcb or enclosure as oppose to the discrete
| failed components. Therefore complying with the law but likely
| still expensive compared to new.
| 5h wrote:
| I suspect the multitude of little plastic catches, clips,
| switches, levers etc that everything contains now are the major
| source of appliances being junked.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| We also need specific exceptions to DMCA 1201-style laws (most
| countries copypasted the 1201 language) to allow circumvention
| for repair purposes, and _specifically_ allow distribution of
| circumvention tools in cases where first-party repair is no
| longer available. If you don 't service console disc drives
| anymore, I should legally be able to tell everyone how to
| unlock their disc drives so they can be swapped with spares.
|
| (For the record: Most 1201 exceptions do NOT cover tools, under
| the idea that lawful circumvention will be carried out by
| entities that can do their own RE work.)
| alias_neo wrote:
| My ~PS300 Tannoy powered subwoofer for my home theatre failed
| recently.
|
| They refused to honour the 10 year warranty because my proof of
| purchase wasn't in the right format or some such. Surely proof
| is proof? I paid the same money as everyone else.
|
| Well, luckily for me, I have a degree in Electronic
| Engineering, so a week or so of reverse engineering and a few
| hundred PSs in test equipment later I replaced the 20p Schottky
| diode which has failed and I have a working sub.
|
| First manufacturers need to put their money where their mouth
| is regarding warranties, not have stupid obtuse get out
| clauses.
|
| Secondly, fuck Tannoy, and all associated brands, they just
| lost a customer for life over this, so much for buying
| "British" as a Brit, I'll vote with my wallet.
|
| Taking brand suggestions for future purchases who treat their
| customers a little better.
| bloqs wrote:
| I can't verify this, other than via the stories specifics
| make it sound believable, and I've had similar experiences
| elsewhere. I too will never buy a tannoy product again.
| detritus wrote:
| The door shelves in our crappy fridge at home have all
| gradually cracked and split and are held in place by messes of
| superglue and transparent Gorilla tape. Fed up with this, I
| priced up replacing them last week.
|
| It'll be cheaper to buy a new fridge.
|
| They're just crappy moulded plastic
| bluGill wrote:
| Part of that cost is molded plastic is cheap only while you
| have the molds. Once the fridge goes out of production they
| make a few for spares and then recycle the molds.
|
| The solution to this is to address how spare parts must be
| handled. This is not easy, either you figure expected
| lifetime of the shelves vs rest of the fridge, and then order
| enough - but if you get it wrong you are still out. Or you
| keep the molds, which also implies equipment to use the molds
| - but that wears out over time as well and the new model
| might not use the old molds.
| detritus wrote:
| I appreciate some of the rationale for the cost, however
| the fridge itself is less than five years old.
|
| The solution here would be standardised fridge door shelf
| types, or better yet - sturdier designs that don't
| gradually crack when the door is shut 'a little jovially',
| billiarding glass jars around... .
| bluGill wrote:
| Standardization is nice in theory, but I'm not sure if it
| is practical - designers like to make silly little
| changes for branding reasons all the time. Which is why
| your 5 year old shelf is probably out of production
| anyway.
|
| As for sturdier designs: that is a design feature you
| need to be willing to pay for. Make sure you check on
| that in the next fridge and tell others. (Price is not a
| guide to quality - often but not always cheaper fridges
| are bought by those who buy enough to care about value
| and quality is a part of value, while the more expensive
| ones are targeted at people who buy fancy features and
| don't know to think about quality - but this is a maybe
| not a guide)
| detritus wrote:
| For sure, but if there were an ISO standard for fridge
| doors, I could at least get options that perhaps whilst
| not exactly the same as what I have aesthetically, would
| fit functionally.
|
| As an ex/sometime-designer myself, I can appreciate why
| they'd want to make silly little changes ;)
|
| And yes, as I admitted in my first post here - it IS a
| crappy fridge. I have only myself to blame.
| simion314 wrote:
| I wish companies won't update each year their products and
| add some small design change that makes it hard to reuse
| parts from older models.
| maxerickson wrote:
| I would think producing spares after end of production
| would be expensive even if you kept the molds around.
| bluGill wrote:
| One is expensive, but most of the costs is setup/teardown
| so you just produce a bunch (perhaps 1000) for the
| warehouse when supply runs low. That is how companies
| that keep their molds function, but you pay for them to
| store the mold and have a warehouse with all the supply
| in, so spare parts are always a lot more expensive after
| full production has stopped.
|
| Don't confuse spare parts with maintenance parts. If
| there are wear parts (filters, bearings...) that are
| expected to be replaced regularly there is a lot more
| turn over of the parts, and so everything is planned
| ahead around keeping the right amount of production
| going. These parts tend to be more industry standard
| parts bought off the shelf from a supplier that has other
| customers for the same part so your part order might go
| to the supplier who just puts a different label on the
| standard part and ships it to you.
| penguin_booze wrote:
| I had to get a couple of appliances repaired recently. The handy
| man charges a minimum of 50 GBP per hour. Established and
| organized business charge upwards of 100 as a call-out charge
| alone (parts extra). If it's a non-trivial electronic repair, the
| spare would cost 150+ (and they're allowed to mark up prices as
| they please). Now add all that up, and a sweet 20% VAT on top,
| and voila, that's nearly how much a new one costs, plus it comes
| with n years of warranty; even better, I get the opportunity buy
| extended warranty. What I didn't mention is the waiting time for
| someone to visit in the first place.
|
| Essentially, it's economical and sensible to get at most one
| repair on an appliance done. If it's an appliance on which you
| depend daily, you might not be in a position to wait to get it
| repaired.
|
| Solution: get a new one. Nearly same cost; no wait; new features.
| Plus, they'll also take away your old one, and may even give you
| a discount.
|
| Summary: I'm skeptical this changes anything.
| Varriount wrote:
| I have to wonder - was repairing (rather than replacing)
| appliances cheaper in the past? If so, is there a clear cause
| on why repair prices have changed?
| oliwarner wrote:
| Significantly. A 1952 washing machine cost $300 back then.
| That had the buying power of about $3k now.
| tpmx wrote:
| Appliances are comparatively cheaper now because production
| has been moved to low-wage countries. And also because of
| productivity increases from automation.
|
| It's harder to move the repair to low-wage countries or to
| automate it.
| Cosmin_C wrote:
| Not necessarily cheaper but much easier. Plus, it was
| convenient as new appliances were quite a lot more expensive
| (and may I add much more durable).
|
| Nowadays trying to repair an appliance you run into all sorts
| of issues like missing schematics (and it's much harder to
| make out what does what on a logic board of a washing machine
| for example), low parts availability + serialized parts +
| firmware locks (this is mostly Apple though).
|
| My issue is that new stuff doesn't really seem to be made to
| last. My last washing machine lasted exactly warranty + 7
| days. Meanwhile, mum still has a washing machine close to 30
| years old which still works great (with some repairs every
| few years with super cheap parts). And nowadays it's mostly
| plastic with a dash of metal instead of the other way around
| (unless you like moving the washing machine every week the
| "but it's lighter" argument is moot)
| oliwarner wrote:
| But if you can do it yourself, the economics change
| dramatically.
|
| I'm not sure what the proposed law changes in this respect.
| I've fixed boilers, phones, computers, TVs, dishwashers and
| washing machines to varying degrees without call-out costs.
| Part availability has never really been an issue.
| kenmacd wrote:
| That's great, but companies are taking direct actions to make
| this more difficult or even illegal.
|
| Try to repair your tractor, or the software in an older
| phone/tablet/tv. The software will actively prevent it, and
| if you break that digital lock you've broken the law in a lot
| of places.
| Proven wrote:
| 1) it's not a right
|
| 2) it's yet another tax on all those who prefer cheaper products
| that aren't DIY serviceable
| pabs3 wrote:
| Wonder if this includes a right to repair/replace software
| running on a device.
| superbcarrot wrote:
| How could it possibly? Is there a way to do this without
| requiring all open-source software?
| pabs3 wrote:
| The main issue is customers should have the ability to
| disable lockdown to install their own OS. For fixing issues,
| the source code could be shared with customers under a
| license permitting individual use/modification, but not
| distribution etc.
| golemiprague wrote:
| That will make everything more expensive since manufacturers will
| have to have a huge stock of spare parts, probably most of them
| are not going to be used ever.
|
| Why can't they just make a rule that people can fix things and
| that's it. The whole problem is not with spare parts to washing
| machines but with companies like apple not letting you open their
| devices intentionally, this is the problem they had to deal with.
| It is the same thing like this cookie message stupidity.
| tester34 wrote:
| Did shitton of HNers recently turned into being paid by
| $BIG_CORPO?
|
| oh wait, they actually are.
|
| I'm shocked by that negative response
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| Top comment being a dunk on the GDPR by an ex Ad-Tech employee
| is peak HN.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > Manufacturers will be legally obliged to make spare parts for
| products available to consumers for the first time - a new legal
| right for repairs.
|
| I take it that third-parties will not get any new freedoms then,
| and that things like design patents will continue to apply there.
| I wonder if the law will have anything to say about price-point,
| if there's no competition.
|
| I was surprised to see no mention of the matter of companies
| deliberately engineering their products to be hostile to user
| repairs. I was under the impression that forbidding that kind of
| thing was the main point of right-to-repair legislation.
|
| (For example, one part of the system might verify that a
| peripheral has some cryptographic key to prove that it's an
| authentic first-party part. With this technique, third-party
| products either don't work, or are set upon by lawyers for
| breaking copyright law in cloning the key.)
| foobar33333 wrote:
| These laws might not go far enough but they might be more of a
| threat to corporations. Corps may start making their products
| just friendly enough to avoid new laws which would be stricter
| and out of their control.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| It sounds good but it's going to depend on the small-print.
|
| Maybe limits of the repair costs?
|
| Being able to attempt repairs without compromising warranty would
| be good.
| smitty1e wrote:
| Whither capitalism?
|
| Why are companies not marketing along the lines of: "You can
| tinker with this. Our product does not treat _you_ like the
| product. "
|
| I'd pay a 20% premium or so not to be spied upon and enslaved.
| "Freedom isn't free. There's a heavy [FLOWERBED] fee."
| derfitt wrote:
| What if it was a 200% premium?
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| What if it was a 0% premium, because businesses unable to
| adapt to new regulations without increasing their prices by
| 20% or 200% (!) are competed out of the market by those able
| to be more efficient, reduce their expenditures, or cut back
| their profits?
| missedthecue wrote:
| Because most consumers don't want that.
| krapp wrote:
| >I'd pay a 20% premium or so not to be spied upon and enslaved.
| "Freedom isn't free. There's a heavy [FLOWERBED] fee."
|
| Most people wouldn't, and there's more money in proprietary
| lock-in and servicing than there is marketing to the tinkering
| fringe.
|
| Thither capitalism.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Most people find the DIY ethic completely alien. The number of
| people impressed that I could make my own burritos - requiring
| about the same skill as making a sandwich - is pretty
| indicative. The numbers on adoption of the Linux desktop is
| another, I think.
| helloguillecl wrote:
| I think many of us are ignoring the environmental impact and
| hassle derived from the act of having to buy new instead of
| repairing:
|
| - Found out what happened in the first place.
|
| - Looking for a new model you like since the one you already had
| and liked doesn't exist anymore. Price compare. Get it delivered
| and possibly wait a few days.
|
| - Possibly the appliance must be installed by a technician.
| Arrange an appointment for that.
|
| - Set up the machine and get everyone to learn how to use the
| appliance.
|
| - Find out that some things don't work as they used to.
|
| - Dispose the plastics, papers from the packaging.
|
| - Scan the new manual for your records.
|
| - Dispose the old appliance in a proper way (electronic trash
| must be disposed in other facilities than the packaging)
|
| - Repeat.
|
| This is about giving the possibility of repairs. The consumer is
| to decide what is economically posible, but I think a lot of
| possibilities might open up, like remote-assisted repairs and
| tutorials.
| aboringusername wrote:
| When everything is a commodity it's hard to see how this will be
| useful.
|
| When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks, it's
| cheaper to replace. I cannot see how repairing a TV will ever be
| cheaper than just replacing it since they are so cheap brand new.
|
| This also applies to smartphones, none of the popular models have
| replaceable batteries so in the trash they go and they become
| worthless, even if the hardware could keep up for 10 years often
| the software is outdated, inseceure and not worth using.
|
| I'll be hard pressed to believe this will result in anything
| tangible. The real test is if they can convince Apple to make
| Louis' job easier, wouldn't that be nice.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| This is a myth. It used to be that tools for SMD rework were
| expensive and inaccessible, but now you can get a good kit with
| a trinocular microscope for under $1000. It is still quite a
| bit, but reachable if you want to start small repair business
| in your community. I'd say bigger problem are high taxes and
| bureaucracy.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| That's because this sort of legislation (in the UK and in the
| EU) is driven by superficial thinking and politics, not data-
| driven analysis and pragmatic considerations.
|
| People go " _why don 't they just make things simpler to
| repair?_" like it was an obvious solution to problems (real or
| perceived) whereas the reality is obviously much more complex.
|
| Appliances are already quite durable and repairable. Making
| things 'more repairable' can increase cost and resources
| needed. Cost of labour and parts can quickly render repairs
| uneconomical even if they would be perfectly doable. Some
| devices are so integrated (e.g. TVs these days) that the very
| concept of 'repair' is almost meaningless. People do not
| necessarily _want_ to repair a broken old device because there
| are better new ones available.
|
| These are all competing considerations and the issue is
| therefore complex.
|
| I would rather they focus on ease of recycling. The EU
| legislation has some measures on recycling but gets too much
| diverted by this "right to repair", IMHO.
| keerk43 wrote:
| Right to repair or upgrade may not make sense for all
| appliances, but for some it definitely does. For example,
| early 2010's Macbook Pro's remain perfectly usable when
| upgraded with SSD and more RAM, while more modern ones don't
| allow any upgrade whatsoever and will become obsolete much
| faster. For many electronic devices repairability is easy to
| implement, at least for a little extra cost, and is certainly
| more environmentally friendly than recycling them.
|
| So, I think for many classes of products right to repair
| makes sense, and should be implemented even if it raises the
| cost of buying a new device, since the boost in second-hand
| options will eventually be good for people who don't have so
| much money.
|
| Recycling is good too, but not as good using a device longer
| since not all can be recycled, and the process typically
| requires energy.
| statstutor wrote:
| > Making things 'more repairable' can increase cost and
| resources needed.
|
| I don't think this is in dispute, is it?
|
| The point is that manufacturers must now consider this cost
| in their calculations, rather than pass all the consequences
| on to the consumer without caring.
|
| > People do not necessarily want to repair a broken old
| device
|
| If the old device still has value, then both can happen - I
| can get a new device, and pass my old device on for repair
| and re-use.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > The point is that manufacturers must now consider this
| cost in their calculations, rather than pass all the
| consequences on to the consumer without caring.
|
| If this was the goal, then simply taxing fossil fuels and
| other polluting sources would be the ideal and simple
| solution. How high would the taxes need to be? However high
| it takes to get pollution levels down to where they need to
| be. The actual cost of a new item would be properly
| reflected in the price, and therefore incentivize the
| purchasing of reusable and repairable items, which would
| incentivize manufacturers making reusable and repairable
| items.
|
| Of course, that would bring the world's economy to a half,
| as governments' expectations and calculations are assumed
| on continuously increasing consumption.
| statstutor wrote:
| I'm a bit lost. I don't see how this is relevant to the
| discussion at all.
|
| Manufacturers already pay $ proportional to the amount of
| fossil fuels spent, and this doesn't cause them to
| consider future consequences on the consumer. They still
| think vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence are to
| their advantage.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Only because the true cost of fossil fuels and other
| pollution isn't reflected in the sale price to the end
| users, so it's often cheaper to buy new rather than
| repaired products.
|
| If the true cost of pollution were pushed into the sale
| price for end users, end users would have to reduce their
| purchases of non repairable items, and consumers would
| then value repairability as a feature, incentivizing
| manufacturers to cater to that.
|
| It's much easier to force the change this way than
| through figuring out the correct wording in legislation,
| which is bound to have loopholes and be subject to costly
| (time wise) legal conflicts.
|
| The root of the issue is that things are so cheap,
| repairing them makes no sense, regardless of repair-
| ability. Manufacturers didn't one day decide to drop
| repair-ability. One did it, and found that they were not
| punished by consumers. In fact, they were probably
| rewarded by offering new "features". Then another
| manufacturer did it, then another, and so on. And
| obviously, it works. I just went to someone's house who
| was showing off their fancy new fridge with a see through
| door.
|
| Of course, the very very root of the issue is humanity's
| excess consumption which is causing harm to the
| environment we live in, but as I wrote earlier, that
| faces insurmountable political headwinds.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "Appliances are already quite durable and repairable."
|
| Do you live in fanatsy land? they don't come with schematics,
| they don't come witj repair manuals, sale or replacement
| parts is pyrposefully restricted, firmware is locked, they
| are stuck together with glue and their mean time between
| failure is deacreasing. What else has to happen for you to
| accept the real world?
|
| "I would rather they focus on ease of recycling."
|
| Repair will always be easier than recycling because laws of
| physics. Plastic and electronics are basically unrecycleable,
| and extremely expensive to dispose of priperly?
| simion314 wrote:
| I had my fridge repaired this summer. A repair person come with
| his car and tools at my home, spent 2 hours to find and fix the
| fridge and I think it costed me less then 20% of the fridge
| full price. It is a real waste to throw a good fridge engine
| because the doors is not closing properly or a pipe is leaking
| some gas.
|
| I live in Romania so this might not apply to other places so
| your experience is localized not global, and with an expensive
| enough product (like a super expensive TV or laptop) I bet most
| people would want it fixed and spent the money on some other
| gadget.
| edent wrote:
| I repaired a new-ish TV - cost me PS30.
|
| https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/10/replacing-the-motionengine-...
|
| If you can find me a new TV at that price, please let me know!
|
| Yes, getting in a professional at PSX per hour means it is
| probably not economical to repair a cheap washing machine. But
| if the parts and manuals are easily available, it suddenly
| becomes a lot quicker and easier to repair it yourself rather
| than replace.
| [deleted]
| foobar33333 wrote:
| The problem is you need to be highly skilled to do that
| repair. So many times I have ordered replacement parts and
| then either broken something like a plastic ribbon cable
| connector, or I have installed the new part and it still
| doesn't work.
| edent wrote:
| I cannot emphasise enough how NOT highly skilled I am. That
| repair could have been done by anyone with a screwdriver
| and a steady hand. Take a look at the photos in my blog-
| post and tell me what was complicated.
|
| OK, I don't have the skills to desolder and replace a
| busted capacitor. But most domestic equipment is pretty
| plug-and-play.
|
| I am unable to use a multimeter to diagnose an issue. But
| lots of devices come with error codes and diagnostic
| manuals are online.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Highly skilled? I don't think so. You just have to be very
| careful, and pay attention to the right things (ESD, cut
| the power, short circuits, etc).
|
| Secondly, the diagnostic needs to be correct. Multiple
| faillures is unlikely if there is no external cause (surge,
| flooding...) or cascading failures.
|
| Both of the above points can be solved with good
| documentation. I've seen very good servicing manuals, this
| is part of the reason I prefer thinkpads these days (though
| they could always contain more details...). With good
| servicing instructions, I've been able to perform repairs
| in no time on things I didn't know much about.
| HPsquared wrote:
| A good manual makes all the difference for me, it gives
| confidence that I'll be able to even open the thing
| without breaking it.
| jhrozek wrote:
| I think your reply shows that you are already very
| skilled.
|
| Other comments mentioned replacing a diode -- I know what
| a diode is conceptually, but I have no idea how does it
| look in the appliance, where would I buy a new one or how
| to replace it.
|
| Being as clueless as I am, my only option is to call a
| proffessional. Sometimes it is worth it -- I had a fan on
| my MacBook replaced for ~700 SEK which is a fraction of
| the price, but sometimes it's not. Our 1 y/o kitchen oven
| bought from IKEA started malfunctioning, so we called one
| of the repair centers they subcontract repairs to. They
| sent us an invoice by accident even though the oven was
| covered by a warranty and I couldn't believe my eyes. The
| cost of the new oven was IIRC ~5000 SEK (~500 USD), but
| the repair was over 4500 SEK, 3k for the replacement part
| (!?!) and 1500 for the repairman to come and do their
| job. I didn't know the cost upfront and I guess they
| wouldn't have told me an estimate without looking at the
| oven, at which point I would have to pay the labour cost
| anyway..
|
| So sadly, given the cost, I would have probably opted for
| just buying a new item if the faulty one is out of
| warranty..
| HPsquared wrote:
| Spare parts are an example of monopoly pricing - the
| original manufacturer is usually the only source of parts
| for any given product, so they can charge what they want
| (usually as much as possible, such that it's only just
| worth it to do any given repair vs. replacing the whole
| thing)
| gpderetta wrote:
| If products can be repaired easily, even if it is not
| worth paying to repair it or one is not skilled enough to
| repair it, there might still be a market for broken down
| items as people with skills might buy them, fix them and
| use or resell them. It beats throwing stuff in the trash.
| jhrozek wrote:
| Yeah, that's a really good point and I would actually
| love for my old stuff to be reused by /anyone/.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Hmm, I am just confident in my ability to follow
| instructions. I am certainly highly skilled in
| electronics, but repairing stuff isn't necessarily
| limited to that.
|
| With good instructions, I can set out to repair
| mechanical parts as well (replace parts of an engine for
| instance), high-voltage devices, masonry, or other stuff
| I have never done before.
|
| A good manual can make the whole difference between a
| successful repair, dealing a finishing blow to a product,
| or endangering yourself/others.
|
| Making repairs easier probably makes them cheaper as well
| (less skilled employees can attempt them, it takes less
| time and is much more enjoyable). I know I would charge
| less.
|
| Of course, the product has to be designed to make repairs
| possible, otherwise it requires a whole other level of
| skill (unglue parts, precisely cut where you need to).
|
| And lastly, you can only go as far as your equipment will
| allow you. Sometimes all you need is a (included)
| screwdriver, but not everyone has a milling machine handy
| (though that would be an interesting use-case for
| fablabs).
| CivBase wrote:
| > The problem is you need to be highly skilled to do that
| repair.
|
| You also need to be highly skilled to do a lot of
| automotive repairs, which is why there is a thriving market
| of third-party mechanics who will perform those repairs for
| a fraction of the cost of buying a new vehicle. The same
| can (and should, IMO) be true for electronics.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| > When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks,
| it's cheaper to replace.
|
| Depends how much you paid for it, where you live, what it means
| to procure one, etc.
|
| Also, cost might not be the only factor for you. Ethic,
| preferences, attachment or logistic can kick in.
| kumarharsh wrote:
| I thought the same too, until recently.
|
| We had an old mixer-grinder which ran for a decade or so. After
| it broke down, I went to an official repair shop, and they
| quoted an amount which make buying a new one a better option.
| So we did - from different company. It turned out that the new
| one constantly gave us problems, but we stuck with it for
| years. And one day while cleaning up our home, we found the old
| mixer and gave it to our domestic help to keep if she could get
| it repaired.
|
| She did get it repaired. For less than a DOLLAR! And it still
| runs better than the new-fangled mixer.
| xd wrote:
| I've repaired all my appliances myself over the last 20+ years,
| to say it's cheaper to replace is just plain false, even today.
| Most faults are easy fixes like sensors or motors and even the
| higher end PCB replacements work out cheaper.
|
| However! if you are not inclined to fix yourself then the costs
| to have someone else fix your appliances may not work out as
| cost effective.
| knorker wrote:
| That's fine. I'd rather give an old broken fridge for free to
| someone who'll actually fix it, than throw it away.
|
| Like with old computer stuff. I go out of my way to find
| someone else who needs it, because 1) I hate the waste and
| environmental impact, and 2) in my poorer days I was the
| recipient of "old garbage computer stuff" as my _only_
| computer stuff.
|
| I had an old shitty laptop with no battery, that I found an
| old motorcycle lead-acid battery I could hook up. With a
| couple of diodes I could even charge it through the laptop. I
| could never afford a real laptop, but this was a computer on
| the go for me.
|
| A friend of mine couldn't afford batteries for his
| calculator, so he took a scrap power adapter and hooked it up
| to its battery terminals.
|
| I'm fine with someone getting $50k of tooling and then being
| able to create a reuse market. Better to not need it, but
| it's also not realistic to have a law that mandates that all
| electronics must be repairable with a screwdriver and a pair
| of plyers.
| ed_balls wrote:
| > When an appliance (fridge, cooker, washing machine) breaks,
| it's cheaper to replace
|
| In a lot of cases it's not, but people don't want to
| troubleshoot or 3rd part makes more money by replacing it.
|
| I try to fix my suff not for economical reasons, but
| environmental. In many instances I also save time as well. A
| few examples:
|
| - car service wanted to replace windshield wipers on my car. I
| took a piece of sandpaper and cleaned up wax and oxidised
| rubber. They could last an extra year.
|
| - Microwave stopped working. I cleaned up the connector to the
| magnetron. I took me less time than buying a new one.
|
| - Plumbing under the sink. Pretty sure the plumber would like
| to replace everything and charge me a lot, plus it would take a
| few hours to find a guy, book him and be at home at that time.
|
| I think I save about 10h and over $500 per year. It's often fun
| to replace something.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I agree on the time thing, if you have the inclination it's
| often easier/faster to just fix something, rather than all
| the hassle of replacing it (not even counting the monetary
| saving)
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Good luck enforcing any of this.
|
| As for hundreds other useless regulations that bog us down.
|
| For example, compare the warranty process with Apple and with any
| of the other laptop companies. If regulations worked you wouldn't
| even consider warranty to be a good selling point.
|
| Still I've been burned by warranties services so many times,
| threatened to report, reported to consumer report and I got
| nothing out of it. I don't even consider it. I just buy crap I'll
| try to fix myself if it breaks or I buy from a reputable company.
|
| What are the regulations doing for us then?
|
| How many companies using dark patterns in their EU imposed cookie
| banners have been fined?
| blub wrote:
| Apple has been sued multiple times in the EU because of onerous
| warranty practices and lost. Obviously their working warranty
| doesn't work so great.
|
| There's at least one website tracking GDPR fines. It's gonna
| take a while given that _everyone_ is illegitimately collecting
| data on their visitors /customers.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| The fact that, after being sued once and doing nothing to fix
| it, then being sued _again_ , for _the same thing_ , a
| company is still solvent, is evidence _against_ regulation
| being effective. If the regulation was effective, they 'd
| either shape up or be bankrupted by fines.
| aminozuur wrote:
| If you ever wondered why electronics such as Apple products cost
| 30% more in European countries, it's because of regulations such
| as these.
| spzb wrote:
| [citation needed]
| hehetrthrthrjn wrote:
| Apple gear costs more in Europe because the market will bear
| it. It has almost nothing to do with regulations, which almost
| always benefits consumers at little cost. If prices are high
| it's usually due to a lack of competition.
|
| Here's a couple of examples:
|
| Free international roaming for mobile phones plans in the EU
| has caused the price of phone plans to move very little and
| mostly at the rock bottom end of the scale.
|
| I bought the cheapest Kia Rio I could in 2016. It was bottom of
| the range (trim level) and yet it was decked out with ABS,
| electronic stability control and tire pressure monitoring. At
| least two of those things has saved me from a serious accident
| over the years. The only reason they were included was because
| they are mandated by the EU on all cars.
| Hani1337 wrote:
| No one's gonna mention they're literally just copying the EU law
| that was passed last week?
| aembleton wrote:
| It's the third sentence from the article: "They are keeping a
| promise to implement EU rules aimed at cutting energy and bills
| - and reducing the need for new materials."
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Would be great if they defined what is a spare part. Somehow I
| have a feeling that this is just a PR to shut right to repair
| campaigns down by saying "look we have implemented this, what
| else do you want?" Reality will be you still won't be able to buy
| individual custom ICs with their datasheets but whole PCBs at a
| prices only slightly cheaper than a new product.
| wiz21c wrote:
| Shhh... You're going to give them ideas... :-)
|
| Now, at least there's a law. Then in a few years, other will
| want to widen that law, etc. In the end, we'll get there...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-10 23:02 UTC)